Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2940716.2940781acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Persuasion with Limited Communication

Published: 21 July 2016 Publication History

Abstract

We examine information structure design, also called "persuasion" or "signaling," in the presence of a constraint on the amount of communication. We focus on the fundamental setting of bilateral trade, which in its simplest form involves a seller with a single item to price, a buyer whose value for the item is drawn from a common prior distribution over n different possible values, and a take-it-or-leave-it-offer protocol. A mediator with access to the buyer's type may partially reveal such information to the seller in order to further some objective such as the social welfare or the seller's revenue. We study how a limit on the number of bits of communication affects this setting in two respects: (1) How much does this constraint reduce the optimal welfare or revenue? (2) What effect does constraining communication have on the computational complexity of the mediator's optimization problem?
In the setting of maximizing welfare under bilateral trade, we exhibit positive answers for both questions (1) and (2). Whereas the optimal unconstrained scheme may involve n signals (and thus log(n) bits of communication), we show that O(log(n) log 1/ε) signals suffice for a 1--ε approximation to the optimal welfare, and this bound is tight. This largely justifies the design of algorithms for signaling subject to drastic limits on communication. As our main result, we exhibit an efficient algorithm for computing a M-1/M ⋅ (1--1/e)-approximation to the welfare-maximizing scheme with at most M signals. This result hinges on an intricate submodularity argument which relies on the optimality of a greedy algorithm for solving a certain linear program. For the revenue objective, the surprising logarithmic bound on the number of signals does not carry over: we show that Ω(n) signals are needed for a constant factor approximation to the revenue of a fully informed seller. From a computational perspective, however, the problem gets easier: we show that a simple dynamic program computes the signaling scheme with M signals maximizing the seller's revenue.
Observing that the signaling problem in bilateral trade is a special case of the fundamental Bayesian Persuasion model of Kamenica and Gentzkow, we also examine the question of communication-constrained signaling more generally. Specifically, in this model there is a sender (the mediator), a receiver (the seller) looking to take an action (setting the price), and a state of nature (the buyer's type) drawn from a common prior. The state of nature encodes both the receiver's utility and the sender's objective as a function of the receiver's action. Our results for bilateral trade with the revenue objective imply that limiting communication to M signals can scale the sender's utility by a factor of O(M/n) in general, where $n$ denotes the number of states of nature. We also show that our positive algorithmic results for bilateral trade do not extend to communication-constrained signaling in the Bayesian Persuasion model. Specifically, we show that it is NP-hard to approximate the optimal sender's utility to within any constant factor in the presence of communication constraints.

