We examine the classic "Beer-Quiche" game from Cho and Kreps (1987), and relax the assumption that the order placed by the sender is completely observable. Under the optimal degree of transparency, the receiver achieves a higher payoff than with full transparency. Partial obfuscation of the sender's choice encourages separation: committing to a less informative signal about the sender's choice affects the endogenous information generation process such that the receiver thereby secures himself more information.
Asriyan, Fuchs, and Green (2017) @cite_2 explores a similar problem. In their model, the @math sellers have an indivisible asset which value is private information, and have two periods in which they may trade it. In the portion of the paper relevant to this one, they ask how a planner should disclose trade behavior to maximize social welfare". As these authors note, persuasion is not the only objective, since the information policy affects the information content of trading, and hence affects trading itself.
@cite_2
1964975266 2149247676 2021361030 2482076478
We study selling one indivisible object to multiple potential buyers. Depending on the objective of the seller, different selling mechanisms are desirable. The Vickrey auction with a truthful reserve price is optimal when the objective is efficiency (i.e., allocating the object to the party who values it the most). The Myerson auction is optimal when the objective is the seller's expected utility. These two objectives are generally in conflict, and cannot be maximized with one mechanism. In many real-world settings---such as privatization and competing electronic marketplaces---it is not clear that the objective should be either efficiency or seller's expected utility. Typically, one of these objectives should weigh more than the other, but both are important. We account for importance of both objectives by designing a new deterministic auction mechanism that maximizes expected social welfare subject to a minimum constraint on the seller's expected utility. This way the seller can expect to do well enough for himself, while maintaining the attractive properties of the mechanism. We study a novel mechanism design model in which agents each arrive sequentially and choose one action from a set of actions with unknown rewards. The information revealed by the principal affects the incentives of the agents to explore and generate new information. We characterize the optimal disclosure policy of a planner whose goal is to maximize social welfare. One interpretation of our result is the implementation of what is known as the "wisdom of the crowd." This topic has become increasingly relevant with the rapid spread of the Internet over the past decade. We study a combinatorial market design problem, where a collection of indivisible objects is to be priced and sold to potential buyers subject to equilibrium constraints. The classic solution concept for such problems is Walrasian Equilibrium (WE), which provides a simple and transparent pricing structure that achieves optimal social welfare. The main weakness of the WE notion is that it exists only in very restrictive cases. To overcome this limitation, we introduce the notion of a Combinatorial Walrasian equilibium (CWE), a natural relaxation of WE. The difference between a CWE and a (non-combinatorial) WE is that the seller can package the items into indivisible bundles prior to sale, and the market does not necessarily clear. We show that every valuation profile admits a CWE that obtains at least half of the optimal (unconstrained) social welfare. Moreover, we devise a poly-time algorithm that, given an arbitrary allocation X, computes a CWE that achieves at least half of the welfare of X. Thus, the economic problem of finding a CWE with high social welfare reduces to the algorithmic problem of social-welfare approximation. In addition, we show that every valuation profile admits a CWE that extracts a logarithmic fraction of the optimal welfare as revenue. Finally, these results are complemented by strong lower bounds when the seller is restricted to using item prices only, which motivates the use of bundles. The strength of our results derives partly from their generality --- our results hold for arbitrary valuations that may exhibit complex combinations of substitutes and complements. In a combinatorial auction with item bidding, agents participate in multiple single-item second-price auctions at once. As some items might be substitutes, agents need to strategize in order to maximize their utilities. A number of results indicate that high welfare can be achieved this way, giving bounds on the welfare at equilibrium. Recently, however, criticism has been raised that equilibria are hard to compute and therefore unlikely to be attained. In this paper, we take a different perspective. We study simple best-response dynamics. That is, agents are activated one after the other and each activated agent updates his strategy myopically to a best response against the other agents' current strategies. Often these dynamics may take exponentially long before they converge or they may not converge at all. However, as we show, convergence is not even necessary for good welfare guarantees. Given that agents' bid updates are aggressive enough but not too aggressive, the game will remain in states of good welfare after each agent has updated his bid at least once. In more detail, we show that if agents have fractionally subadditive valuations, natural dynamics reach and remain in a state that provides a @math approximation to the optimal welfare after each agent has updated his bid at least once. For subadditive valuations, we can guarantee an @math approximation in case of @math items that applies after each agent has updated his bid at least once and at any point after that. The latter bound is complemented by a negative result, showing that no kind of best-response dynamics can guarantee more than an @math fraction of the optimal social welfare.