Search

This paper provides a systematic study of the robust Stackelberg equilibrium (RSE), which naturally generalizes the widely adopted solution concept of the strong Stackelberg equilibrium (SSE). The RSE accounts for any possible up-to-$\delta$ suboptimal follower responses in Stackelberg games and is adopted to improve the robustness of the leader's strategy. While a few variants of robust Stackelberg equilibrium have been considered in previous literature, the RSE solution concept we consider is importantly different -- in some sense, it relaxes previously studied robust Stackelberg strategies and is applicable to much broader sources of uncertainties. We provide a thorough investigation of several fundamental properties of RSE, including its utility guarantees, algorithmics, and learnability. We first show that the RSE we defined always exists and thus is well-defined. Then we characterize how the leader's utility in RSE changes with the robustness level considered. On the algorithmic side, we show that, in sharp contrast to the tractability of computing an SSE, it is NP-hard to obtain a fully polynomial approximation scheme (FPTAS) for any constant robustness level. Nevertheless, we develop a quasi-polynomial approximation scheme (QPTAS) for RSE. Finally, we examine the learnability of the RSE in a natural learning scenario, where both players' utilities are not known in advance, and provide almost tight sample complexity results on learning the RSE. As a corollary of this result, we also obtain an algorithm for learning SSE, which strictly improves a key result of Bai et al. in terms of both utility guarantee and computational efficiency.

The creator economy has revolutionized the way individuals can profit through online platforms. In this paper, we initiate the study of online learning in the creator economy by modeling the creator economy as a three-party game between the users, platform, and content creators, with the platform interacting with the content creator under a principal-agent model through contracts to encourage better content. Additionally, the platform interacts with the users to recommend new content, receive an evaluation, and ultimately profit from the content, which can be modeled as a recommender system. Our study aims to explore how the platform can jointly optimize the contract and recommender system to maximize the utility in an online learning fashion. We primarily analyze and compare two families of contracts: return-based contracts and feature-based contracts. Return-based contracts pay the content creator a fraction of the reward the platform gains. In contrast, feature-based contracts pay the content creator based on the quality or features of the content, regardless of the reward the platform receives. We show that under smoothness assumptions, the joint optimization of return-based contracts and recommendation policy provides a regret $\Theta(T^{2/3})$. For the feature-based contract, we introduce a definition of intrinsic dimension $d$ to characterize the hardness of learning the contract and provide an upper bound on the regret $\mathcal{O}(T^{(d+1)/(d+2)})$. The upper bound is tight for the linear family.

This paper introduces and formalizes the classical view on supply and demand, which, we argue, has an integrity independent and distinct from the neoclassical theory. Demand and supply, before the marginal revolution, are defined not by an unobservable criterion such as a utility function, but by an observable monetary variable, the reservation price: the buyer's (maximum) willingness to pay (WTP) value (a potential price) and the seller's (minimum) willingness to accept (WTA) value (a potential price) at the marketplace. Market demand and supply are the cumulative distribution of the buyers' and sellers' reservation prices, respectively. This WTP-WTA classical view of supply and demand formed the means whereby market participants were motivated in experimental economics although experimentalists (trained in neoclassical economics) were not cognizant of their link to the past. On this foundation was erected a vast literature on the rules of trading for a host of institutions, modern and ancient. This paper documents textually this reappraisal of classical economics and then formalizes it mathematically. A follow-up paper will articulate a theory of market price formation rooted in this classical view on supply and demand and in experimental findings on market behavior.

We show that computing the optimal social surplus requires $\Omega(mn)$ bits of communication between the website and the bidders in a sponsored search auction with $n$ slots on the website and with tick size of $2^{-m}$ in the discrete model, even when bidders are allowed to freely communicate with each other., Comment: 11 pages

