SEARCH · arXiv Science
Search indexed arXiv papers on artificial intelligence, large language models, computer vision and robotics. Read source abstracts and follow links to arXiv.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
We consider a symmetric two-player contest, in which the choice set of effort is constrained. We apply a fundamental property of the payoff function to show that, under standard assumptions, there exists a unique Nash equilibrium in pure strategies. It is shown that all equilibria are near the unconstrained equilibrium. Perhaps surprisingly, this is not the case when players have different prize evaluations.
An agent acquires information dynamically until her belief about a binary state reaches an upper or lower threshold. She can choose any signal process subject to a constraint on the rate of entropy reduction. Strategies are ordered by "time risk"-the dispersion of the distribution of threshold-hitting times. We construct a strategy maximizing time risk (Greedy Exploitation) and one minimizing it (Pure Accumulation). Under either strategy, beliefs follow a compensated Poisson process. In the former, beliefs jump to the threshold that is closer in Bregman divergence. In the latter, beliefs jump to the unique point with the same entropy as the current belief.
Many online shops offer functionality that help their customers navigate the available alternatives. For instance, options to filter and to sort goods are wide-spread. In this paper we show that sorting and filtering can be used by rational consumers to find their most preferred choice -- quickly. We characterize the preferences which can be expressed through filtering and sorting and show that these preferences exhibit a simple and intuitive logical structure.
I consider the monopolistic pricing of informational good. A buyer's willingness to pay for information is from inferring the unknown payoffs of actions in decision making. A monopolistic seller and the buyer each observes a private signal about the payoffs. The seller's signal is binary and she can commit to sell any statistical experiment of her signal to the buyer. Assuming that buyer's decision problem involves rich actions, I characterize the profit maximizing menu. It contains a continuum of experiments, each containing different amount of information. I also find a complementarity between buyer's private information and information provision: when buyer's private signal is more informative, the optimal menu contains more informative experiments.
We study dynamic matching in exchange markets with easy- and hard-to-match agents. A greedy policy, which attempts to match agents upon arrival, ignores the positive externality that waiting agents generate by facilitating future matchings. We prove that this trade-off between a ``thicker'' market and faster matching vanishes in large markets; A greedy policy leads to shorter waiting times, and more agents matched than any other policy. We empirically confirm these findings in data from the National Kidney Registry. Greedy matching achieves as many transplants as commonly-used policies (1.6\% more than monthly-batching), and shorter patient waiting times.
Following the work of Lloyd Shapley on the Shapley value, and tangentially the work of Guillermo Owen, we offer an alternative non-probabilistic formulation of part of the work of Robert J. Weber in his 1978 paper "Probabilistic values for games." Specifically, we focus upon efficient but not symmetric allocations of value for cooperative games. We retain standard efficiency and linearity, and offer an alternative condition, "reasonableness," to replace the other usual axioms. In the pursuit of the result, we discover properties of the linear maps that describe the allocations. This culminates in a special class of games for which any other map that is "reasonable, efficient" can be written as a convex combination of members of this special class of allocations, via an application of the Krein-Milman theorem.
This paper derives a robust on-line equity trading algorithm that achieves the greatest possible percentage of the final wealth of the best pairs rebalancing rule in hindsight. A pairs rebalancing rule chooses some pair of stocks in the market and then perpetually executes rebalancing trades so as to maintain a target fraction of wealth in each of the two. After each discrete market fluctuation, a pairs rebalancing rule will sell a precise amount of the outperforming stock and put the proceeds into the underperforming stock. Under typical conditions, in hindsight one can find pairs rebalancing rules that would have spectacularly beaten the market. Our trading strategy, which extends Ordentlich and Cover's (1998) "max-min universal portfolio," guarantees to achieve an acceptable percentage of the hindsight-optimized wealth, a percentage which tends to zero at a slow (polynomial) rate. This means that on a long enough investment horizon, the trader can enforce a compound-annual growth rate that is arbitrarily close to that of the best pairs rebalancing rule in hindsight. The strategy will "beat the market asymptotically" if there turns out to exist a pairs rebalancing rule that grows capital at a higher asymptotic rate than the market index. The advantages of our algorithm over the Ordentlich and Cover (1998) strategy are twofold. First, their strategy is impossible to compute in practice. Second, in considering the more modest benchmark (instead of the best all-stock rebalancing rule in hindsight), we reduce the "cost of universality" and achieve a higher learning rate.
