Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Leakage-Robust Bayesian Persuasion

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Private persuasion's advantage collapses after Θ(log n) leaked signals, with worst-case cost Θ(min{2^k,n}) for supermodular utilities and Θ(k) for submodular ones.

desk verdict The worst-case robustness results are the real contribution and they hold up; the expected-downstream-utility half has a definitional gap that leaves the Θ(k) claims for k-broadcast and k-clique unsupported as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16624 v2 pith:L4C7QTT4 submitted 2024-11-25 cs.GT cs.DScs.MA

Nika Haghtalab , Mingda Qiao , Kunhe Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GTcs.DScs.MA MSC 91A2691B06
keywords Bayesianpersuasionsignalleakageprivatepublicpriceofrobustnesssubsamplingmaskingsubmodularutilities
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces a middle ground between private and public Bayesian persuasion: a sender's private signals may leak to other receivers. It asks how much sender utility must be sacrificed to stay persuasive when each receiver sees up to k leaked signals, and what happens to utility when leakages are random and receivers simply best-respond. The paper claims that under worst-case leakages the price of robustness is exponential in k (up to n) for supermodular sender utilities, and linear in k for submodular/XOS utilities, so that Θ(log n) leaks suffice to wipe out private persuasion's advantage. Under random leakage patterns, it claims the price shrinks to constant for star-shaped leaks and to linear for broadcast and clique leaks. The constructive engine is a pair of generic transformations—subsampling and masking—that convert optimal private schemes into leakage-robust ones.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is the linear-program characterization of k-worst-case persuasiveness, whose constraints require that for every receiver and every ≤k-signal leakage pattern, the probability mass of the recommended adoption under state ω0 does not exceed θ_i times the corresponding mass under state ω1. On top of this LP, the paper builds subsampling transformations: for supermodular utilities, replace the all-ones state-ω1 signal by independent 1/2-per-coordinate sampling, and scale the state-ω0 distribution by $2^{{-(k+1)}}$; for submodular/XOS utilities, subsample at rate 1/k and also subsample the ω0 draws, preserving utility by the XOS inequality. For expected downstream utility, masking removes or matches randomness in the signals most likely to be leaked, so that typical leakage patterns reveal nothing that changes any receiver's action.

What would settle it

On the n=3 leakage-cycle instance of Appendix F, optimize expected downstream utility over all signal spaces and all direct (size-2) spaces: if a size-3 scheme attains 9/4 while every size-2 scheme attains at most 17/8, then any PoDR claim proved only for direct schemes fails for the unrestricted OPT_expected(G).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the optimal private persuasion scheme is maximally brittle: a single leaked 0-signal can reveal the state and collapse utility, because under the optimal scheme state ω1 always sends 1 to everyone. To fix this, the paper defines k-worst-case persuasive schemes and shows that subsampling the all-ones signal at rate 1/2 yields a scheme that is k-worst-case persuasive while retaining a $2^{{-(k+1)}}$ fraction of state-ω0 utility. This yields PoWR_k ≤ O(2^k) for all utility functions; a tight Ω(min{2^k,n}) lower bound is proved on a supermodular instance with exponentially declining persuasion levels, and a tighter O(k) upper bound follows for submodular and XOS utilities via subsampling at rate 1/k. For expected downstream utility under specific random leakage distributions, masking schemes give PoDR = O(1) for k-star, Θ(k) for k-broadcast, and Θ~(k) for k-clique (with lower bounds only against prefix-based schemes). The paper also shows that restricting to direct (recommendation) signaling schemes is not WLOG once leakages matter: an indirect scheme with a larger signal alphabet can strictly beat every direct scheme.