This paper studies the stability and strategy-proofness aspect of the two-sided one-to-one matching market. Agents have single-peaked preferences on trees. In this setting, we characterize all rich anonymous tree-single-peaked domains where a stable and (weakly group) strategy-proof matching rule exists. We also show that whenever there exists a stable and strategy-proof matching rule on a rich anonymous tree-single-peaked domain, one or both of the deferred acceptance rules (Gale and Shapley, 1962) satisfy stability and weak group strategy-proofness on that domain. Finally, we show that for markets with a size of at least five, there is no rich anonymous domain where a stable and non-bossy matching rule exists. As a corollary, we show incompatibility between stability and group strategy-proofness on rich anonymous tree-single-peaked domains for markets with a size of at least five.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau defines the notion of payoff amount as the amount that has to be payed at a particular time in order to completely pay off the debt, in case the lender intends to pay off the loan early, way before the last installment is due (CFPB 2020). This amount is well-understood for loans at compound interest, but much less so when simple interest is used. Recently, Aretusi and Mari (2018) have proposed a formula for the payoff amount for loans at simple interest. We assume that the payoff amounts are established contractually at time zero, whence the requirement that no arbitrage may arise this way The first goal of this paper is to study this new formula and derive it within a model of a loan market in which loans are bought and sold at simple interest, interest rates change over time, and no arbitrage opportunities exist. The second goal is to show that this formula exhibits a behaviour rather different from the one which occurs when compound interest is used. Indeed, we show that, if the installments are constant and if the interest rate is greater than a critical value (which depends on the number of installments), then the sequence of the payoff amounts is increasing before a certain critical time, and will start decreasing only thereafter. We also show that the critical value is decreasing as a function of the number of installments. For two installments, the critical value is equal to the golden section. The third goal is to introduce a more efficient polynomial notation, which encodes a basic tenet of the subject: Each amount of money is embedded in a time position (to wit: The time when it is due). The model of a loan market we propose is naturally linked to this new notation.

This paper motivates and develops a framework for understanding how the socio-technical systems surrounding AI development interact with social welfare. It introduces the concept of ``signaling'' from evolutionary game theory and demonstrates how it can enhance existing theory and practice surrounding the evaluation and governance of AI systems.

In 2023, the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) required authors with multiple submissions to rank their submissions based on perceived quality. In this paper, we aim to employ these author-specified rankings to enhance peer review in machine learning and artificial intelligence conferences by extending the Isotonic Mechanism (Su, 2021, 2022) to exponential family distributions. This mechanism generates adjusted scores closely align with the original scores while adhering to author-specified rankings. Despite its applicability to a broad spectrum of exponential family distributions, this mechanism's implementation does not necessitate knowledge of the specific distribution form. We demonstrate that an author is incentivized to provide accurate rankings when her utility takes the form of a convex additive function of the adjusted review scores. For a certain subclass of exponential family distributions, we prove that the author reports truthfully only if the question involves only pairwise comparisons between her submissions, thus indicating the optimality of ranking in truthful information elicitation. Lastly, we show that the adjusted scores improve dramatically the accuracy of the original scores and achieve nearly minimax optimality for estimating the true scores with statistical consistecy when true scores have bounded total variation.

Instant runoff voting (IRV) has recently gained popularity as an alternative to plurality voting for political elections, with advocates claiming a range of advantages, including that it produces more moderate winners than plurality and could thus help address polarization. However, there is little theoretical backing for this claim, with existing evidence focused on case studies and simulations. In this work, we prove that IRV has a moderating effect relative to plurality voting in a precise sense, developed in a 1-dimensional Euclidean model of voter preferences. Our results show that as long as voters are symmetrically distributed and not too concentrated at the extremes, IRV cannot elect an extreme candidate over a moderate. In contrast, we show plurality can. Our methods develop new frameworks for the theoretical analysis of voting systems, deriving exact winner distributions geometrically and establishing a connection between plurality voting and stick-breaking processes., Comment: 42 pages; updated intro and title, added GitHub link

We study optimal (information) mediation in sender-receiver communication games where the sender has transparent motives: she only cares about the receiver's actions and beliefs. We characterize the feasible distributions over the receiver's beliefs under mediation and the value of mediation. The sender achieves her optimal Bayesian persuasion value by mediation if and only if this value is attained by cheap talk. When the state is binary, mediation strictly improves on cheap talk if and only if the sender cannot do better than under cheap talk by always under -- or over -- stating the state.

We characterize the extreme points of first-order stochastic dominance (FOSD) intervals and show how these intervals are at the heart of many topics in economics. Using these extreme points, we characterize the distributions of posterior quantiles, leading to an analog of a classical result regarding the distributions of posterior means. We apply this analog to various subjects, including the psychology of judgement, political economy, and Bayesian persuasion. In addition, FOSD intervals provide a common structure to security design. We use the extreme points to unify and generalize seminal results in that literature when either adverse selection or moral hazard pertains., Comment: 45 pages, 5 figures

LP-duality theory has played a central role in the study of the core, right from its early days to the present time. However, despite the extensive nature of this work, basic gaps still remain. We address these gaps using the following building blocks from LP-duality theory: 1. Total unimodularity (TUM). 2. Complementary slackness conditions and strict complementarity. Our exploration of TUM leads to defining new games, characterizing their cores and giving novel ways of using core imputations to enforce constraints that arise naturally in applications of these games. The latter include: 1. Efficient algorithms for finding min-max fair, max-min fair and equitable core imputations. 2. Encouraging diversity and avoiding over-representation in a generalization of the assignment game. Complementarity enables us to prove new properties of core imputations of the assignment game and its generalizations., Comment: 46 pages. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2202.00619

We develop a full-fledged analysis of an algorithmic decision process that, in a multialternative choice problem, produces computable choice probabilities and expected decision times.

