https://arxiv.org/api/NuAiVkQKRZZSXtJnaV9IjbJ+Nb0 2026-03-28T10:42:16Z 3829 285 15 http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09046v2 2026-02-01T21:41:22Z

Whether the goal is to analyze voting behavior, locate facilities, or recommend products, the problem of translating between (ordinal) rankings and (numerical) utilities arises naturally in many contexts. This task is commonly approached by representing both the individuals doing the ranking (voters) and the items to be ranked (alternatives) in a shared metric space, where ordinal preferences are translated into relationships between pairwise distances. Prior work has established that any collection of rankings with $n$ voters and $m$ alternatives (preference profile) can be embedded into $d$-dimensional Euclidean space for $d \geq \min\{n,m-1\}$ under the Euclidean norm and the Manhattan norm. We show that this holds for all $p$-norms and establish that any pair of rankings can be embedded into $R^2$ under arbitrary norms, significantly expanding the reach of spatial preference models.

2025-08-12T16:09:02Z "Full version of Extended Abstract accepted at AAMAS 2026" Joshua Zeitlin Corinna Coupette http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.21275v2 2026-02-01T15:08:40Z

We propose a solution and a mechanism for two-agent social choice problems with large (infinite) policy spaces. Our solution is an efficient compromise rule between the two agents, built on a common cardinalization of their preferences. Our mechanism, the multimatum, has the two players alternate in proposing sets of alternatives from which the other must choose. Our main result shows that the multimatum fully implements our compromise solution in subgame perfect Nash equilibrium. We demonstrate the power and versatility of this approach through applications to political economy, other-regarding preferences, and facility location.

2026-01-29T05:11:17Z Federico Echenique Matías Núñez http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.01224v1 2026-02-01T13:29:51Z

Given a set of $n$ individuals with strict preferences over $m$ indivisible objects, the Random Serial Dictatorship (RSD) mechanism is a method for allocating objects to individuals in a way that is efficient, fair, and incentive-compatible. A random order of individuals is first drawn, and each individual, following this order, selects their most preferred available object. The procedure continues until either all objects have been assigned or all individuals have received an object. RSD is widely recognized for its application in fair allocation problems involving indivisible goods, such as school placements and housing assignments. Despite its extensive use, a comprehensive axiomatic characterization has remained incomplete. For the balanced case $n=m=3$, Bogomolnaia and Moulin have shown that RSD is uniquely characterized by Ex-Post Efficiency, Equal Treatment of Equals, and Strategy-Proofness. The possibility of extending this characterization to larger markets had been a long-standing open question, which Basteck and Ehlers recently answered in the negative for all markets with $n,m\geq5$. This work completes the picture by identifying exactly for which pairs $\left(n,m\right)$ these three axioms uniquely characterize the RSD mechanism and for which pairs they admit multiple mechanisms. In the latter cases, we construct explicit alternatives satisfying the axioms and examine whether augmenting the set of axioms could rule out these alternatives.

2026-02-01T13:29:51Z 69 pages Maor Ben Zaquen Ron Holzman http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06530v15 2026-02-01T11:29:03Z

This paper introduces a novel ranking of statistical experiments, the linear-Blackwell (LB) order, which can equivalently be characterized by (i) the dispersion of the induced posterior and likelihood ratios in the sense of the linear convex order, (ii) the size of the Lorenz zonoid (the set of statewise expectation profiles), or (iii) the variability of the posterior mean. We apply the LB order to compare experiments in binary-action decision problems and in decision problems with quasi-concave payoffs, as analyzed by Kolotilin, Corrao, and Wolitzky (2025). We also use it to compare experiments in moral hazard problems, building on Holmström (1979) and Kim (1995), and in screening problems with ex post signals.

2025-02-10T14:51:15Z The main text ends on page 44, and the supplementary material follows thereafter. This paper was previously circulated under the title "Experiments in the Linear Convex Order'' Kailin Chen http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.01066v1 2026-02-01T07:22:05Z