Load-bearing premise

The expected-downstream-utility bounds assume the sender uses direct recommendation signals; the paper itself shows an indirect scheme can beat every direct scheme on a small leakage instance, so if the formal optimum is over all signal spaces those bounds may not constrain it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the tight bounds are correct, any private persuasion scheme with supermodular sender preferences must lose a factor of roughly 2^k in worst-case utility to survive k leaks; no scheme can do better.
  • For submodular or XOS preferences, robustness is cheap: the price of worst-case robustness is only linear in k, so the same schemes tolerate many more leaks at moderate cost.
  • The Θ(log n) threshold means the power of private over public signaling evaporates after a logarithmic number of adversarial leaks in the worst case.
  • In the k-star leakage model, random leakages cost only a constant factor, so a sender can effectively ignore them and still keep a constant fraction of the private optimum.
  • The masking/subsampling constructions are generic: they take any optimal private scheme and output a leakage-robust one, so the algorithmic paradigm transfers to any instance with the same utility structure.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the logarithmic threshold transfers to real settings, mechanism designers should treat the first ~log n leaks as the dangerous ones and concentrate robustness budgets there, matching the exponential-to-linear phase transition.
  • The direct-vs-indirect gap suggests a parallel with privacy amplification: allowing larger signal alphabets restores some of the lost utility, a direction the paper leaves open; one could test whether constant-size alphabets suffice for constant-factor approximation.
  • The k-clique and k-broadcast lower bounds hold only against prefix-based schemes; a natural next step is to check whether non-prefix or indirect schemes beat those lower bounds, which would change the Table 1 entries.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a model of Bayesian persuasion with signal leakages, interpolating between private and public persuasion. Two robustness notions are studied: k-worst-case persuasiveness, where each receiver may observe up to k leaked signals and adopters must not deviate, and expected downstream utility robustness, where the leakage graph is random and receivers best respond to their observations. The main results are: (i) for worst-case robustness, the price of robustness PoWR_k is Θ(min{2^k,n}) for supermodular sender utilities and Θ(k) for submodular/XOS utilities, with constructive subsampling schemes and matching lower-bound instances; (ii) for expected downstream utility, the price PoDR is O(1) for the k-star model, O(k) or Θ(k) for k-broadcast and k-clique, and O(min{2^k,n}) for k-Erdős–Rényi leakages, with lower bounds for k-broadcast and k-clique proved only for prefix-based schemes. The paper also shows that subsampling and masking are general-purpose algorithmic paradigms for leakage-robust persuasion, and discusses the absence of a revelation principle in the expected-utility setting, including a small instance where indirect schemes outperform direct schemes.