We study the problem of sharing the revenues from broadcasting sports leagues axiomatically. Our key axiom is anonymity, the classical impartiality axiom. Other impartiality axioms already studied in broadcasting problems are equal treatment of equals, weak equal treatment of equals and symmetry. We study the relationship between all impartiality axioms. Besides we combine anonymity with other axioms that have been considered in the literature. Some combinations give rise to new characterizations of well-known rules. The family of generalized split rules is characterized with anonymity, additivity and null team. The concede-and-divide rule is characterized with anonymity, additivity and essential team. Other and combinations characterize new rules that had not been considered before. We provide three characterizations in which three axioms are the same (anonymity, additivity, and order preservation) and the fourth one is different (maximum aspirations, weak upper bound, and non-negativity). Depending on the fourth axiom we obtain three different families of rules. In all of them concede-and-divide plays a central role.

This paper studies how the firm designs its internal information system when facing an adverse selection problem arising from unobservable managerial abilities. While more precise information allows the firm to make ex-post more efficient investment decisions, noisier information has an ex-ante screening effect that allows the firm to attract on-average better managers. The tradeoff between more effective screening of managers and more informed investment implies a non-monotonic relationship between firm value and information quality, and a marginal improvement of information quality does not necessarily lead to an overall improvement of firm value., Comment: Also available on SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3775306

We analyze equilibrium housing prices in an overlapping generations model with perfect housing and rental markets. We prove that the economy exhibits a two-stage phase transition: as the income of home buyers rises, the equilibrium regime changes from fundamental only to coexistence of fundamental and bubbly equilibria. With even higher incomes, fundamental equilibria disappear and housing bubbles become inevitable. Even with low current incomes, housing bubbles may emerge if home buyers have access to credit or have high future income expectations. Contrary to widely-held beliefs, fundamental equilibria in the coexistence region are inefficient despite housing being a productive non-reproducible asset.

In the past several decades, the world's economy has become increasingly globalized. On the other hand, there are also ideas advocating the practice of ``buy local'', by which people buy locally produced goods and services rather than those produced farther away. In this paper, we establish a mathematical theory of real price that determines the optimal global versus local spending of an agent which achieves the agent's optimal tradeoff between spending and obtained utility. Our theory of real price depends on the asymptotic analysis of a Markov chain transition probability matrix related to the network of producers and consumers. We show that the real price of a product or service can be determined from the involved Markov chain matrix, and can be dramatically different from the product's label price. In particular, we show that the label prices of products and services are often not ``real'' or directly ``useful'': given two products offering the same myopic utility, the one with lower label price may not necessarily offer better asymptotic utility. This theory shows that the globality or locality of the products and services does have different impacts on the spending-utility tradeoff of a customer. The established mathematical theory of real price can be used to determine whether to adopt or not to adopt certain artificial intelligence (AI) technologies from an economic perspective., Comment: 16 pages, 3 figures

We study firm-quasi-stability in the framework of many-to-many matching with contracts under substitutable preferences. We establish various links between firm-quasi-stability and stability, and give new insights into the existence and lattice property of stable allocations. In addition, we show that firm-quasi-stable allocations appear naturally when the stability of the market is disrupted by the entry of new firms or the retirement of some workers, and introduce a generalized deferred acceptance algorithm to show that the market can regain stability from firm-quasi-stable allocations by a decentralized process of offers and acceptances. Moreover, it is shown that the entry of new firms or the retirement of workers cannot be bad for any of the incumbent workers and cannot be good for any of the original firms, while each new firm gets its optimal outcome under stable allocations whenever the law of aggregate demand holds., Comment: 32 pages

The incentive-compatibility properties of blockchain transaction fee mechanisms have been investigated with *passive* block producers that are motivated purely by the net rewards earned at the consensus layer. This paper introduces a model of *active* block producers that have their own private valuations for blocks (representing, for example, additional value derived from the application layer). The block producer surplus in our model can be interpreted as one of the more common colloquial meanings of the term ``MEV.'' The main results of this paper show that transaction fee mechanism design is fundamentally more difficult with active block producers than with passive ones: with active block producers, no non-trivial or approximately welfare-maximizing transaction fee mechanism can be incentive-compatible for both users and block producers. These results can be interpreted as a mathematical justification for the current interest in augmenting transaction fee mechanisms with additional components such as order flow auctions, block producer competition, trusted hardware, or cryptographic techniques.