In a pathbreaking paper, Cover and Ordentlich (1998) solved a max-min portfolio game between a trader (who picks an entire trading algorithm, $θ(\cdot)$) and "nature," who picks the matrix $X$ of gross-returns of all stocks in all periods. Their (zero-sum) game has the payoff kernel $W_θ(X)/D(X)$, where $W_θ(X)$ is the trader's final wealth and $D(X)$ is the final wealth that would have accrued to a $\$1$ deposit into the best constant-rebalanced portfolio (or fixed-fraction betting scheme) determined in hindsight. The resulting "universal portfolio" compounds its money at the same asymptotic rate as the best rebalancing rule in hindsight, thereby beating the market asymptotically under extremely general conditions. Smitten with this (1998) result, the present paper solves the most general tractable version of Cover and Ordentlich's (1998) max-min game. This obtains for performance benchmarks (read: derivatives) that are separately convex and homogeneous in each period's gross-return vector. For completely arbitrary (even non-measurable) performance benchmarks, we show how the axiom of choice can be used to "find" an exact maximin strategy for the trader.
This paper prices and replicates the financial derivative whose payoff at $T$ is the wealth that would have accrued to a $\$1$ deposit into the best continuously-rebalanced portfolio (or fixed-fraction betting scheme) determined in hindsight. For the single-stock Black-Scholes market, Ordentlich and Cover (1998) only priced this derivative at time-0, giving $C_0=1+σ\sqrt{T/(2π)}$. Of course, the general time-$t$ price is not equal to $1+σ\sqrt{(T-t)/(2π)}$. I complete the Ordentlich-Cover (1998) analysis by deriving the price at any time $t$. By contrast, I also study the more natural case of the best levered rebalancing rule in hindsight. This yields $C(S,t)=\sqrt{T/t}\cdot\,\exp\{rt+σ^2b(S,t)^2\cdot t/2\}$, where $b(S,t)$ is the best rebalancing rule in hindsight over the observed history $[0,t]$. I show that the replicating strategy amounts to betting the fraction $b(S,t)$ of wealth on the stock over the interval $[t,t+dt].$ This fact holds for the general market with $n$ correlated stocks in geometric Brownian motion: we get $C(S,t)=(T/t)^{n/2}\exp(rt+b'Σb\cdot t/2)$, where $Σ$ is the covariance of instantaneous returns per unit time. This result matches the $\mathcal{O}(T^{n/2})$ "cost of universality" derived by Cover in his "universal portfolio theory" (1986, 1991, 1996, 1998), which super-replicates the same derivative in discrete-time. The replicating strategy compounds its money at the same asymptotic rate as the best levered rebalancing rule in hindsight, thereby beating the market asymptotically. Naturally enough, we find that the American-style version of Cover's Derivative is never exercised early in equilibrium.
A "statistician" takes an action on behalf of an agent, based on the agent's self-reported personal data and a sample involving other people. The action that he takes is an estimated function of the agent's report. The estimation procedure involves model selection. We ask the following question: Is truth-telling optimal for the agent given the statistician's procedure? We analyze this question in the context of a simple example that highlights the role of model selection. We suggest that our simple exercise may have implications for the broader issue of human interaction with "machine learning" algorithms.
Healthy nutrition promotions and regulations have long been regarded as a tool for increasing social welfare. One of the avenues taken in the past decade is sugar consumption regulation by introducing a sugar tax. Such a tax increases the price of extensive sugar containment in products such as soft drinks. In this article we consider a typical problem of optimal regulatory policy design, where the task is to determine the sugar tax rate maximizing the social welfare. We model the problem as a sequential game represented by the three-level mathematical program. On the upper level, the government decides upon the tax rate. On the middle level, producers decide on the product pricing. On the lower level, consumers decide upon their preferences towards the products. While the general problem is computationally intractable, the problem with a few product types is polynomially solvable, even for an arbitrary number of heterogeneous consumers. This paper presents a simple, intuitive and easily implementable framework for computing optimal sugar tax in a market with a few products. This resembles the reality as the soft drinks, for instance, are typically categorized in either regular or no-sugar drinks, e.g. Coca-Cola and Coca-Cola Zero. We illustrate the algorithm using an example based on the real data and draw conclusions for a specific local market.
