Economics

The Kolkata Paise Restaurant Problem is a challenging game, in which n agents must decide where to have lunch during their lunch break. The game is very interesting because there are exactly n restaurants and each restaurant can accommodate only one agent. If two or more agents happen to choose the same restaurant, only one gets served and the others have to return back to work hungry. In this paper we tackle this problem from an entirely new angle. We abolish certain implicit assumptions, which allows us to propose a novel strategy that results in greater utilization for the restaurants. We emphasize the spatially distributed nature of our approach, which, for the first time, perceives the locations of the restaurants as uniformly distributed in the entire city area. This critical change in perspective has profound ramifications in the topological layout of the restaurants, which now makes it completely realistic to assume that every agent has a second chance. Every agent now may visit, in case of failure, more than one restaurants, within the predefined time constraints.

Many firms, such as banks and insurers, condition their level of service on a consumer's perceived "quality," for instance their creditworthiness. Increasingly, firms have access to consumer segmentations derived from auxiliary data on behavior, and can link outcomes across individuals in a segment for prediction. How does this practice affect consumer incentives to exert (socially-valuable) effort, e.g. to repay loans? We show that the impact of an identified linkage on behavior and welfare depends crucially on the structure of the linkage---namely, whether the linkage reflects quality (via correlations in types) or a shared circumstance (via common shocks to observed outcomes).

The problem of finding a (continuous) utility function for a semiorder has been studied since in 1956 R.D. Luce introduced in \emph{Econometrica} the notion. There was almost no results on the continuity of the representation. A similar result to Debreu's Lemma, but for semiorders, was never achieved. Recently, some necessary conditions for the existence of a continuous representation as well as some conjectures were presented by A. Estevan. In the present paper we prove these conjectures, achieving the desired version of Debreu's Open Gap Lemma for bounded semiorders. This result allows to remove the open-closed and closed-open gaps of a subset S⊆R , but now keeping the constant threshold, so that x+1<y if and only if g(x)+1<g(y)(x,y∈S) . Therefore, the continuous representation (in the sense of Scott-Suppes) of bounded semiorders is characterized. These results are achieved thanks to the key notion of ϵ -continuity, which generalizes the idea of continuity for semiorders.

In this paper we characterize the niveloidal preferences that satisfy the Weak Order, Monotonicity, Archimedean, and Weak C-Independence Axioms from the point of view of an intra-personal, leader-follower game. We also show that the leader's strategy space can serve as an ambiguity aversion index.

Many real-world situations of ethical relevance, in particular those of large-scale social choice such as mitigating climate change, involve not only many agents whose decisions interact in complicated ways, but also various forms of uncertainty, including quantifiable risk and unquantifiable ambiguity. In such problems, an assessment of individual and groupwise moral responsibility for ethically undesired outcomes or their responsibility to avoid such is challenging and prone to the risk of under- or overdetermination of responsibility. In contrast to existing approaches based on strict causation or certain deontic logics that focus on a binary classification of `responsible' vs `not responsible', we here present several different quantitative responsibility metrics that assess responsibility degrees in units of probability. For this, we use a framework based on an adapted version of extensive-form game trees and an axiomatic approach that specifies a number of potentially desirable properties of such metrics, and then test the developed candidate metrics by their application to a number of paradigmatic social choice situations. We find that while most properties one might desire of such responsibility metrics can be fulfilled by some variant, an optimal metric that clearly outperforms others has yet to be found.

A proposer requires the approval of a veto player to change a status quo. Preferences are single peaked. Proposer is uncertain about Vetoer's ideal point. We study Proposer's optimal mechanism without transfers. Vetoer is given a menu, or a delegation set, to choose from. The optimal delegation set balances the extent of Proposer's compromise with the risk of a veto. Under reasonable conditions, "full delegation" is optimal: Vetoer can choose any action between the status quo and Proposer's ideal action. This outcome largely nullifies Proposer's bargaining power; Vetoer frequently obtains her ideal point, and there is Pareto efficiency despite asymmetric information. More generally, we identify when "interval delegation" is optimal. Optimal interval delegation can be a Pareto improvement over cheap talk. We derive comparative statics. Vetoer receives less discretion when preferences are more likely to be aligned, by contrast to expertise-based delegation. Methodologically, our analysis handles stochastic mechanisms.

We analyze the relative price change of assets starting from basic supply/demand considerations subject to arbitrary motivations. The resulting stochastic differential equation has coefficients that are functions of supply and demand. We derive these rigorously. The variance in the relative price change is then also dependent on the supply and demand, and is closely connected to the expected return. An important consequence for risk assessment and options pricing is the implication that variance is highest when the magnitude of price change is greatest, and lowest near market extrema. This occurs even if supply and demand are not dependent on price trend. The stochastic equation differs from the standard equation in mathematical finance in which the expected return and variance are decoupled. The methodology has implications for the basic framework for risk assessment, suggesting that volatility should be measured in the context of regimes of price change. The model we propose shows how investors are often misled by the apparent calm of markets near a market peak. Risk assessment methods utilizing volatility can be improved using this formulation.

Since 1950, India has been implementing the most comprehensive affirmative action program in the world. Vertical reservations are provided to members of historically discriminated Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). Horizontal reservations are provided for other disadvantaged groups, such as women and disabled people, within each vertical category. There is no well-defined procedure to implement horizontal reservations jointly with vertical reservation and OBC de-reservations. Sequential processes currently in use for OBC de-reservations and meritorious reserve candidates lead to severe shortcomings. Most importantly, indirect mechanisms currently used in practice do not allow reserve category applicants to fully express their preferences. To overcome these and other related issues, we design several different choice rules for institutions that take meritocracy, vertical and horizontal reservations, and OBC de-reservations into account. We propose a centralized mechanism to satisfactorily clear matching markets in India.

We study the problem of surplus extraction in the general environment of McAfee and Reny (1992), and provide two alternative proofs of their main theorem. The first is an analogue of the classic argument of Cr{\' e}mer and McLean (1985, 1988), using geometric features of the set of agents' beliefs to construct a menu of contracts extracting the desired surplus. This argument, which requires a finite state space, also leads to a counterexample showing that full extraction is not possible without further significant conditions on agents' beliefs or surplus, even if the designer offers an infinite menu of contracts. The second argument uses duality and applies for an infinite state space, thus yielding the general result of McAfee and Reny (1992). By providing a connection to duality, this argument suggests methods for studying surplus extraction in other models in which agents or the designer might have objectives other than risk-neutral value maximization.

We study a disclosure game with a large evidence space. There is an unknown binary state. A sender observes a sequence of binary signals about the state and discloses a left truncation of the sequence to a receiver in order to convince him that the state is good. We focus on truth-leaning equilibria (cf. Hart et al. (2017)), where the sender discloses truthfully when doing so is optimal, and the receiver takes off-path disclosure at face value. In equilibrium, seemingly sub-optimal truncations are disclosed, and the disclosure contains the longest truncation that yields the maximal difference between the number of good and bad signals. We also study a general framework of disclosure games which is compatible with large evidence spaces, a wide range of disclosure technologies, and finitely many states. We characterize the unique equilibrium value function of the sender and propose a method to construct equilibria for a broad class of games.