Quality information on online platforms is often conveyed through simple, percentile-based badges and tiers that remain stable across different market environments. Motivated by this empirical evidence, we study robust quality disclosure in a market where a platform commits to a public disclosure policy mapping the seller's product quality into a signal, and the seller subsequently sets a downstream monopoly price. Buyers have heterogeneous private types and valuations that are linear in quality. We evaluate a disclosure policy via a minimax competitive ratio: its worst-case revenue relative to the Bayesian-optimal disclosure-and-pricing benchmark, uniformly over all prior quality distributions, type distributions, and admissible valuations. Our main results provide a sharp theoretical justification for quantile-partition disclosure. For K-quantile partition policies, we fully characterize the robust optimum: the optimal worst-case ratio is pinned down by a one-dimensional fixed-point equation and the optimal thresholds follow a backward recursion. We also give an explicit formula for the robust ratio of any quantile partition as a simple "max-over-bins" expression, which explains why the robust-optimal partition allocates finer resolution to upper quantiles and yields tight guarantees such as 1 + 1/K for uniform percentile buckets. In contrast, we show a robustness limit for finite-signal monotone (quality-threshold) partitions, which cannot beat a factor-2 approximation. Technically, our analysis reduces the robust quality disclosure to a robust disclosure design program by establishing a tight functional characterization of all feasible indirect revenue functions.

2026-02-01T07:22:05Z Shipra Agrawal Yiding Feng Wei Tang http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.00934v1 2026-01-31T23:19:52Z

People learn about opportunities and actions by observing the experiences of their friends. We model how homophily -- the tendency to associate with similar others -- affects both the endogenous quality and diversity of the information accessible to decision makers. Homophily provides higher-quality information, since observing the payoffs of another person is more informative the more similar that person is to the decision maker. However, homophily can lead people to take actions that generate less information. We show how network connectivity influences the tradeoff between the endogenous quantity and quality of information. Although homophily hampers learning in sparse networks, it enhances learning in sufficiently dense networks.

2026-01-31T23:19:52Z Yunus C. Aybas Matthew O. Jackson http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.18144v3 2026-01-31T00:47:52Z

Top trading cycles with fixed tie-breaking (TTC) has been suggested to deal with indifferences in object allocation problems. Unfortunately, under general indifferences, TTC is neither Pareto efficient nor group strategy-proof. Furthermore, it may not select an allocation in the core of the market, even when the core is non-empty. However, when indifferences are agreed upon by all agents (``objective indifferences''), TTC maintains Pareto efficiency, group strategy-proofness, and core selection. Further, we characterize objective indifferences as the most general setting where TTC maintains these properties.

2025-03-23T17:17:11Z Will Sandholtz Andrew Tai http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.12476v6 2026-01-30T21:00:40Z

I use a novel geometric approach to compare information in moral hazard problems. I study three nested geometric orders on information, namely the column space, the conic span, and the zonotope orders. The orders are defined by the inclusion of the column space, the conic span, and the zonotope of the matrices representing the experiments. For each order, I establish four equivalent characterizations of the orders, (i) inclusion of feasible state-dependent utility sets, (ii) matrix factorizations, (iii) posterior belief distributions, and (iv) improved incentives in certain moral hazard problems. The column space order characterizes the comparisons of implementability in all moral hazard problems. The conic span order characterizes the comparisons of costs in all moral hazard problems with a risk neutral agent and limited liability. The zonotope order characterizes the comparisons of costs in all moral hazard problems when the agent can have any utility exhibiting risk aversion.

2025-07-05T17:26:00Z Zizhe Xia http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.21794v2 2026-01-30T14:26:27Z

We study a sequential mechanism design problem in which a principal seeks to elicit truthful reports from multiple rational agents while starting with no prior knowledge of agents' beliefs. We introduce Distributionally Robust Adaptive Mechanism (DRAM), a general framework combining insights from both mechanism design and online learning to jointly address truthfulness and cost-optimality. Throughout the sequential game, the mechanism estimates agents' beliefs and iteratively updates a distributionally robust linear program with shrinking ambiguity sets to reduce payments while preserving truthfulness. Our mechanism guarantees truthful reporting with high probability while achieving $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{T})$ cumulative regret, and we establish a matching lower bound showing that no truthful adaptive mechanism can asymptotically do better. The framework generalizes to plug-in estimators, supporting structured priors and delayed feedback. To our knowledge, this is the first adaptive mechanism under general settings that maintains truthfulness and achieves optimal regret when incentive constraints are unknown and must be learned.

2025-12-25T21:59:51Z Qiushi Han David Simchi-Levi Renfei Tan Zishuo Zhao http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.22945v1 2026-01-30T13:03:21Z

We propose a novel framework for measuring privacy from a Bayesian game-theoretic perspective. This framework enables the creation of new, purpose-driven privacy definitions that are rigorously justified, while also allowing for the assessment of existing privacy guarantees through game theory. We show that pure and probabilistic differential privacy are special cases of our framework, and provide new interpretations of the post-processing inequality in this setting. Further, we demonstrate that privacy guarantees can be established for deterministic algorithms, which are overlooked by current privacy standards.