Significance. If the downstream-utility claims can be brought fully in line with the defined benchmark, this will be a valuable contribution to algorithmic Bayesian persuasion. The worst-case results are the strongest part of the paper: the LP characterization in Section 3, the subsampling constructions (Lemmas 3.2 and 3.4), and the matching lower bounds in Section 4 are concrete, rigorous, and provide a genuine new understanding of the cost of worst-case leakage robustness. The k-star Θ(1) expected-utility result and the O(k) upper bounds are also useful and are established by explicit feasible schemes, so those directions are on solid ground. The paper's main weakness is that several advertised downstream lower bounds are proved only against a restricted class (prefix-based schemes), while the benchmark OPT_expected is defined over all signaling schemes; Appendix F shows the direct/indirect distinction is not benign. This is a correctness risk for one of the central advertised contributions, but it is fixable by either extending the proofs or explicitly scoping the claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.3, Theorems 4.4 and 4.6, Table 1] OPT_expected(G) in Section 2.3 is defined as a supremum over all signaling schemes µ, with no restriction to direct or prefix-based schemes. The lower bounds in Theorems 4.4 and 4.6, however, upper-bound the sender's expected utility only over prefix-based schemes (Definition 4.1), and Appendix F gives an instance in which an indirect scheme strictly outperforms every two-signal scheme. Consequently, the paper does not establish PoDR(k-broadcast) = Ω(k) or PoDR(k-clique) = Ω(k/log k) for the quantity OPT_expected defined in Section 2.3; the entries marked '†' in Table 1 and the abstract's unqualified 'becoming Θ(k)' statements for downstream utility are supported only against a restricted benchmark. Please either prove these lower bounds for all signaling schemes, or redefine the benchmark and prominently qualify the claims as applying to prefix-based schemes only.
  2. [Section 2.2, Definition 2.1, Section 5] The paper notes in Section 2.2 (footnote 4) that restricting to direct signaling schemes is not without loss of generality once leakages are present, and Appendix F demonstrates such a loss for the expected-utility objective. Yet OPT_persuasive_k in Definition 2.1 is defined only over direct schemes, and the lower bounds in Theorems 4.2 and 4.3 bound the sender's utility only within this class. Since the abstract presents PoWR_k as a property of the model rather than of direct schemes, please either establish a revelation principle for k-worst-case persuasiveness (showing that indirect schemes cannot improve OPT_persuasive_k), or explicitly scope the PoWR results to direct schemes and comment on the possible gap to unrestricted schemes.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract says 'Θ(log k) leakages are sufficient' in the discussion of the phase transition; the body (Section 1.1) and the result itself indicate that the intended quantity is Θ(log n), not Θ(log k). Please correct this.
  2. [Abstract and Section 1.1] The abstract introduces the notation PoRU for the price of downstream robustness, while the rest of the paper uses PoDR. Please unify the notation.
  3. [Appendix D.1, proof of Lemma 3.6] In the proof of Lemma 3.6, after establishing V ∩ [i, i+⌊n/k⌋] = ∅, the text says the leaked signals 'are all 0'. This is not literally true for indices v < i, whose signals are 1 under both µ0 and µ1. The argument still works because such leaked signals are uninformative: their value is constant across all relevant signal realizations. Please rephrase to avoid the inaccurate statement.
  4. [Appendix F.2] The claim that no size-2 signal scheme can achieve the optimal private utility of 9/4 is reported as 'verified by an exhaustive search on a computer'. Since this separation is used to argue that the direct-scheme restriction is lossy, please provide a formal proof or a verifiable certificate, or explicitly state that this part is a computational finding rather than a theorem.
  5. [Section 5] In the discussion of direct vs indirect schemes, the paper states that indirect schemes can be strictly better than direct ones, citing Appendix F. Given the computational nature of the two-signal lower bound, please clarify the status of this claim as either a formal theorem or a computational observation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main proofs build on the external AB19 characterization and self-contained constructions; the prefix-based lower-bound scope is a correctness limitation, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. The structural facts about optimal private persuasion are taken from Arieli and Babichenko [AB19], which is prior independent work and is not authored by any of the present authors. The paper's own constructions (Lemmas 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.8 and the lower-bound instances in Examples 4.1, 4.5, 4.7, 4.9) are explicit and do not redefine the target quantities in terms of themselves. The subsampling rates, masking cutoffs, and constants such as gamma = 1/2, gamma = 1/k, c0 = c1 = 1/2, and m = floor(alpha n) + 1 are chosen parameters of constructions, not fitted to the theorem statements. The only self-citation is [YZ24] by coauthor Kunhe Yang, and it appears only in the related-work discussion in Appendix A; no theorem from that paper is invoked as evidence for a result. The claimed degeneracy and price bounds are supported by proofs rather than by importing a uniqueness theorem from the authors' earlier work. The flagged limitation in the skeptical analysis is real but is not circularity: OPT_expected(G) is defined in Section 2.3 as a supremum over all signaling schemes, while the lower bounds in Theorems 4.4 and 4.6 are proved only for prefix-based schemes per Definition 4.1, and Table 1 marks this with the dagger footnote. Appendix F further shows that indirect schemes can strictly outperform two-signal direct schemes, so the prefix-based restriction is not known to be without loss of generality. This means the unqualified Theta(k) downstream-utility claims are not fully established for the defined benchmark, but that is a correctness or scope gap, not a reduction of the result to its own assumptions. Therefore the circularity score is low; the derivation chain itself does not smuggle in its conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard AB19 characterization of private persuasion, standard linear-programming and probability tools, and the model's domain assumptions. The only ad hoc-to-paper item is the unstated restriction of the downstream-utility benchmark to direct schemes, which the paper itself complicates in Appendix F. There are no fitted parameters; the hand-chosen constants in the constructions affect only constant factors.

