arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2505.19570

Eliciting Informed Preferences

Modibo K. Camara·Nicole Immorlica·Brendan Lucier
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In many settings -- like market research and social choice -- people may be presented with unfamiliar options. Classical mechanisms may perform poorly because they fail to incentivize people to learn about these options, or worse, encourage counterproductive information acquisition. We formalize this problem in a model of robust mechanism design where agents find it costly to learn about their values for a product or policy. We identify sharp limits on the designer's ability to elicit, or learn about, these values. Where these limits do not bind, we propose two-stage mechanisms that are detail-free and robust: the second stage is a classical mechanism and the first stage asks participants to predict the results of the second stage.

Explore related subjects

econ.THcs.GT

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Modibo K. Camara, Nicole Immorlica, Brendan Lucier. 2025-07-19. Eliciting Informed Preferences. https://doi.org/10.1145/3736252.3742656

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Proper Calibeating

The classic concept of "calibrated forecasts" and its more recent refinement, "calibeating," are defined with respect to the standard quadratic scoring rule. We extend these notions to the class of proper scoring rules (for which the true distribution is an optimal forecast) and define \textit{proper calibration} and \textit{proper calibeating} by requiring the corresponding guarantees to hold uniformly over all bounded proper scoring rules. We first establish that calibration always implies proper calibration, whereas calibeating need not imply proper calibeating. Second, we show how to guarantee proper calibeating and proper multicalibeating; in particular, \textit{complete calibeating}---a strong form of calibeating that calibeats the joint binning---is always proper. Finally, we consider \textit{decision-making under uncertainty}, where one best replies to the forecasts. We establish that (proper) calibration is equivalent to universal no regret, and (proper) complete calibeating is equivalent to universal no regret together with universal subsuming of the reference sequence, where \textit{universal} refers to all bounded utility functions.

econ.TH↗
arXiv2026

Cautious and fair social evaluation under risk

In this paper, we study criteria for social evaluation of resource distributions under risk when individuals have expected utility preferences but their utility functions are interpersonally non-comparable. In particular, we focus on cautious evaluation with respect to ex-post distributions. As a key rationality axiom, we adopt Negative Certainty Independence, introduced by Dillenberger (2010). Using this axiom together with Pareto conditions that are compatible with both the rationality axiom and ex-post equity, we characterize a class of social criteria called Cautious Equally Distributed Equivalent (CEDE) criteria. These criteria evaluate risky situations by the lowest certainty equivalent over a set of social utility functions constructed from individual utility functions.

econ.TH↗
arXiv2026

Convex Order and Moment Persuasion

If a probability measure is a mean-preserving contraction of another, the two measures are said to be in convex order. This paper provides a complete characterization of mean-preserving contractions and their extreme points in the multidimensional setting, extending the results of Kleiner, Moldovanu, Strack, and Whitmeyer (2024) to incorporate fully revealing regions and lower-dimensional pooling regions. A central feature of our characterization is a "concentration " structure: each state can be mapped only to posterior means lying within its own irreducible component. We apply these results to the moment persuasion problem.

econ.TH↗