Yiling Chen

Safwan Hossain, Yiling Chen

We model real-world data markets, where sellers post fixed prices and buyers are free to purchase from any set of sellers, as a simultaneous game. A key component here is the negative externality buyers induce on one another due to data purchases. Starting with a simple setting where buyers know their valuations a priori, we characterize both the existence and welfare properties of the pure Nash equilibrium in the presence of such externality. While the outcomes are bleak without any intervention, mirroring the limitations of current data markets, we prove that for a standard class of externality functions, platforms intervening through a transaction cost can lead to a pure equilibrium with strong welfare guarantees. We next consider a more realistic setting where buyers learn their valuations over time through market interactions. Our intervention is feasible here as well, and we consider learning algorithms to achieve low regret concerning both individual and cumulative utility metrics. Lastly, we analyze the promises of this intervention under a much richer externality model.

Yiling Chen, Tao Lin, Wei Tang et al.

Optimal signaling schemes in information design (Bayesian persuasion) often involve randomization or disconnected partitions of state space, which might be too intricate to be audited or communicated. We propose explainable information design in the context of linear information design with a continuous state space. In the case of single-dimensional state, we restrict the information designer to use interval-partitional signaling schemes defined by deterministic and monotone partitions of the state space, where a unique signal is sent for all states in each part. We prove that the price of explainability (PoE) -- the ratio between the performances of the optimal explainable signaling scheme and unrestricted signaling scheme -- is exactly $1/2$ in the worst case, meaning that partitional signaling schemes are never worse than arbitrary signaling schemes by a factor of $2$. For a uniform prior, this PoE can be improved to a tight $2/3$. We then extend the analysis to multi-dimensional state spaces by studying two notions of explainability: convex-partitional policies and axis-aligned rectangular policies. We prove a tight PoE of $1/(m+1)$ for convex-partitional policies, while for rectangular policies we establish a PoE guarantee under uniform prior that is independent of the number of signals but unavoidably exponential in the dimension $m$. We also study the computational complexity of explainable information design, proving that the exactly optimal explainable policy is NP-hard to compute, but an explainable policy with $1/2$ approximation guarantee can be computed in polynomial time for piecewise Lipschitz utility functions.

Siddarth Srinivasan, Ezra Karger, Michiel Bakker et al.

Common sense suggests that when individuals explain why they believe something, we can arrive at more accurate conclusions than when they simply state what they believe. Yet, there is no known mechanism that provides incentives to elicit explanations for beliefs from agents. This likely stems from the fact that standard Bayesian models make assumptions (like conditional independence of signals) that preempt the need for explanations, in order to show efficient information aggregation. A natural justification for the value of explanations is that agents' beliefs tend to be drawn from overlapping sources of information, so agents' belief reports do not reveal all that needs to be known. Indeed, this work argues that rationales-explanations of an agent's private information-lead to more efficient aggregation by allowing agents to efficiently identify what information they share and what information is new. Building on this model of rationales, we present a novel 'deliberation mechanism' to elicit rationales from agents in which truthful reporting of beliefs and rationales is a perfect Bayesian equilibrium.

Yiling Chen, Alon Eden, Juntao Wang

In real life auctions, a widely observed phenomenon is the winner's curse -- the winner's high bid implies that the winner often over-estimates the value of the good for sale, resulting in an incurred negative utility. The seminal work of Eyster and Rabin [Econometrica'05] introduced a behavioral model aimed to explain this observed anomaly. We term agents who display this bias "cursed agents". We adopt their model in the interdependent value setting, and aim to devise mechanisms that prevent the cursed agents from obtaining negative utility. We design mechanisms that are cursed ex-post IC, that is, incentivize agents to bid their true signal even though they are cursed, while ensuring that the outcome is individually rational -- the price the agents pay is no more than the agents' true value. Since the agents might over-estimate the good's value, such mechanisms might require the seller to make positive transfers to the agents to prevent agents from over-paying. For revenue maximization, we give the optimal deterministic and anonymous mechanism. For welfare maximization, we require ex-post budget balance (EPBB), as positive transfers might lead to negative revenue. We propose a masking operation that takes any deterministic mechanism, and imposes that the seller would not make positive transfers, enforcing EPBB. We show that in typical settings, EPBB implies that the mechanism cannot make any positive transfers, implying that applying the masking operation on the fully efficient mechanism results in a socially optimal EPBB mechanism. This further implies that if the valuation function is the maximum of agents' signals, the optimal EPBB mechanism obtains zero welfare. In contrast, we show that for sum-concave valuations, which include weighted-sum valuations and l_p-norms, the welfare optimal EPBB mechanism obtains half of the optimal welfare as the number of agents grows large.

Andrew Mao, Hossein Azari Soufiani, Yiling Chen et al.

The well-studied problem of statistical rank aggregation has been applied to comparing sports teams, information retrieval, and most recently to data generated by human judgment. Such human-generated rankings may be substantially different from traditional statistical ranking data. In this work, we show that a recently proposed generalized random utility model reveals distinctive patterns in human judgment across three different domains, and provides a succinct representation of variance in both population preferences and imperfect perception. In contrast, we also show that classical statistical ranking models fail to capture important features from human-generated input. Our work motivates the use of more flexible ranking models for representing and describing the collective preferences or decision-making of human participants.