https://arxiv.org/api/sbMx/oFlm5pQm+gXXVpHbVds/pg 2026-03-26T14:12:24Z 3826 195 15 http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.13019v3 2026-02-16T00:58:35Z

We show that, in large population games, decentralized information aggregation generically corrects for individual-level biases. This establishes a new testable aggregate efficiency benchmark where the behavior of boundedly rational agents mimics that of fully rational agents. However, we find that structural economic forces such as strategic network formation and profit-maximizing platforms can systematically select pathological environments to exploit individuals' biases, thereby causing aggregate inefficiencies. We characterize these inefficiencies in monopoly and labor markets. Our findings therefore suggest that policy should shift focus from correcting individuals' behavior to monitoring and regulating information structures.

2025-01-22T17:07:48Z Fixed some matrix-display bugs and typos Florian Mudekereza http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.14331v1 2026-02-15T22:57:08Z

We develop a decision-theoretic model of human-AI interaction to study when AI assistance improves or impairs human decision-making. A human decision-maker observes private information and receives a recommendation from an AI system, but may combine these signals imperfectly. We show that the effect of AI assistance decomposes into two main forces: the marginal informational value of the AI beyond what the human already knows, and a behavioral distortion arising from how the human uses the AI's recommendation. Central to our analysis is a micro-founded measure of informational overlap between human and AI knowledge. We study an empirically relevant form of imperfect decision-making -- correlation neglect -- whereby humans treat AI recommendations as independent of their own information despite shared evidence. Under this model, we characterize how overlap and AI capabilities shape the Human-AI interaction regime between augmentation, impairment, complementarity, and automation, and draw key insights.

2026-02-15T22:57:08Z Saurabh Amin Amine Bennouna Daniel Huttenlocher Dingwen Kong Liang Lyu Asuman Ozdaglar http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.00487v2 2026-02-15T19:15:33Z

I study the welfare-maximizing allocation of heterogeneous goods when monetary transfers are prohibited. Agents have private cardinal values, and the designer chooses a non-monetary mechanism subject to incentive compatibility and aggregate supply constraints. I provide sufficient conditions under which the optimal mechanism coincides with a competitive equilibrium with equal incomes (CEEI). When these conditions fail, I characterize the optimum for two symmetric goods. I show that when narrow preference margins between goods predict greater need, the designer can sometimes benefit from distorting CEEI by offering a menu containing pure options and bundles.

2026-01-31T03:16:52Z Filip Tokarski http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.22232v1 2026-02-15T17:04:34Z

This brief note clarifies that the scenario described in Arunachaleswaran et al. (2025) -- titled `Algorithmic Collusion without Threats' -- is not one of collusion, but one where one player is behaving non-competitively and the other is behaving competitively.

2026-02-15T17:04:34Z Comment on arXiv:2409.03956 Jason Hartline http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.03030v3 2026-02-15T15:54:30Z

Teamwork is vital in many settings, and it is socially beneficial for teams to cooperate in some situations (``good games'') and not in others (``bad games;'' e.g., those that allow for corruption). A team's cooperation in any given game depends on expectations of cooperation in future iterations of both good and bad games. We identify when sustaining cooperation on good games necessitates cooperation on bad games. We then characterize how a designer should optimally assign workers to teams and teams to tasks that involve varying arrival rates of good and bad games. Our results show how organizational design can be used to promote cooperation while minimizing corruption.

2025-07-02T23:29:01Z Jonathan Bendor Lukas Bolte Nicole Immorlica Matthew O. Jackson http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.13894v1 2026-02-14T21:33:38Z

Among two-candidate elections that treat the candidates symmetrically and never result in a tie, which voting rules are fair? A natural requirement is that each voter exerts an equal influence over the outcome, i.e., is equally likely to swing the election one way or the other. A voter's influence has been formalized in two canonical ways: the Shapley-Shubik (1954) index and the Banzhaf (1964) index. We consider both indices, and ask: Which electorate sizes admit a fair voting rule (under the respective index)? For an odd number $n$ of voters, simple majority rule is an example of a fair voting rule. However, when $n$ is even, fair voting rules can be challenging to identify, and a diverse literature has studied this problem under different notions of fairness. Our main results completely characterize which values of $n$ admit fair voting rules under the two canonical indices we consider. For the Shapley-Shubik index, a fair voting rule exists for $n>1$ if and only if $n$ is not a power of $2$. For the Banzhaf index, a fair voting rule exists for all $n$ except $2$, $4$, and $8$. Along the way, we show how the Shapley-Shubik and Banzhaf indices relate to the winning coalitions of the voting rule, and compare these indices to previously considered notions of fairness.

