pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.12328 · v2 · submitted 2025-08-17 · 💰 econ.TH

Dynamic Non-Bayesian Persuasion

Masanori Kobayashi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 23:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💰 econ.TH
keywords dynamic persuasionnon-Bayesian updatingdivisibilityinformation designsender-receiver gamesstatic vs dynamiccommitment to experiments
0
0 comments X

The pith

Divisibility of a receiver's updating rule determines when a sender gains nothing from dynamic rather than static persuasion.

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

The paper examines whether a sender benefits by releasing information through a sequence of experiments instead of a single one when the receiver updates beliefs in non-Bayesian ways. It shows that the sender can extract strictly more value from dynamic provision in some environments. The main result establishes that, under mild regularity conditions, the sender remains indifferent between the two approaches precisely when the receiver's updating rule is divisible. This makes static persuasion without loss of generality exactly for divisible rules.

Core claim

Under mild regularity conditions, divisibility characterizes the receiver's updating rules under which the sender is indifferent between static and dynamic persuasion in any environment. Consequently, restricting attention to static persuasion is without loss precisely under divisible updating rules.

What carries the argument

Divisibility of the receiver's updating rule, which ensures that splitting information across periods yields no extra value to the sender.

If this is right

  • For divisible updating rules the sender's optimal value equals the static value in every environment.
  • Non-divisible rules permit strict gains from dynamic persuasion in at least some environments.
  • The characterization applies across all environments meeting the regularity conditions.
  • Restricting analysis to static signals loses nothing only when receivers employ divisible rules.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Persuasion models could first check divisibility before assuming one-shot information suffices.
  • Common non-Bayesian rules might be classified by whether they allow dynamic gains or not.
  • Similar timing-indifference conditions could arise in mechanism design with non-standard belief updating.

Load-bearing premise

The sender can commit in advance to the joint distribution of any sequence of experiments and the receiver knows this commitment.

What would settle it

Identify a divisible updating rule in which the sender can strictly gain from some dynamic strategy in a concrete environment, or a non-divisible rule where the sender gains nothing from any dynamic strategy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.12328 by Masanori Kobayashi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Ex-ante value of the sender under one-shot non-Bayesian persuasion. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of Bayesian posterior beliefs under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Two-step persuasion harms sender under α = 0.5 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two-step persuasion benefits sender under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

If a sender in a persuasion game can use a sequence of experiments rather than a single experiment, does this change the sender's value? We show that the sender can benefit more from dynamic persuasion than from static persuasion when the receiver is not Bayesian. Our main result shows that, under mild regularity conditions, divisibility, introduced in Cripps (2018), characterizes the receiver's updating rules under which the sender is indifferent between static and dynamic persuasion in any environment. Consequently, restricting attention to static persuasion is without loss precisely under divisible updating rules.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper examines whether a sender in a persuasion setting can obtain a higher value by committing to a sequence of experiments (dynamic persuasion) rather than a single experiment (static persuasion) when the receiver follows a non-Bayesian updating rule. The central result is a characterization theorem: under mild regularity conditions on the updating rule (continuity and preservation of convex combinations), divisibility (as defined in Cripps 2018) is necessary and sufficient for the sender to be indifferent between static and dynamic persuasion in every environment. Consequently, restricting to static persuasion is without loss precisely when the updating rule is divisible.

