arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.11089

Decision Noise in Threshold Selection

Abstract

Can noisier threshold selection produce a group with higher mean true value? We answer this question by varying the scale of a fixed assessment error. Holding the selection rate fixed, less noise yields a first-order stochastically dominant distribution of selected values. At a fixed threshold, however, more noise can raise the selected mean even as selection loss, which weights selection mistakes by the distance of true value from the threshold, increases. Under joint Gaussianity, we characterize when the selected mean rises or falls with noise. In treatment selection, noise alone can generate subgroup differences in participants' average gains despite identical population gain distributions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ye Lu, Joeri Smits. 2026-10-08. Decision Noise in Threshold Selection. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.11089

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Learning about informativeness

We study whether individuals can learn the informativeness of their information technology through social learning. As in the classic sequential social learning model, rational agents arrive in order and make decisions based on the past actions of others and their private signals. There is uncertainty regarding the informativeness of the common signal-generating process. We show that in this setting asymptotic learning about informativeness is not guaranteed and depends crucially on the relative tail distributions of private beliefs induced by uninformative and informative signals. We identify the phenomenon of perpetual disagreement as the cause of learning and characterize learning in the canonical Gaussian environment.

econ.TH↗

Regulating a Monopolist through Capacity Control

We study monopoly regulation when capacity is contractible but subsequent output is not. A firm privately observes its production cost before installing costly capacity and then choosing output, while the regulator cannot use transfers. We provide sufficient conditions under which a single capacity floor implements an optimal mechanism with full participation. The floor raises output by changing investment while leaving utilization to the firm after installation costs are sunk. Under additional conditions, the allocation has three regions: laissez-faire, full utilization of the floor, and underutilization. High-cost types knowingly install capacity they will not fully use, yet produce more than under laissez-faire. This physical waste is a necessary evil of optimal regulation that expands service. We also show that underutilization can persist in optimal regulation with capacity-contingent subsidies or a common entry fee.

econ.TH↗

Dynamic Mechanism and Information Design in AI-Agent Environments: A General Analytical Framework

This paper develops a general framework for dynamic mechanism and information design with AI agents, encompassing optimal contracting and integrating evolving hidden information and hidden action with partial verification, technological authorization, and multi-agent interaction. It nests conventional dynamic screening, hidden-action contracting, and conditional dynamic information design, while allowing reporting, action, and information-use decisions to interact through a common continuation mechanism. We establish a dynamic revelation principle and a recursive characterization of implementability in which truthful reporting and post-report obedience are jointly determined through continuation incentives. In quasilinear optimal-contracting environments, dynamic envelope and integral-monotonicity methods yield a verification-adjusted dynamic virtual-surplus representation and identify three distinct margins: dynamic information rents, verification rents, and the implementation cost of hidden action. These margins generate a branched hierarchy separating conventional dynamic screening, hidden-action contracting, and their joint problem. We also study the joint design of monitoring, information use, and incentives: more informative monitoring capacity expands the designer's opportunity set, but full disclosure need not be optimal, and information use can itself alter hidden-action incentives. With multiple agents, correlated information, peer discipline, coupled incentives, joint feasibility, and continuation opportunities create additional strategic interactions. Although motivated by AI-agent environments, the framework applies more broadly to dynamic agency settings with similar economic features.

econ.TH↗