2026-02-14T21:33:38Z Manik Dhar Kunal Mittal Clayton Thomas http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.13879v1 2026-02-14T20:40:39Z

Appropriate decisions depend on information gathered beforehand, yet such information is often obtained through intermediaries with biased preferences. Motivated by settings such as testing and recertification in organ transplantation, we study the problem faced by a decision-maker who can only access costly information through an agent with misaligned preferences. In a dynamic framework with exogenous decision timing, we ask how requests for verifiable information (evidence) should be scheduled and their implications for the quality of attained choices. When the agent's incentives are ignored, evidence requests do not condition on previously reported information. However, such policies may be susceptible to strategic manipulation by the agent. We show that, in these cases, optimal requests should be biased: additional evidence is more likely to be sought when previous reports favor the agent's preferred outcome.

2026-02-14T20:40:39Z Andres Espitia Edwin Muñoz-Rodríguez http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.13645v1 2026-02-14T07:32:55Z

When multiple informative equilibria are possible in a general cheap talk game, how much information can a principal guarantee herself? To answer this question, I define the notion of worst-case implementation-implementation via the worst non-trivial equilibrium of a mechanism. Under this objective, standard full-commitment mechanisms fail, yielding the principal no more than her no-communication payoff. Partial commitment, however, can provide a strict improvement. The possibility of facing a strategic, uncommitted principal disciplines the agent's reporting incentives across all equilibria. I characterize the worst-case optimal mechanism and payoff under weak assumptions on the players' preferences. The optimal mechanism has a simple two-message structure. The agent's messages are polarizing, designed to maximize their strategic impact on the uncommitted principal's actions. If full commitment is interpreted as decision automation, these results highlight a fundamental complementarity between automated and human decision-makers: the presence of a human aligns the agent's incentives to reveal information, while the automated system leverages these informative reports to take accurate actions. This strategic interaction is often overlooked by literature that compares the two based on standalone decision accuracy. Applications of the model include bail-setting automation, fintech lending, delegation, lobbying, and audit design.

2026-02-14T07:32:55Z Andrei Iakovlev http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12910v1 2026-02-13T13:14:11Z

State delegations are often chosen through single-member district elections, creating a tension between respecting district majorities and reflecting the statewide electorate. First-past-the-post (FPTP) follows each district's majority but can yield a delegation seat share far from the party's statewide vote share. In contrast, proportional representation (PR), which makes a party's seat share correspond to its statewide vote share, requires departing from local majorities in some districts. We measure misrepresentation as a weighted sum of within-district misrepresentation, measured by the share of voters locally represented by their non-preferred party, and statewide misrepresentation, measured by the deviation of a party's seat share from its statewide vote share. The misrepresentation-minimizing rule is a cutoff rule determined by the relative weight of statewide misrepresentation. As this weight rises, the cutoff continuously shifts from FPTP's 50% to the PR cutoff that aligns the delegation's seat share with statewide vote shares. This shift makes gerrymandering harder, offering an alternative lever to limit gerrymandering. Using a majorization-based metric of geographic concentration, we show that concentrating support reduces misrepresentation only under the misrepresentation-minimizing rule. Within this class, FPTP and PR are uniquely characterized by the absence of cross-district spillovers and by gerrymandering-proofness, respectively. Using U.S. House elections, we infer the weights that rationalize outcomes, offering a novel metric for evaluating representativeness of district boundaries and electoral reform proposals.

2026-02-13T13:14:11Z Yunus C. Aybas Oguzhan Celebi Surabhi Dutt http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12897v1 2026-02-13T12:59:13Z

Consider a network game with linear best responses and spillovers between players, and let agents endogenously choose their links. A planner considers interventions to subsidize actions and/or links between players, aiming to maximize a welfare function depending on equilibrium actions. The structure of the optimal intervention depends on whether links provide non-negative intrinsic value to agents. When they do, it is optimal to focus only on subsidizing actions. When the intrinsic value of links is negative, we give conditions for including link subsidies to be optimal. This reverses the basic structure of the optimal intervention in settings with exogenous links.

2026-02-13T12:59:13Z Krishna Dasaratha Anant Shah http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12571v1 2026-02-13T03:28:42Z

We study agents playing a pure coordination game on a large social network. Agents are restricted to coordinate locally, without access to a global communication device, and so different regions of the network will converge to different actions, precluding perfect coordination. We show that the extent of this inefficiency depends on the network geometry: on some networks, near-perfect efficiency is achievable, while on others welfare is strictly bounded away from the optimum. We provide a geometric condition on the network structure that characterizes when near-efficiency is attainable. On networks in which it is unattainable, our results more generally preclude high correlations between outcomes in a large spectrum of dynamic games.

