We study the use of Bayesian persuasion (i.e., strategic use of information disclosure signaling) in endogenous team formation. This is an important consideration in settings such as crowdsourcing competitions, open science challenges and group-based assignments, where a large number of agents organize themselves into small teams which then compete against each other. A central tension here is between the strategic interests of agents who want to have the highest-performing team, and that of the principal who wants teams to be balanced. Moreover, although the principal cannot choose the teams or modify rewards, she often has additional knowledge of agents' abilities, and can leverage this information asymmetry to provide signals that influence team formation. Our work uncovers the critical role of self-awareness (i.e., knowledge of one's own abilities) for the design of such mechanisms. For settings with two-member teams and binary-valued agents partitioned into a constant number of prior classes, we provide signaling mechanisms which are asymptotically optimal when agents are agnostic of their own abilities. On the other hand, when agents are self-aware, then we show that there is no signaling mechanism that can do better than not releasing information, while satisfying agent participation constraints.
Our work locates itself squarely within the framework of , a topic which has garnered much recent attention. We briefly summarize some of the main ideas of this topic below; for a more detailed survey of this literature, refer @cite_5 for a survey).
@cite_5
2122778642 1574877594 2157059852 1995326326
When we write or prepare to write a research paper, we always have appropriate references in mind. However, there are most likely references we have missed and should have been read and cited. As such a good citation recommendation system would not only improve our paper but, overall, the efficiency and quality of literature search. Usually, a citation's context contains explicit words explaining the citation. Using this, we propose a method that "translates" research papers into references. By considering the citations and their contexts from existing papers as parallel data written in two different "languages", we adopt the translation model to create a relationship between these two "vocabularies". Experiments on both CiteSeer and CiteULike dataset show that our approach outperforms other baseline methods and increase the precision, recall and f-measure by at least 5 to 10 , respectively. In addition, our approach runs much faster in the both training and recommending stage, which proves the effectiveness and the scalability of our work. In this paper, on the one hand, we aim to give a review on literature dealing with the problem of supervised learning aided by additional unlabeled data. On the other hand, being a part of the author's first year PhD report, the paper serves as a frame to bundle related work by the author as well as numerous suggestions for potential future work. Therefore, this work contains more speculative and partly subjective material than the reader might expect from a literature review. We give a rigorous definition of the problem and relate it to supervised and unsupervised learning. The crucial role of prior knowledge is put forward, and we discuss the important notion of input-dependent regularization. We postulate a number of baseline methods, being algorithms or algorithmic schemes which can more or less straightforwardly be applied to the problem, without the need for genuinely new concepts. However, some of them might serve as basis for a genuine method. In the literature review, we try to cover the wide variety of (recent) work and to classify this work into meaningful categories. We also mention work done on related problems and suggest some ideas towards synthesis. Finally, we discuss some caveats and tradeoffs of central importance to the problem. First of all, we would like to thank all the discussants for their interest and comments, as well as for their thorough investigation. The comments all underlie the importance and timeliness of the topics discussed in our paper, namely, accurate statistical estimation in high dimensions. We would also like to thank the editors for this opportunity to comment briefly on a few issues raised in the discussions. Of special interest is the diversity of perspectives, which include theoretical, practical and computational issues. With this being said, there are two main points in the discussions that are quite recurrent: 1. Is it possible to extend and refine our theoretical results, and how do they compare against the very recent literature? 2. How does the Dantzig Selector (DS) compare with the Lasso? We will address these issues in this rejoinder but before we begin, we would like to restate as simply as possible the main point of our paper and put this work in a broader context so as to avoid confusion about our point of view and motivations. We approach the problem of academic literature search by considering an unpublished manuscript as a query to a search system. We use the text of previous literature as well as the citation graph that connects it to find relevant related material. We evaluate our technique with manual and automatic evaluation methods, and find an order of magnitude improvement in mean average precision as compared to a text similarity baseline.