We study a market mechanism that sets edge prices to incentivize strategic agents to organize trips that efficiently share limited network capacity. This market allows agents to form groups to share trips, make decisions on departure times and route choices, and make payments to cover edge prices and other costs. We develop a new approach to analyze the existence and computation of market equilibrium, building on theories of combinatorial auctions and dynamic network flows. Our approach tackles the challenges in market equilibrium characterization arising from: (a) integer and network constraints on the dynamic flow of trips in sharing limited edge capacity; (b) heterogeneous and private preferences of strategic agents. We provide sufficient conditions on the network topology and agents' preferences that ensure the existence and polynomial-time computation of market equilibrium. We identify a particular market equilibrium that achieves maximum utilities for all agents, and is equivalent to the outcome of the classical Vickery Clark Grove mechanism. Finally, we extend our results to general networks with multiple populations and apply them to compute dynamic tolls for efficient carpooling in San Francisco Bay Area.

The axiomatic foundations of Bentham and Rawls solutions are discussed within the broader domain of cardinal preferences. It is unveiled that both solution concepts share all four of the following axioms: Nonemptiness, Anonymity, Unanimity, and Continuity. In order to fully characterize the Bentham and Rawls solutions, three variations of a consistency criterion are introduced and their compatibility with the other axioms is assessed. Each expression of consistency can be interpreted as a property of decision-making in uncertain environments.

We study candidates' positioning when adjustments are possible in response to new information about voters' preferences. Re-positioning allows candidates to get closer to the median voter but is costly both financially and electorally. We examine the occurrence and the direction of the adjustments depending on the ex-ante positions and the new information. In the unique subgame perfect equilibrium, candidates anticipate the possibility to adjust in response to future information and diverge ex-ante in order to secure a cost-less victory when the new information is favorable.

We consider games of incomplete information in which the players' payoffs depend both on a privately observed type and an unknown but common "state of nature". External to the game, a data provider knows the state of nature and sells information to the players, thus solving a joint information and mechanism design problem: deciding which information to sell while eliciting the player' types and collecting payments. We restrict ourselves to a general class of symmetric games with quadratic payoffs that includes games of both strategic substitutes (e.g. Cournot competition) and strategic complements (e.g. Bertrand competition, Keynesian beauty contest). By to the Revelation Principle, the sellers' problem reduces to designing a mechanism that truthfully elicits the player' types and sends action recommendations that constitute a Bayes Correlated Equilibrium of the game. We fully characterize the class of all such Gaussian mechanisms (where the joint distribution of actions and private signals is a multivariate normal distribution) as well as the welfare- and revenue- optimal mechanisms within this class. For games of strategic complements, the optimal mechanisms maximally correlate the players' actions, and conversely maximally anticorrelate them for games of strategic substitutes. In both cases, for sufficiently large uncertainty over the players' types, the recommendations are deterministic (and linear) conditional on the state and the type reports, but they are not fully revealing.

Approval-based committee (ABC) voting rules elect a fixed size subset of the candidates, a so-called committee, based on the voters' approval ballots over the candidates. While these rules have recently attracted significant attention, axiomatic characterizations are largely missing so far. We address this problem by characterizing ABC voting rules within the broad and intuitive class of sequential valuation rules. These rules compute the winning committees by sequentially adding candidates that increase the score of the chosen committee the most. In more detail, we first characterize almost the full class of sequential valuation rules based on mild standard conditions and a new axiom called consistent committee monotonicity. This axiom postulates that the winning committees of size k can be derived from those of size k-1 by only adding candidates and that these new candidates are chosen consistently. By requiring additional conditions, we derive from this result also a characterization of the prominent class of sequential Thiele rules. Finally, we refine our results to characterize three well-known ABC voting rules, namely sequential approval voting, sequential proportional approval voting, and sequential Chamberlin-Courant approval voting., Comment: Appears in Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 2023