References

[1]
George A. Akerlof. 1970. The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 84, 3 (August 1970), 488--500.
[2]
Ricardo Alonso and Odilon Camara. 2014. Persuading Voters. (2014). Working Paper.
[3]
Dirk Bergemann, Benjamin Brooks, and Stephen Morris. 2015. The Limits of Price Discrimination. American Economic Review 105, 3 (2015), 921--957.
[4]
Liad Blumrosen and Michal Feldman. 2006. Implementation with a bounded action space. In Proc. 8th ACM Conf. on Electronic Commerce. ACM, 62--71.
[5]
Liad Blumrosen, Noam Nisan, and Ilya Segal. 2007. Auctions with severely bounded communication. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 28 (2007), 233--266.
[6]
Peter Bro Miltersen and Or Sheffet. 2012. Send mixed signals: Earn more, work less. In Proc. 14th ACM Conf. on Electronic Commerce. 234--247.
[7]
Isabelle Brocas and Juan D. Carrillo. 2007. Influence through ignorance. The RAND Journal of Economics 38, 4 (2007), 931--947. ISSN1756-2171
[8]
Yu Cheng, Ho Yee Cheung, Shaddin Dughmi, Ehsan Emamjomeh-Zadeh, Li Han, and Shang-Hua Teng. 2015. Mixture Selection, Mechanism Design, and Signaling. In Proc. 56th IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science. 1426--1445.
[9]
Shaddin Dughmi. 2014. On the Hardness of Signaling. In Proc. 55th IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science. 354--363.
[10]
Shaddin Dughmi, Nicole Immorlica, Ryan O'Donnell, and Li-Yang Tan. 2015. Algorithmic Signaling of Features in Auction Design. In Algorithmic Game Theory -- 8th International Symposium, SAGT 2015, Saarbrücken, Germany, September 28-30, 2015, Proceedings. 150--162.
[11]
Shaddin Dughmi, Nicole Immorlica, and Aaron Roth. 2014. Constrained Signaling in Auction Design. In Proc. 25th ACM-SIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms. 1341--1357.
[12]
Shaddin Dughmi and Haifeng Xu. 2016. Algorithmic Bayesian Persuasion. In Proc. 47th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing.
[13]
Yuval Emek, Michal Feldman, Iftah Gamzu, Renato Paes Leme, and Moshe Tennenholtz. 2012. Signaling Schemes for Revenue Maximization. In Proc. 14th ACM Conf. on Electronic Commerce. 514--531.
[14]
Wolfgang Gick and Thilo Pausch. 2012. Persuasion by stress testing: Optimal disclosure of supervisory information in the banking sector. (2012). Discussion Paper 32/2012, Deutsche Bundesbank.
[15]
Itay Goldstein and Yaron Leitner. 2013. Stress tests and information disclosure. (2013).\shownoteFRB of Philadelphia Working Paper.
[16]
Mingyu Guo and Argyrios Deligkas. 2013. Revenue Maximization via Hiding Item Attributes. In Proc. 28th Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence.
[17]
Emir Kamenica and Matthew Gentzkow. 2011. Bayesian Persuasion. American Economic Review 101, 6 (2011), 2590--2615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.6.2590
[18]
Anton Kolotilin. 2015. Experimental design to persuade. Games and Economic Behavior 90 (2015), 215--226.
[19]
Ilan Kremer, Yishay Mansour, and Motty Perry. 2014. Implementing the "Wisdom of the Crowd". Journal of Political Economy 122, 5 (2014), 988--1012.
[20]
Jonathan Levin and Paul Milgrom. 2010. Online advertising: Heterogeneity and conflation in market design. American Economic Review 100, 2 (2010), 603--607.
[21]
Yishay Mansour, Aleksandrs Slivkins, and Vasilis Syrgkanis. 2015. Bayesian Incentive-Compatible Bandit Exploration. In Proc. 17th ACM Conf. on Economics and Computation. 565--582.
[22]
Andreu Mas-Collel, Michael D. Whinston, and Jerry R. Green. 1995. Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press.
[23]
R. Myerson. 1981. Optimal Auction Design. Mathematics of Operations Research 6 (1981), 58--73.
[24]
George L. Nemhauser, Laurence A. Wolsey, and Marshall L. Fisher. 1978. An analysis of the approximations for maximizing submodular set functions. Mathematical Programming 14 (1978), 265--294.
[25]
A. Pigou. 1920. The Economics of Welfare. Macmillan.
[26]
Zinovi Rabinovich, Albert Xin Jiang, Manish Jain, and Haifeng Xu. 2015. Information Disclosure as a Means to Security. In Proc. 14th Intl. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 645--653.
[27]
Anne-Katrin Roesler and Balázs Szentes. 2016. Buyer-Optimal Learning and Monopoly Pricing. Technical Report. Mimeo, London School of Economics.
[28]
Haifeng Xu, Zinovi Rabinovich, Shaddin Dughmi, and Milind Tambe. 2015. Exploring Information Asymmetry in Two-Stage Security Games. In Proc. 30th AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. 1057--1063.
[29]
David Zuckerman. 2006. Linear degree extractors and the inapproximability of max clique and chromatic number. In Proc. 37th ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing. ACM, 681--690.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
EC '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
July 2016
874 pages
ISBN:9781450339360
DOI:10.1145/2940716
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 21 July 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. bayesian persuasion
  2. bilateral trade
  3. pricing
  4. signaling

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

EC '16
Sponsor:
EC '16: ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
July 24 - 28, 2016
Maastricht, The Netherlands

Acceptance Rates

EC '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 80 of 242 submissions, 33%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 664 of 2,389 submissions, 28%

Upcoming Conference

EC '25
The 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
July 7 - 11, 2025
Stanford , CA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)247
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)39
Reflects downloads up to 24 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Algorithmic Rulemaking vs. Algorithmic GuidanceSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.4784350Online publication date: 2024
  • (2024)Optimal Price Discrimination for Randomized MechanismsACM Transactions on Economics and Computation10.1145/365010712:2(1-37)Online publication date: 5-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Delegated Online SearchArtificial Intelligence10.1016/j.artint.2024.104171(104171)Online publication date: Jun-2024
  • (2024)Endogenous Threshold Selection with Two-Interval Restricted TestsTheory and Applications of Models of Computation10.1007/978-981-97-2340-9_7(75-85)Online publication date: 3-May-2024
  • (2023)Delegated online searchProceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.24963/ijcai.2023/281(2528-2536)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2023
  • (2022)Allocating Scarce InformationSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.4056799Online publication date: 2022
  • (2022)The Limits of an Information Intermediary in Auction DesignProceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation10.1145/3490486.3538370(849-868)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2022
  • (2022)Optimal Price Discrimination for Randomized MechanismsProceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation10.1145/3490486.3538335(477-496)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2022
  • (2022)Strategic Successive Refinement With Interdependent Decoders Cost FunctionsIEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory10.1109/JSAIT.2023.32456783:4(699-710)Online publication date: Dec-2022
  • (2022)The Power of Signaling and Its Intrinsic Connection to the Price of AnarchyDistributed Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-030-94662-3_1(1-20)Online publication date: 11-Jan-2022
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media