free parameters (3)
  • subsampling rate gamma (general-rate scheme, Lemma 3.4) = gamma = 1/k
    Chosen by hand to make (1-gamma)^k gamma = Omega(1/k). Any gamma = Theta(1/k) yields the same asymptotic price O(k), so the constant choice is not load-bearing.
  • subsampling rate gamma (rate-1/2 scheme, Lemma 3.2) = gamma = 1/2
    Chosen so the right-hand side of the persuasion constraint is uniformly at least 2^{-(k+1)} across all leakage patterns; any constant gamma in (0,1) changes the exponential base but not the O(2^k) bound.
  • masking constants c0, c1 and group sizes alpha, beta, gamma (Lemma 3.8, Theorem 3.9) = c0=c1=1/2; alpha=beta=sqrt(2)-1, gamma=3-2*sqrt(2)
    Hand-picked to make the constant-probability preservation argument in PoDR(k-star) work; affects only the constant factor (at most 17), not the O(1) asymptotic result.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Binary state space Omega={omega0,omega1}, binary actions, threshold best responses (Equation 1) with persuasion levels theta_i
    Model defined in Section 2.1; all results are within this model.
  • domain assumption Sender utility V is monotone and V(empty)=0
    Section 2.1; used to argue that leakages that do not shrink the adopter set cannot hurt and for the wlog replacement of mu_1* by the point mass on N.
  • domain assumption AB19 characterization of the optimal private scheme: mu_1* concentrates on N and mu_0* is supported on prefixes with masses theta_i minus theta_{i+1}
    Used in Theorems 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 4.2, and 4.4; borrowed from prior literature [AB19], not re-proved here.
  • domain assumption Revelation principle for private persuasion, so direct signal spaces are without loss of generality
    Section 2.1, cited to [BM16]; valid for the private setting but later shown in Appendix F to fail for expected downstream utility.
  • standard math Submodular functions are a subclass of XOS (fractionally subadditive) functions
    Used in the proof of Lemma C.1, citing Nisan (2000) and Lehmann, Lehmann, Nisan (2001).
  • ad hoc to paper For the expected-downstream-utility results, OPT_expected(G) is analyzed only over direct signaling schemes
    The formal definition in Section 2.3 does not state this restriction, yet Theorems 3.7, 3.9, and Propositions D.1 and D.2 construct only direct schemes; Appendix F shows indirect schemes can be strictly better, so this scope restriction is load-bearing for the PoDR claims as stated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Leakage-Robust Bayesian Persuasion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L4C7QTT4

@misc{pith2026241116624,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Leakage-Robust Bayesian Persuasion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L4C7QTT4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16624}
}
abstract

This paper introduces leakage-robust Bayesian persuasion. Situated between public Bayesian persuasion [KG11] (and its multi-receiver variants [CCG23, Xu20]) and private Bayesian persuasion [AB19], it considers settings where one or more signals sent privately by a sender to receivers may be leaked. We design leakage-robust Bayesian persuasion schemes and quantify the price of robustness using two formalisms: - The first notion, $k$-worst-case persuasiveness, requires a signaling scheme to remain persuasive whenever each receiver observes at most $k$ leaked signals from other receivers. Relative to optimal private persuasion, the Price of Robust Persuasiveness ($\mathsf{PoRP}_k$) is $\Theta(\min{2^k,n})$ for supermodular sender utilities and $\Theta(k)$ for submodular or XOS sender utilities, where $n$ is the number of receivers. In some instances, $\Theta(\log k)$ leakages are sufficient for the utility of the optimal leakage-robust persuasion to degenerate to that of public persuasion. - The second notion, expected downstream utility robustness, relaxes the persuasiveness requirement and instead analyzes sender's utility when receivers best respond to their observations. We quantify the Price of Robust Downstream Utility ($\mathsf{PoRU}$) as the gap between the expected sender utility over the randomness in the leakage pattern as compared to private persuasion. For several natural and structured distributions of leakage patterns, we show that $\mathsf{PoRU}$ improves on $\mathsf{PoRP}$, becoming $\Theta(k)$ or even $\Theta(1)$, where $k$ is the maximum number of leaked signals observable to each receiver across leakage patterns in the distribution. En route to these results, we show that subsampling and masking serve as general-purpose algorithmic paradigms for transforming private persuasion schemes into leakage-robust schemes, with minmax-optimal loss in sender utility.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Information Design for Adaptive Organizations

    econ.TH 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a quadratic Bayesian persuasion model with network coordination, the optimal public signal always discloses the average state and, under a uniform synergy graph, discloses Laplacian-eigenvector statistics passing a...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Private bayesian persuasion

    Itai Arieli and Yakov Babichenko. Private bayesian persuasion. Journal of Economic Theory , 182:185--217, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Persuading voters