We develop an equilibrium theory of attention and politics. In a spatial model of electoral competition where candidates have varying policy preferences, we examine what kinds of political behaviors capture voters' limited attention and how this concern affects the overall political outcomes. Following the seminal works of Downs (1957) and Sims (1998), we assume that voters are rationally inattentive and can process information about the policies at a cost proportional to entropy reduction. The main finding is an equilibrium phenomenon called attention- and media-driven extremism, namely as we increase the attention cost or garble the news technology, a truncated set of the equilibria captures voters' attention through enlarging the policy differentials between the varying types of the candidates. We supplement our analysis with historical accounts, and discuss its relevance in the new era featured with greater media choices and distractions, as well as the rise of partisan media and fake news.
Recent technology advances have enabled firms to flexibly process and analyze sophisticated employee performance data at a reduced and yet significant cost. We develop a theory of optimal incentive contracting where the monitoring technology that governs the above procedure is part of the designer's strategic planning. In otherwise standard principal-agent models with moral hazard, we allow the principal to partition agents' performance data into any finite categories and to pay for the amount of information the output signal carries. Through analysis of the trade-off between giving incentives to agents and saving the monitoring cost, we obtain characterizations of optimal monitoring technologies such as information aggregation, strict MLRP, likelihood ratio-convex performance classification, group evaluation in response to rising monitoring costs, and assessing multiple task performances according to agents' endogenous tendencies to shirk. We examine the implications of these results for workforce management and firms' internal organizations.
We examine problems of ``intermediated implementation,'' in which a single principal can only regulate limited aspects of the consumption bundles traded between intermediaries and agents with hidden characteristics. An example is sales, in which retailers offer menus of consumption bundles to customers with hidden tastes, whereas a manufacturer with a potentially different goal from retailers' is limited to regulating sold consumption goods but not retail prices by legal barriers. We study how the principal can implement through intermediaries any social choice rule that is incentive compatible and individually rational for agents. We demonstrate the effectiveness of per-unit fee schedules and distribution regulations, which hinges on whether intermediaries have private or interdependent values. We give further applications to healthcare regulation and income redistribution.
This paper corrects some mathematical errors in Holmström (1999) and clarifies the assumptions that are sufficient for the results of Holmström (1999). The results remain qualitatively the same.
May's Theorem (1952), a celebrated result in social choice, provides the foundation for majority rule. May's crucial assumption of symmetry, often thought of as a procedural equity requirement, is violated by many choice procedures that grant voters identical roles. We show that a weakening of May's symmetry assumption allows for a far richer set of rules that still treat voters equally. We show that such rules can have minimal winning coalitions comprising a vanishing fraction of the population, but not less than the square root of the population size. Methodologically, we introduce techniques from group theory and illustrate their usefulness for the analysis of social choice questions.
This paper studies a robust version of the classic surplus extraction problem, in which the designer knows only that the beliefs of each type belong to some set, and designs mechanisms that are suitable for all possible beliefs in that set. We derive necessary and sufficient conditions for full extraction in this setting, and show that these are natural set-valued analogues of the classic convex independence condition identified by Cremer and McLean (1985, 1988). We show that full extraction is neither generically possible nor generically impossible, in contrast to the standard setting in which full extraction is generic. When full extraction fails, we show that natural additional conditions can restrict both the nature of the contracts a designer can offer and the surplus the designer can obtain.
We characterize three interrelated concepts in epistemic game theory: permissibility, proper rationalizability, and iterated admissibility. We define the lexicographic epistemic model for a game with incomplete information. Based on it, we give two groups of characterizations. The first group characterizes permissibility and proper rationalizability. The second group characterizes permissibility in an alternative way and iterated admissibility. In each group, the conditions for the latter are stronger than those for the former, which corresponds to the fact that proper rationalizability and iterated admissibility are two (compatible) refinements of permissibility within the complete information framework. The intrinsic difference between the two groups are the role of rationality: the first group does not need it, while the second group does.