2026-01-30T13:03:21Z 17 pages Joshua J Bon James Bailie Judith Rousseau Christian P Robert http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.22404v1 2026-01-29T23:21:38Z

We investigate a seller's revenue-maximizing mechanism in a setting where a desirable good is sold together with an undesirable bad (e.g., advertisements) that generates third-party revenue. The buyer's private information is two-dimensional: valuation for the good and willingness to pay to avoid the bad. Following the duality framework of Daskalakis, Deckelbaum, and Tzamos (2017), whose results extend to our setting, we formulate the seller's problem using a transformed measure $μ$ that depends on the third-party payment $k$. We provide a near-characterization for optimality of three pricing mechanisms commonly used in practice -- the Good-Only, Ad-Tiered, and Single-Bundle Posted Price -- and introduce a new class of tractable, interpretable two-dimensional orthant conditions on $μ$ for sufficiency. Economically, $k$ yields a clean comparative static: low $k$ excludes the bad, intermediate $k$ separates ad-tolerant and ad-averse buyers, and high $k$ bundles ads for all types.

2026-01-29T23:21:38Z Kolagani Paramahamsa http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10767v3 2026-01-29T18:33:28Z

The equivalence between von Neumann's Minimax Theorem for zero-sum games and the LP Duality Theorem connects cornerstone problems of the two fields of game theory and optimization, respectively, and has been the subject of intense scrutiny for seven decades. Yet, as observed in this paper, the proof of the difficult direction of this equivalence is unsatisfactory: It does not assign distinct roles to the two players of the game, as is natural from the definition of a zero-sum game. In retrospect, a partial resolution to this predicament was provided in another brilliant paper of von Neumann, which reduced the assignment problem to zero-sum games. However, the underlying LP is highly specialized; all entries of its objective function vector are strictly positive, the constraint vector is all ones, and the constraint matrix is 0/1. We generalize von Neumann's result along two directions, each allowing negative entries in certain parts of the LP. Our reductions make explicit the roles of the two players of the reduced game, namely their maximin strategies are to play optimal solutions to the primal and dual LPs. Furthermore, unlike previous reductions, the value of the reduced game reveals the value of the given LP. Our generalizations encompass several basic economic scenarios.

2024-10-14T17:43:21Z Ilan Adler Martin Bullinger Vijay V. Vazirani http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.22079v1 2026-01-29T18:19:22Z

A fundamental challenge for modern economics is to understand what happens when actors in an economy are replaced with algorithms. Like rationality has enabled understanding of outcomes of classical economic actors, no-regret can enable the understanding of outcomes of algorithmic actors. This review article covers the classical computer science literature on no-regret algorithms to provide a foundation for an overview of the latest economics research on no-regret algorithms, focusing on the emerging topics of manipulation, statistical inference, and algorithmic collusion.

2026-01-29T18:19:22Z Accepted to Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Thirteenth World Congress, Volume 2 Jason Hartline http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.07126v4 2026-01-29T16:14:56Z

We examine behavioral axioms in decision theory that are satisfied approximately rather than exactly. We demonstrate that in key domains -- decisions under risk, uncertainty, and intertemporal choice -- behavior that \emph{almost} satisfies an axiom implies the existence of a utility function that is \emph{near} one that adheres to the standard theoretical representation (e.g., expected utility, or exponentially discounted utility). We explicitly quantify the distance between the utility that captures actual behavior and the ideal theoretical utility as a function of the measured deviation from the axiom. This result formally connects two distinct quantitative exercises: measuring empirical deviations from theory and utilizing approximate optimization. Effectively, we show that small deviations from behavioral axioms rationalize the use of standard models as valid approximations.

2025-02-10T23:44:58Z Christopher P Chambers Federico Echenique http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.17660v3 2026-01-29T11:10:14Z

Does greater connectivity enhance the value of public information? I study a networked beauty contest game where agents balance adaptation to the fundamental with local coordination. The analysis reveals a stark non-monotonicity: while public disclosure improves welfare when interactions are uniform, regardless of their intensity, it can be detrimental in core-periphery structures. This welfare loss stems from a distortion driven by the core, where core agents over-respond to a noisy public signal, forcing peripheral neighbors to absorb this volatility to maintain alignment. These findings suggest that standard transparency policies can backfire in tiered markets where dominant hubs propagate excess volatility.

2025-06-21T09:36:21Z Kota Murayama