arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv subjects

Federico Echenique

Publications and source records attributed to Federico Echenique.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Diversity as Majorization

How should institutions compare group diversity, and which group should they select when they value diversity and merit? We take a target-based approach that evaluates the entire group composition without treating any type as intrinsically diversity-enhancing. Because different diversity indices may rank groups differently, we instead adapt majorization to construct an ordinal diversity preorder. We show that its maximally diverse selections are exactly those maximizing every index in a broad class. This characterization yields a reserve-and-quota policy that selects a maximally diverse group and, among such groups, the highest-merit agents. Any alternative is less diverse, less meritorious, or both.

econ.TH

Distributional Preferences for Market Design

Institutions selecting students, employees, or members value both about who is selected and the resulting group's composition. We study ``distributional'' preferences over group composition, and identify an upper-bound property and two exchange properties. With the upper-bound property, the exchange properties are necessary and sufficient for two results: the greedy rule is the unique choice rule that is non-wasteful, distributionally maximal, and free of justified envy; it is also path independent. In matching markets, deferred acceptance is the unique mechanism satisfying the three axioms, individual rationality, and strategy-proofness. Our framework accommodates intersectional identities and subsumes models based on reserves and matroids.

econ.TH

Endogenous Inequality Aversion: Decision criteria for triage and other ethical tradeoffs

Medical ``Crisis Standards of Care'' call for a utilitarian allocation of scarce resources in public emergencies, whereas standards of care under normal conditions place relatively greater priority on the worst-off. Inspired by such triage rules, we study social welfare criteria whose distributive trade-offs depend on society's well-being, as captured by aggregate welfare. Because the welfare level determines the applicable aggregation criterion, while that criterion in turn determines welfare, the resulting criteria are self-referential. We provide an axiomatic foundation for a family of welfare criteria that become more utilitarian as aggregate welfare falls and more Rawlsian as it rises, thereby formalizing triage guidelines. We also characterize the converse case, in which priority to the worst-off increases as aggregate welfare falls.

econ.TH

Utilitarian Social Choice and Distributional Welfare Analysis

Harsanyi (1955) showed that the only way to aggregate individual preferences into a social preference which satisfies certain desirable properties is ``utilitarianism'', whereby the social utility function is a weighted average of individual utilities. This representation forms the basis for welfare analysis in most applied work. We argue, however, that welfare analysis based on Harsanyi's version of utilitarianism may overlook important distributional considerations. We therefore introduce a notion of utilitarianism for discrete-choice settings which applies to \textit{social choice functions}, which describe the actions of society, rather than social welfare functions which describe society's preferences (as in Harsanyi). We characterize a representation of utilitarian social choice, and show that it provides a foundation for a family of \textit{distributional welfare measures} based on quantiles of the distribution of individual welfare effects, rather than averages.

econ.TH

Stable Matching as Transport: a Welfarist Perspective on Market Design

This paper links matching markets with aligned preferences to optimal transport theory. We show that stability, efficiency, and fairness emerge as solutions to a parametric family of optimal transport problems. The parameter indexes a planner's attitude towards inequality. This link offers insights into structural properties of matchings and trade-offs between objectives, showing how stability can lead to welfare inequalities, even among similar agents. Our model captures supply-demand imbalances in contexts like spatial markets, school choice, and ride-sharing. We also show that large markets with idiosyncratic preferences can be well approximated by aligned preferences, expanding the applicability of our results.

econ.TH

Compromise by "multimatum"

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.