We study the problem of an agent continuously faced with the decision of placing or not placing trust in an institution. The agent makes use of Bayesian learning in order to estimate the institution's true trustworthiness and makes the decision to place trust based on myopic rationality. Using elements from random walk theory, we explicitly derive the probability that such an agent ceases placing trust at some point in the relationship, as well as the expected time spent placing trust conditioned on their discontinuation thereof. We then continue by modelling two truster agents, each in their own relationship to the institution. We consider two natural models of communication between them. In the first (``observable rewards'') agents disclose their experiences with the institution with one another, while in the second (``observable actions'') agents merely witness the actions of their neighbour, i.e., placing or not placing trust. Under the same assumptions as in the single agent case, we describe the evolution of the beliefs of agents under these two different communication models. Both the probability of ceasing to place trust and the expected time in the system elude explicit expressions, despite there being only two agents. We therefore conduct a simulation study in order to compare the effect of the different kinds of communication on the trust dynamics. We find that a pair of agents in both communication models has a greater chance of learning the true trustworthiness of an institution than a single agent. Communication between agents promotes the formation of long term trust with a trustworthy institution as well as the timely exit from a trust relationship with an untrustworthy institution. Contrary to what one might expect, we find that having less information (observing each other's actions instead of experiences) can sometimes be beneficial to the agents.

We study the distribution of multiple homogeneous items to multiple agents with unit demand. Monetary transfer is not allowed and the allocation of the items can only depend on the informative signals that are manipulable by costly and wasteful efforts. Examples of such scenarios include grant allocation, college admission, lobbying and affordable housing. We show that the welfare-maximizing mechanism takes the form of a contest and characterize it. We apply our characterizations to study large contests. When the number of agents is large compared to item(s), the format of the optimal contest converges to winner-takes-all, but principal's payoff does not. When both the number of items and agents are large, allocation is randomized to middle types to induce no effort under optimal contest, which weakly decreases effort for all higher types.

In this paper, we take a mechanism design approach to optimal assignment problems with asymmetrically informed buyers. In addition, the surplus generated by an assignment of a buyer to a seller may be adversely affected by externalities generated by other assignments. The problem is complicated by several factors. Buyers know their own valuations and externality costs but do not know this same information for other buyers. Buyers also receive private signals correlated with the state and, consequently, the implementation problem exhibits interdependent valuations. This precludes a naive application of the VCG mechanism and to overcome this interdependency problem, we construct a two-stage mechanism. In the first stage, we exploit correlation in the firms signals about the state to induce truthful reporting of observed signals. Given that buyers are honest in stage 1, we then use a VCG-like mechanism in stage 2 that induces honest reporting of valuation and externality functions.

This paper examines how a decision maker might incentive an expert, who is more aware than himself, to reveal novel contingencies. In particular, the decision maker will take an action that determines, along with the resolution of uncertainty, the payoffs to both players. I delineate the exact level of commitment needed to ensure full revelation: any fully revealing incentive scheme is equivalent to a dynamic game wherein each round the decision maker proposes a plan of action and the expert chooses to reveal some novel contingencies. The game ends when nothing novel is revealed and the expert chooses which of the proposed plans gets implemented. That is, the decision maker must be able to commit that once a plan of action is proposed, it cannot be taken off the table. I then consider the set of robust strategies -- those strategies that maximize the worst case outcome across any possible awareness type of the expert -- and show they are characterized by a principle of myopic optimality: at each round, the decision maker maximizes his payoff as if the expert had nothing further to reveal. It turns out, this myopic principle also solves the mechanism designer's problem: the set of outcomes that are achievable by any incentive compatible and Pareto efficient mechanism are delineated by the set of robust strategies in the above dynamic game.

This paper studies a dynamic model of information acquisition, in which information might be secretly manipulated. A principal must choose between a safe action with known payoff and a risky action with uncertain payoff, favoring the safe action under the prior belief. She may delay her decision to acquire additional news that reveals the risky action's payoff, without knowing exactly when such news will arrive. An uninformed agent with a misaligned preference may have the capability to generate a false arrival of news, which is indistinguishable from a real one, distorting the information content of news and the principal's search. The analysis characterizes the positive and normative distortions in the search for news arising from such manipulation, and it considers three remedies that increase the principal's payoff: a commitment to naive search, transfer of authority to the agent, and delegation to an intermediary who is biased in the agent's favor., Comment: Typos fixed, references added

Given an initial matching and a policy objective on the distribution of agent types to institutions, we study the existence of a mechanism that weakly improves the distributional objective and satisfies constrained efficiency, individual rationality, and strategy-proofness. We show that such a mechanism need not exist in general. We introduce a new notion of discrete concavity, which we call pseudo M$^{\natural}$-concavity, and construct a mechanism with the desirable properties when the distributional objective satisfies this notion. We provide several practically relevant distributional objectives that are pseudo M$^{\natural}$-concave.