2026-02-13T03:28:42Z 38 pages Tom Hutchcroft Olga Rospuskova Omer Tamuz http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.03359v2 2026-02-12T23:54:56Z

The Probabilistic Serial (PS) mechanism -- also known as the simultaneous eating algorithm -- is a canonical solution for the random assignment problem under ordinal preferences. It guarantees envy-freeness and ordinal efficiency in the resulting random assignment. However, under cardinal preferences, its efficiency may degrade significantly: it is known that PS may yield allocations that are $Ω(\ln{n})$-worse than Pareto optimal, but whether this bound is tight remained an open question. Our first result resolves this question by proving that the PS mechanism guarantees $(\ln n+1)$-approximate Pareto efficiency under cardinal preferences. The key part of our analysis shows that PS achieves a logarithmic $(\ln n + 1)$-approximation to the maximum Nash welfare, in stark contrast to the $O(\sqrt{n})$ loss that can arise in utilitarian social welfare. Our results also extend to the more general submodular setting introduced by Fujishige, Sano, and Zhan (ACM TEAC 2018). In addition, we present a polynomial-time algorithm that computes an allocation which is envy-free and $e^{1/e}$-approximately Pareto-efficient, answering an open question posed by Tröbst and Vazirani (EC 2024). The PS mechanism also applies to the allocation of chores instead of goods. We prove that it guarantees an $n$-approximately Pareto-efficient allocation in this setting, and that this bound is asymptotically tight. This result provides the first known approximation guarantee for computing a fair and efficient allocation in the random assignment problem with chores under cardinal preferences.

2025-07-04T07:47:03Z Jugal Garg Yixin Tao László A. Végh http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12270v1 2026-02-12T18:56:42Z

Copyright law focuses on whether a new work is "substantially similar" to an existing one, but generative AI can closely imitate style without copying content, a capability now central to ongoing litigation. We argue that existing definitions of infringement are ill-suited to this setting and propose a new criterion: a generative AI output infringes on an existing work if it could not have been generated without that work in its training corpus. To operationalize this definition, we model generative systems as closure operators mapping a corpus of existing works to an output of new works. AI generated outputs are \emph{permissible} if they do not infringe on any existing work according to our criterion. Our results characterize structural properties of permissible generation and reveal a sharp asymptotic dichotomy: when the process of organic creations is light-tailed, dependence on individual works eventually vanishes, so that regulation imposes no limits on AI generation; with heavy-tailed creations, regulation can be persistently constraining.

2026-02-12T18:56:42Z Annie Liang Jay Lu http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12224v1 2026-02-12T18:03:37Z

Two-sided matching markets rely on preferences from both sides, yet it is often impractical to evaluate preferences. Participants, therefore, conduct a limited number of interviews, which provide early, noisy impressions and shape final decisions. We study bandit learning in matching markets with interviews, modeling interviews as \textit{low-cost hints} that reveal partial preference information to both sides. Our framework departs from existing work by allowing firm-side uncertainty: firms, like agents, may be unsure of their own preferences and can make early hiring mistakes by hiring less preferred agents. To handle this, we extend the firm's action space to allow \emph{strategic deferral} (choosing not to hire in a round), enabling recovery from suboptimal hires and supporting decentralized learning without coordination. We design novel algorithms for (i) a centralized setting with an omniscient interview allocator and (ii) decentralized settings with two types of firm-side feedback. Across all settings, our algorithms achieve time-independent regret, a substantial improvement over the $O(\log T)$ regret bounds known for learning stable matchings without interviews. Also, under mild structured markets, decentralized performance matches the centralized counterpart up to polynomial factors in the number of agents and firms.

2026-02-12T18:03:37Z Amirmahdi Mirfakhar Xuchuang Wang Mengfan Xu Hedyeh Beyhaghi Mohammad Hajiesmaili http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12035v1 2026-02-12T15:03:26Z

We analyze strategic communication when advice is generated by a reinforcement-learning algorithm rather than by a fully rational sender. Building on the cheap-talk framework of Crawford and Sobel (1982), an advisor adapts its messages based on payoff feedback, while a decision maker best-responds. We provide a theoretical analysis of the long-run communication outcomes induced by such reward-driven adaptation. With aligned preferences, we establish that learning robustly leads to informative communication even from uninformative initial policies. With misaligned preferences, no stable outcome exists; instead, learning generates cycles that sustain highly informative communication and payoffs exceeding those of any static equilibrium.

2026-02-12T15:03:26Z Emilio Calvano Clemens Possnig Juha Tolvanen