econ.TH

Response Time Enhances Alignment with Heterogeneous Preferences

Aligning large language models (LLMs) to human preferences typically relies on aggregating pooled feedback into a single reward model. However, this standard approach assumes that all labelers share the same underlying preferences, ignoring the fact that real-world labelers are highly heterogeneous and usually anonymous. Consequently, relying solely on binary choice data fundamentally distorts the learned policy, making the true population-average preference unidentifiable. To overcome this critical limitation, we demonstrate that augmenting preference datasets with a simple, secondary signal -- the user's response time -- can restore the identifiability of the population's average preference. By modeling each decision as a Drift-Diffusion Model (DDM), we introduce a novel, consistent estimator of heterogeneous preferences that successfully corrects the distortions of standard choice-only labels. We prove that our estimator asymptotically converges to the true average preference even in extreme cases where each anonymous labeler contributes only a single choice. Empirically, across both synthetic and real-world datasets, our method consistently outperforms standard baselines that otherwise fail and plateau at a bias floor. Because response times are essentially free to record and require zero user tracking or identification, our results bring promises and open up new opportunities for future data-collection pipelines to improve the social benefit without requiring user-level identifiers or repeated elicitations.

cs.LG

Robust Testing Of the Allais Paradox By Paired Choices vs. Paired Valuations

McGranaghan, Nielsen, O'Donoghue, Somerville, and Sprenger [2024] show that standard paired choice tests for the common ratio effect are structurally biased when choice is stochastic, proposing valuation tests as a robust alternative. Using valuation tests, they find no systematic evidence for the common ratio effect, seemingly overturning much of the extant literature. We evaluate this conclusion in light of stochastic choice theory. We argue that valuation tests are inherently biased and lack predictive power under standard expected utility assumptions. In contrast, we advocate for a ``strong'' paired choice test, proving it remains robustly unbiased across common models of stochastic choice. Applying this strong test to existing experimental data, we find that the common ratio effect remains highly prevalent.

econ.TH

Individual and Collective Welfare in Risk Sharing with Many States

We study efficient risk sharing among risk-averse agents in an economy with a large, finite number of states. Following a random shock to an initial agreement, agents may renegotiate. If they require a minimal utility improvement to accept a new deal, we show the probability of finding a mutually acceptable allocation vanishes exponentially as the state space grows. This holds regardless of agents' degree of risk aversion. In a two-agent multiple-priors model, we find that the potential for Pareto-improving trade requires that at least one agent's set of priors has a vanishingly small measure. Our results hinge on the ``shape does not matter'' message of high-dimensional isoperimetric inequalities.

econ.TH

Decision theory and the "almost implies near" phenomenon

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.

econ.TH

I Choose For You: an Experimental Study

We investigate whether risk and time preferences differ when individuals make decisions for others compared to making decisions for themselves. We introduce a novel ``skin in the game'' experimental design, where choices for others incur a direct cost to the decision-maker, ensuring a genuine trade-off between self-interest and surrogate allocation. The modal outcome is that participants are more risk-averse and impatient when choosing for others than for themselves. Our methodology reveals significant heterogeneity, successfully identifying selfish types often missed by the more standard ``no skin in the game'' approaches. The message is nuanced, as even non-selfish participants behave differently when they have skin in the game. Furthermore, our framework yields more consistent behavior and superior out-of-sample predictive power.

econ.GN

To ArXiv or not to ArXiv: A Study Quantifying Pros and Cons of Posting Preprints Online

Double-blind conferences have engaged in debates over whether to allow authors to post their papers online on arXiv or elsewhere during the review process. Independently, some authors of research papers face the dilemma of whether to put their papers on arXiv due to its pros and cons. We conduct a study to substantiate this debate and dilemma via quantitative measurements. Specifically, we conducted surveys of reviewers in two top-tier double-blind computer science conferences -- ICML 2021 (5361 submissions and 4699 reviewers) and EC 2021 (498 submissions and 190 reviewers). Our three main findings are as follows. First, more than a third of the reviewers self-report searching online for a paper they are assigned to review. Second, conference policies restricting authors from publicising their work on social media or posting preprints before the review process may have only limited effectiveness in maintaining anonymity. Third, outside the review process, we find that preprints from better-ranked institutions experience a very small increase in visibility compared to preprints from other institutions.