Kin selection and direct reciprocity are two most basic mechanisms for promoting cooperation in human society. Generalizing the standard models of the multi-player Prisoner's Dilemma and the Public Goods games for heterogeneous populations, we study the effects of genetic relatedness on cooperation in the context of repeated interactions. Two sets of interrelated results are established: a set of analytical results focusing on the subgame perfect equilibrium and a set of agent-based simulation results based on an evolutionary game model. We show that in both cases increasing genetic relatedness does not always facilitate cooperation. Specifically, kinship can hinder the effectiveness of reciprocity in two ways. First, the condition for sustaining cooperation through direct reciprocity is harder to satisfy when relatedness increases in an intermediate range. Second, full cooperation is impossible to sustain for a medium-high range of relatedness values. Moreover, individuals with low cost-benefit ratios can end up with lower payoffs than their groupmates with high cost-benefit ratios. Our results point to the importance of explicitly accounting for within-population heterogeneity when studying the evolution of cooperation.

There are updating rules other than Bayes' law that render the value of information positive. I find all of them.

This study proposes a tractable stochastic choice model to identify motivations for prosocial behavior, and to explore alternative motivations of deliberate randomization beyond ex-ante fairness concerns. To represent social preferences, we employ an additively perturbed utility model consisting of the sum of expected utility and a nonlinear cost function, where the utility function is purely selfish while the cost function depends on social preferences. Using the cost function, we study stochastic choice patterns to distinguish between stochastic inequity-averse behavior and stochastic shame-mitigating behavior. Moreover, we discuss how our model can complement recent experimental evidence of ex-post and ex-ante fairness concerns.

$S$ equilibrium synthesizes a century of game-theoretic modeling. $S$-beliefs determine choices as in the refinement literature and level-$k$, without anchoring on Nash equilibrium or imposing ad hoc belief formation. $S$-choices allow for mistakes as in QRE, without imposing rational expectations. $S$ equilibrium is explicitly set-valued to avoid the common practice of selecting the best prediction from an implicitly defined set of unknown, and unaccounted for, size. $S$-equilibrium sets vary with a complexity parameter, offering a trade-off between accuracy and precision unlike in $M$ equilibrium. Simple "areametrics" determine the model's parameter and show that choice sets with a relative size of 5 percent capture 58 percent percent of the data. Goodness-of-fit tests applied to data from a broad array of experimental games confirm $S$ equilibrium's ability to predict behavior in and out of sample. In contrast, choice (belief) predictions of level-$k$ and QRE are rejected in most (all) games.

We develop an auction model for digital advertising. A monopoly platform has access to data on the value of the match between advertisers and consumers. The platform support bidding with additional information and increase the feasible surplus for on-platform matches. Advertisers jointly determine their pricing strategy both on and off the platform, as well as their bidding for digital advertising on the platform. We compare a data-augmented second-price auction and a managed campaign mechanism. In the data-augmented auction, the bids by the advertisers are informed by the data of the platform regarding the value of the match. This results in a socially efficient allocation on the platform, but the advertisers increase their product prices off the platform to be more competitive on the platform. In consequence, the allocation off the platform is inefficient due to excessively high product prices. The managed campaign mechanism allows advertisers to submit budgets that are then transformed into matches and prices through an autobidding algorithm. Compared to the data-augmented second-price auction, the optimal managed campaign mechanism increases the revenue of the digital platform. The product prices off the platform increase and the consumer surplus decreases.

Bolletta (2021, Math. Soc. Sci. 114:1-10) studies a model in which a network is strategically formed and then agents play a linear best-response investment game in it. The model is motivated by an application in which people choose both their study partners and their levels of educational effort. Agents have different one-dimensional types $\unicode{x2013}$ private returns to effort. A main result claims that pairwise Nash stable networks have a locally complete structure consisting of possibly overlapping cliques: if two agents are linked, they are part of a clique composed of all agents with types between theirs. We offer a counterexample showing that the claimed characterization is incorrect, highlight where the analysis errs, and discuss implications for network formation models.