    Ricardo Alonso and Odilon C \^a mara. Persuading voters. American Economic Review , 106(11):3590--3605, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Computational Aspects of Private Bayesian Persuasion

    Yakov Babichenko and Siddharth Barman. Computational aspects of private bayesian persuasion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.01444 , 2016

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Algorithmic aspects of private Bayesian persuasion

    Yakov Babichenko and Siddharth Barman. Algorithmic aspects of private Bayesian persuasion. In Proceedings of the 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS) , 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    The limits of price discrimination

    Dirk Bergemann, Benjamin Brooks, and Stephen Morris. The limits of price discrimination. American Economic Review , 105(3):921--957, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Hardness results for signaling in Bayesian zero-sum and network routing games

    Umang Bhaskar, Yu Cheng, Young Kun Ko, and Chaitanya Swamy. Hardness results for signaling in Bayesian zero-sum and network routing games. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC) , pages 479--496, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Modes of persuasion toward unanimous consent

    Arjada Bardhi and Yingni Guo. Modes of persuasion toward unanimous consent. Theoretical Economics , 13(3):1111--1149, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Bayes correlated equilibrium and the comparison of information structures in games

    Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris. Bayes correlated equilibrium and the comparison of information structures in games. Theoretical Economics , 11(2):487--522, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Information design: A unified perspective

    Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris. Information design: A unified perspective. Journal of Economic Literature , 57(1):44--95, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Information structures in optimal auctions

    Dirk Bergemann and Martin Pesendorfer. Information structures in optimal auctions. Journal of economic theory , 137(1):580--609, 2007

    2007

  3. [11]

    Multi-channel bayesian persuasion

    Yakov Babichenko, Inbal Talgam-Cohen, Haifeng Xu, and Konstantin Zabarnyi. Multi-channel bayesian persuasion. In 13th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2022) . Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum f \"u r Informatik, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Regret-minimizing bayesian persuasion

    Yakov Babichenko, Inbal Talgam-Cohen, Haifeng Xu, and Konstantin Zabarnyi. Regret-minimizing bayesian persuasion. Games and Economic Behavior , 136:226--248, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Persuasion in networks: Public signals and k-cores

    Ozan Candogan. Persuasion in networks: Public signals and k-cores. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation , pages 133--134, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Mixture selection, mechanism design, and signaling

    Yu Cheng, Ho Yee Cheung, Shaddin Dughmi, Ehsan Emamjomeh-Zadeh, Li Han, and Shang-Hua Teng. Mixture selection, mechanism design, and signaling. In 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , pages 1426--1445. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    Public bayesian persuasion: being almost optimal and almost persuasive

    Matteo Castiglioni, Andrea Celli, and Nicola Gatti. Public bayesian persuasion: being almost optimal and almost persuasive. Algorithmica , 85(9):2885--2921, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Persuading voters in district-based elections

    Matteo Castiglioni and Nicola Gatti. Persuading voters in district-based elections. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 35, pages 5244--5251, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Mechanisms for a no-regret agent: Beyond the common prior

    Modibo K Camara, Jason D Hartline, and Aleck Johnsen. Mechanisms for a no-regret agent: Beyond the common prior. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) , pages 259--270. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Persuading a behavioral agent: Approximately best responding and learning

    Yiling Chen and Tao Lin. Persuading a behavioral agent: Approximately best responding and learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03719 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Efficient prior-free mechanisms for no-regret agents

    Natalie Collina, Aaron Roth, and Han Shao. Efficient prior-free mechanisms for no-regret agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07754 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Non-bayesian persuasion

    Geoffroy de Clippel and Xu Zhang. Non-bayesian persuasion. Journal of Political Economy , 130(10):2594--2642, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Preparing for the worst but hoping for the best: Robust (bayesian) persuasion

    Piotr Dworczak and Alessandro Pavan. Preparing for the worst but hoping for the best: Robust (bayesian) persuasion. Econometrica , 90(5):2017--2051, 2022

    2017

  14. [22]

    Algorithmic information structure design: a survey

    Shaddin Dughmi. Algorithmic information structure design: a survey. ACM SIGecom Exchanges , 15(2):2--24, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Algorithmic Bayesian persuasion