cs.DL

Implicit Incentive Provision with Misspecified Learning

We study misspecified Bayesian learning in principal-agent relationships, where an agent is assessed by an evaluator and rewarded by the market. The agent's outcome depends on their innate ability, costly effort -- whose effectiveness is governed by a productivity parameter -- and noise. The market infers the agent's ability from observed outcomes and rewards them accordingly. The evaluator conducts costly assessments to reduce outcome noise, which shape the market's inferences and provide implicit incentives for effort. Society -- including the evaluator and the market -- holds dogmatic, inaccurate beliefs about ability, which distort learning about effort productivity and effort choice. This, in turn, shapes the evaluator's choice of assessment. We describe a feedback loop linking misspecified ability, biased learning about effort, and distorted assessment. We characterize outcomes that arise in stable steady states and analyze their robust comparative statics and learning foundations. Applications to education and labor market reveal how stereotypes can reinforce across domains -- sometimes disguised as narrowing or even reversals of outcome gaps -- and how policy interventions targeting assessment can help.

econ.TH

Diversity in Choice as Majorization

We propose a framework that uses majorization to model diversity and representativeness in school admissions. We generalize the standard notion of majorization to accommodate arbitrary distributional targets, such as a student body that reflects the population served by the school. Building on this framework, we introduce and axiomatically characterize the $r$-targeting Schur choice rule, which balances diversity and priority in admissions. We show that this rule is optimal: any alternative rule must either leave seats unfilled, reduce diversity, or admit lower-priority students. The rule satisfies path independence (and substitutability), which guarantees desirable outcomes in matching markets. Our work contributes to the ongoing discourse on market design by providing a new and flexible framework for improving diversity and representation.

econ.TH

Swap Bounded Envy

We study fairness in the allocation of discrete goods. Exactly fair (envy-free) allocations are impossible, so we discuss notions of approximate fairness. In particular, we focus on allocations in which the swap of two items serves to eliminate any envy, either for the allocated bundles or with respect to a reference bundle. We propose an algorithm that, under some restrictions on agents' preferences, achieves an allocation with ``swap bounded envy.''

econ.TH

A General Framework for Estimating Preferences Using Response Time Data

We propose a general methodology for recovering preference parameters from data on choices and response times. Our methods yield estimates with fast ($1/n$ for $n$ data points) convergence rates when specialized to the popular Drift Diffusion Model (DDM), but are broadly applicable to generalizations of the DDM as well as to alternative models of decision making that make use of response time data. The paper develops an empirical application to an experiment on intertemporal choice, showing that the use of response times delivers predictive accuracy and matters for the estimation of economically relevant parameters.

econ.TH

Prestige in Numbers: How Test Scores and Choices Reveal School Rankings

This paper introduces a novel revealed-preference approach to ranking colleges and professional schools based on applicants' choices and standardized test scores. Unlike traditional rankings that rely on data supplied by institutions or expert opinions, our methodology leverages the decentralized beliefs of potential students, as revealed through their application decisions. We develop a theoretical model where students with higher test scores apply to more selective institutions, allowing us to establish a clear relationship between test score distributions and school prestige. Using comprehensive data from over 490,000 GMAT test-takers applying to U.S. full-time MBA programs, we implement two ranking methods: one based on monotone functions of test scores across schools, and another using score-adjusted tournaments between school pairs. Our approach has distinct advantages over traditional rankings: it reflects the collective judgment of the entire applicant pool rather than a small group of experts, and it utilizes data from an independent testing organization, making it resistant to manipulation by institutions. The resulting rankings correlate strongly with leading published MBA rankings ($ρ= 0.72$) while offering the additional benefit of being customizable for different student subgroups. This method provides a transparent alternative to existing ranking systems that have been subject to well-documented manipulation.

econ.GN

Rationally Inattentive Statistical Discrimination: Arrow Meets Phelps

When information acquisition is costly but flexible, a principal may rationally acquire information that favors one group over another. The former group faces incentives to invest in becoming productive, while the latter is discouraged from such investments. The principal, in turn, ignores the productivity difference between groups unless the underinvested group surprises him with a genuinely outstanding outcome. We give conditions under which the discriminatory equilibrium is most preferred by the principal, despite all groups being ex-ante identical. Our results inform the discussion of affirmative action, implicit bias, and occupational segregation and stereotypes.

econ.TH