Charity is typically done either by individual donors, who donate money to the charities that they support, or by centralized organizations such as governments or municipalities, which collect the individual contributions and distribute them among a set of charities. On the one hand, individual charity respects the will of the donors but may be inefficient due to a lack of coordination. On the other hand, centralized charity is potentially more efficient but may ignore the will of individual donors. We present a mechanism that combines the advantages of both methods by distributing the contribution of each donor in an efficient way such that no subset of donors has an incentive to redistribute their donations. Assuming Leontief utilities (i.e., each donor is interested in maximizing an individually weighted minimum of all contributions across the charities), our mechanism is group-strategyproof, preference-monotonic, contribution-monotonic, maximizes Nash welfare, and can be computed using convex programming., Comment: Appears in the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), 2023

In an information aggregation game, a set of senders interact with a receiver through a mediator. Each sender observes the state of the world and communicates a message to the mediator, who recommends an action to the receiver based on the messages received. The payoff of the senders and of the receiver depend on both the state of the world and the action selected by the receiver. This setting extends the celebrated cheap talk model in two aspects: there are many senders (as opposed to just one) and there is a mediator. From a practical perspective, this setting captures platforms in which strategic experts advice is aggregated in service of action recommendations to the user. We aim at finding an optimal mediator/platform that maximizes the users' welfare given highly resilient incentive compatibility requirements on the equilibrium selected: we want the platform to be incentive compatible for the receiver/user when selecting the recommended action, and we want it to be resilient against group deviations by the senders/experts. We provide highly positive answers to this challenge, manifested through efficient algorithms., Comment: In Proceedings TARK 2023, arXiv:2307.04005

We propose a social welfare maximizing market mechanism for an energy community that aggregates individual and community-shared energy resources under a general net energy metering (NEM) policy. Referred to as Dynamic NEM (D-NEM), the proposed mechanism dynamically sets the community NEM price based on aggregated community resources. D-NEM guarantees a higher benefit to each community member than possible outside the community, and no sub-communities would be better off departing from its parent community. D-NEM aligns each member's incentive with that of the community such that each member maximizing individual surplus under D-NEM results in maximum community social welfare. Empirical studies compare the proposed mechanism with existing benchmarks, demonstrating its member and community-level welfare benefits., Comment: 16 pages, 6 figures, 2 tables. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2211.09360

Consider a normal location model $X \mid \theta \sim N(\theta, \sigma^2)$ with known $\sigma^2$. Suppose $\theta \sim G_0$, where the prior $G_0$ has zero mean and unit variance. Let $G_1$ be a possibly misspecified prior with zero mean and unit variance. We show that the squared error Bayes risk of the posterior mean under $G_1$ is bounded, uniformly over $G_0, G_1, \sigma^2 > 0$.

We study the set of incentive compatible and efficient two-sided matching mechanisms. We classify all such mechanisms under an additional assumption -- "gender-neutrality" -- which guarantees that the two sides be treated symmetrically. All group strategy-proof, efficient and gender-neutral mechanisms are recursive and the outcome is decided in a sequence of rounds. In each round, two agents are selected, one from each side. These agents are either "matched-by-default" or "unmatched-by-default." In the former case either of the selected agents can unilaterally force the other to match with them while in the latter case they may only match together if both agree. In either case, if this pair of agents is not matched together, each gets their top choice among the set of remaining agents. As an important step in the characterization, we first show that in one-sided matching all group strategy-proof and efficient mechanisms are sequential dictatorships. An immediate corollary is that there are no individually rational, group strategy-proof and efficient one-sided matching mechanisms.

Agents may form coalitions. Each coalition shares its endowment among its agents by applying a sharing rule. The sharing rule induces a coalition formation problem by assuming that agents rank coalitions according to the allocation they obtain in the corresponding sharing problem. We characterize the sharing rules that induce a class of stable coalition formation problems as those that satisfy a natural axiom that formalizes the principle of solidarity. Thus, solidarity becomes a sufficient condition to achieve stability.

We study the canonical signaling game, endowing the sender with commitment power. We provide a geometric characterization of the sender's attainable payoffs, described by the topological join of the graphs of the sender's interim payoff functions associated with different sender actions. We compare the sender's payoffs in this setting with two benchmarks. In the first, in addition to committing to her actions, the sender can commit to provide the receiver with additional information. In the second, the sender can only commit to release information, but cannot commit to her actions. We illustrate our results with applications to job market signaling, communication with lying costs, and disclosure.