    Shaddin Dughmi and Haifeng Xu. Algorithmic Bayesian persuasion. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) , pages 412--425, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Algorithmic persuasion with no externalities

    Shaddin Dughmi and Haifeng Xu. Algorithmic persuasion with no externalities. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation , pages 351--368, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Persuasion on networks

    Georgy Egorov and Konstantin Sonin. Persuasion on networks. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Rationality-robust information design: Bayesian persuasion under quantal response

    Yiding Feng, Chien-Ju Ho, and Wei Tang. Rationality-robust information design: Bayesian persuasion under quantal response. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) , pages 501--546. SIAM, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Games with information constraints: seeds and spillovers

    Simone Galperti and Jacopo Perego. Games with information constraints: seeds and spillovers. Available at SSRN 3340090 , 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Robust persuasion of a privately informed receiver

    Ju Hu and Xi Weng. Robust persuasion of a privately informed receiver. Economic Theory , 72:909--953, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Bayesian persuasion

    Emir Kamenica and Matthew Gentzkow. Bayesian persuasion. American Economic Review , 101(6):2590--2615, 2011

    2011

  22. [30]

    Persuading sincere and strategic voters

    Toygar T Kerman, P Jean-Jacques Herings, and Dominik Karos. Persuading sincere and strategic voters. Journal of Public Economic Theory , 26(1):e12671, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Persuasion with unknown beliefs

    Svetlana Kosterina. Persuasion with unknown beliefs. Theoretical Economics , 17(3):1075--1107, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Kerman and Anastas P

    Toygar T. Kerman and Anastas P. Tenev. Pitfalls of information spillovers in persuasion. Available at SSRN 4641522 , 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Combinatorial auctions with decreasing marginal utilities

    Benny Lehmann, Daniel Lehmann, and Noam Nisan. Combinatorial auctions with decreasing marginal utilities. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM conference on Electronic Commerce , pages 18--28, 2001

    2001

  26. [34]

    On information design in games

    Laurent Mathevet, Jacopo Perego, and Ina Taneva. On information design in games. Journal of Political Economy , 128(4):1370--1404, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Organized information transmission

    Laurent Mathevet and Ina Taneva. Organized information transmission. 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Bidding and allocation in combinatorial auctions

    Noam Nisan. Bidding and allocation in combinatorial auctions. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce , pages 1--12, 2000

    2000

  29. [37]

    The power of signaling and its intrinsic connection to the price of anarchy

    Jamie Nachbar and Haifeng Xu. The power of signaling and its intrinsic connection to the price of anarchy. In Distributed Artificial Intelligence: Third International Conference, DAI 2021, Shanghai, China, December 17--18, 2021, Proceedings 3 , pages 1--20. Springer, 2022

    2021

  30. [38]

    Honest signaling in zero-sum games is hard, and lying is even harder

    Aviad Rubinstein. Honest signaling in zero-sum games is hard, and lying is even harder. In Proceedings of the 44th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP) . Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    Expert advice to a voting body

    Keith E Schnakenberg. Expert advice to a voting body. Journal of Economic Theory , 160:102--113, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Information design

    Ina Taneva. Information design. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics , 11(4):151--185, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Bayesian persuasion with multiple receivers

    Yun Wang. Bayesian persuasion with multiple receivers. Available at SSRN 2625399 , 2013

    2013

  34. [42]

    Signaling in bayesian stackelberg games

    Haifeng Xu, Rupert Freeman, Vincent Conitzer, Shaddin Dughmi, and Milind Tambe. Signaling in bayesian stackelberg games. In AAMAS , pages 150--158, 2016

    2016

  35. [43]

    Exploring information asymmetry in two-stage security games

    Haifeng Xu, Zinovi Rabinovich, Shaddin Dughmi, and Milind Tambe. Exploring information asymmetry in two-stage security games. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 29, 2015

    2015

  36. [44]

    On the tractability of public persuasion with no externalities

    Haifeng Xu. On the tractability of public persuasion with no externalities. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) , pages 2708--2727. SIAM, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    Computational aspects of bayesian persuasion under approximate best response

    Kunhe Yang and Hanrui Zhang. Computational aspects of bayesian persuasion under approximate best response. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07426 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.