We propose a fair and efficient solution for assigning agents to m posts subject to congestion, when agents care about both their post and its congestion. Examples include assigning jobs to busy servers, students to crowded schools or crowded classes, commuters to congested routes, workers to crowded office spaces or to team projects etc... Congestion is anonymous (it only depends on the number n of agents in a given post). A canonical interpretation of ex ante fairness allows each agent to choose m post-specific caps on the congestion they tolerate: these requests are mutually feasible if and only if the sum of the caps is n. For ex post fairness we impose a competitive requirement close to envy freeness: taking the congestion profile as given each agent is assigned to one of her best posts. If a competitive assignment exists, it delivers unique congestion and welfare profiles and is also efficient and ex ante fair. In a fractional (randomised or time sharing) version of our model, a unique competitive congestion profile always exists. It is approximately implemented by a mixture of ex post deterministic assignments: with an approxination factor equal to the largest utility loss from one more unit of congestion, the latter deliver identical welfare profiles and are weakly efficient. Our approach to ex ante fairness generalises to the model where each agent's congestion is weighted. Now the caps on posts depend only upon own weight and total congestion, not on the number of other agents contributing to it. Remarkably in both models these caps are feasible if and only if they give to each agent the right to veto all but (1/m) of their feasible allocations., Comment: 20 pages

We present the proof-of-concept for minimalist market design (S\"{o}nmez, 2023) as an effective methodology to enhance an institution based on the desiderata of stakeholders with minimal interference. Four objectives-respecting merit, increasing retention, aligning talent, and enhancing trust-guided reforms to US Army's centralized branching process of cadets to military specialties since 2006. USMA's mechanism for the Class of 2020 exacerbated challenges implementing these objectives. Formulating the Army's desiderata as rigorous axioms, we analyze their implications. Under our minimalist approach to institution redesign, the Army's objectives uniquely identify a branching mechanism. Our design is now adopted at USMA and ROTC., Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2106.06582

We develop a partial ordering approach toward comparing stochastic choice functions on the basis of their rationality. We do this by assigning to any stochastic choice function a one-parameter class of deterministic choice correspondences, and then checking for the rationality (in the standard sense of revealed preference) of these correspondences for each parameter value. Similar to the classical notion of deterministic rationality, our rationality ordering detects violations of (stochastic) transitivity as well as inconsistencies between choices from nested menus. We obtain an easy-to-use characterization of this ordering, and then use that characterization to introduce an index of stochastic rationality. We apply our ordering and index to some well-known stochastic choice models and provide an empirical application using a famous experiment by Amos Tversky.

We propose monotone comparative statics results for maximizers of submodular functions, as opposed to maximizers of supermodular functions as in the classical theory put forth by Veinott, Topkis, Milgrom, and Shannon among others. We introduce matrons, a natural structure that is dual to sublattices that generalizes existing structures such as matroids and polymatroids in combinatorial optimization and M-sets in discrete convex analysis. Our monotone comparative statics result is based on a natural order on matrons, which is dual in some sense to Veinott's strong set order on sublattices. As an application, we propose a deferred acceptance algorithm that operates in the case of divisible goods, and we study its convergence properties.

Following the decision-theoretic approach to game theory, we extend the analysis of Epstein & Wang and of Di Tillio from hierarchies of preference relations to hierarchies of choice functions. We then construct the universal choice structure containing all these choice hierarchies, and show how the universal preference structure of Di Tillio is embedded in it.

In this note, I introduce a new framework called n-person games with partial knowledge, in which players have only limited knowledge about the aspects of the game -- including actions, outcomes, and other players. For example, playing an actual game of chess is a game of partial knowledge. To analyze these games, I introduce a set of new concepts and mechanisms for measuring the intelligence of players, with a focus on the interplay between human- and machine-based decision-making. Specifically, I introduce two main concepts: firstly, the Game Intelligence (GI) mechanism, which quantifies a player's demonstrated intelligence in a game by considering not only the game's outcome but also the "mistakes" made during the game according to the reference machine's intelligence. Secondly, I define gaming-proofness, a practical and computational concept of strategy-proofness. The GI mechanism provides a practicable way to assess players and can potentially be applied to a wide range of games, from chess and backgammon to AI systems. To illustrate the concept, I apply the GI mechanism to a selection of top-level chess games., Comment: 23 pages

We study a general credence goods model with N problem types and N treatments. Communication between the expert seller and the client is modeled as cheap talk. We find that the expert's equilibrium payoffs admit a geometric characterization, described by the quasiconcave envelope of his belief-based profits function under discriminatory pricing. We establish the existence of client-worst equilibria, apply the geometric characterization to previous research on credence goods, and provide a necessary and sufficient condition for when communication benefits the expert. For the binary case, we solve for all equilibria and characterize client's possible welfare among all equilibria., Comment: 34 pages