Significance. If the result holds, it is a useful contribution to information design with behavioral receivers. The characterization cleanly separates cases in which dynamics add value from those in which they do not, and the proof is independent of the sender's specific payoff function. The bidirectional argument—one direction via preservation of the martingale property under sequential experiments for divisible rules, the other via explicit construction of a binary-state, two-action environment that yields strict improvement for any non-divisible rule—is a strength, as is the fact that the regularity conditions are used only to ensure feasibility of the constructed posteriors.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 4] The necessity direction (Section 4) constructs a specific binary-state, two-action receiver environment to produce strict improvement under non-divisible rules. While this suffices for the existential quantifier in 'any environment,' the argument should explicitly verify that the joint distribution of the sequence remains known to the receiver in advance and that the induced posterior sequence satisfies the continuity and convex-combination-preservation conditions for every prior in the support; otherwise the constructed counterexample may not be feasible under the stated regularity conditions.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Introduction] The abstract and introduction refer to 'mild regularity conditions' without listing them; these should be stated explicitly (e.g., as Assumptions 1 and 2) immediately before the main theorem so that readers can assess their restrictiveness without searching the text.
  2. Notation for the updating rule and the divisibility property is introduced via reference to Cripps (2018); a short self-contained definition or one-paragraph recap with a simple numerical illustration would improve accessibility for readers who have not recently consulted that paper.
  3. The paper would benefit from a brief numerical example (perhaps in an appendix) that computes the sender's value under both static and dynamic persuasion for a concrete non-divisible rule, making the strict improvement concrete rather than purely existential.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and the constructive comment on the necessity argument. We address the point below and will incorporate the suggested clarification in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section 4] The necessity direction (Section 4) constructs a specific binary-state, two-action receiver environment to produce strict improvement under non-divisible rules. While this suffices for the existential quantifier in 'any environment,' the argument should explicitly verify that the joint distribution of the sequence remains known to the receiver in advance and that the induced posterior sequence satisfies the continuity and convex-combination-preservation conditions for every prior in the support; otherwise the constructed counterexample may not be feasible under the stated regularity conditions.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit verification strengthens the exposition. In the revised manuscript we will insert a short paragraph immediately after the construction in Section 4. The added text will note that the sender commits to the entire sequence of experiments at the outset, so the joint distribution over signal realizations is known to the receiver in advance. It will further verify that the induced sequence of posteriors satisfies continuity and preservation of convex combinations for every prior in the support of the binary-state environment. These properties follow directly from the maintained regularity conditions on the updating rule together with the specific choice of the two-action, binary-state setting used to exploit non-divisibility. We thank the referee for highlighting this presentational improvement. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; characterization is self-contained

full rationale

The paper establishes a bidirectional characterization theorem: under the stated regularity conditions, divisibility of the receiver's updating rule (imported as an independent definition from Cripps 2018) is necessary and sufficient for the sender's value to be identical under static versus dynamic persuasion in every environment. One direction uses preservation of the martingale property under sequential experiments; the converse explicitly constructs a binary-state, two-action environment where any non-divisible rule permits a strict gain from dynamics. The regularity conditions (continuity and convex-combination preservation) serve only to ensure the constructed posteriors remain feasible and the value function is well-defined; they do not embed the target conclusion by definition or via fitted parameters. No load-bearing self-citation, self-definitional loop, or renaming of a known result occurs, so the derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on the definition of divisibility from Cripps (2018) and mild regularity conditions on updating rules; no free parameters or invented entities are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Divisibility of the receiver's updating rule (as defined in Cripps 2018)
    Invoked as the characterizing property that makes static and dynamic persuasion equivalent.
  • domain assumption Mild regularity conditions on updating rules
    Required for the main characterization result to hold in any environment.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5599 in / 1097 out tokens · 25763 ms · 2026-05-18T23:18:07.070744+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Learning to Persuade a Biased Receiver

    cs.GT 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A safe exploration algorithm learns an unknown receiver bias parameter in repeated information design and achieves O(log log T) regret with a matching lower bound.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Bayesian persuasion with heterogeneous priors,

    Alonso, R. and O. C ˆamara (2016): “Bayesian persuasion with heterogeneous priors,” Journal of Economic Theory , 165, 672–706

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Errors in probabilistic reasoning and judgment biases,

    Benjamin, D. J. (2019): “Errors in probabilistic reasoning and judgment biases,” Handbook of Behavioral Economics: Applications and Foundations 1 , 2, 69–186

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Information design: A unified perspective,

    Bergemann, D. and S. Morris (2019): “Information design: A unified perspective,” Journal of Economic Literature , 57, 44–95

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Non-Bayesian updating and value of information,

    Bordoli, D. (2024): “Non-Bayesian updating and value of information,” Working paper, Yale University

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Keeping the listener engaged: a dynamic model of bayesian persuasion,

    Che, Y.-K., K. Kim, and K. Mierendorff (2023): “Keeping the listener engaged: a dynamic model of bayesian persuasion,” Journal of Political Economy , 131, 1797–1844

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Divisible updating,

    Cripps, M. W. (2018): “Divisible updating,” Manuscript, UCL. De Bondt, W. F. and R. Thaler (1985): “Does the stock market overreact?” The Journal of finance, 40, 793–805. De Clippel, G. and X. Zhang (2022): “Non-bayesian persuasion,” Journal of Political Economy, 130, 2594–2642

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Dynamic information preference and communication with diminishing sensitivity over news,

    Duraj, J. and K. He (2024): “Dynamic information preference and communication with diminishing sensitivity over news,” Theoretical Economics, 19, 1057–1086

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Conservatism in human information processing,

    Edwards, W. (1968): “Conservatism in human information processing,” Formal represen- tation of human judgment

    work page 1968

  9. [9]

    Suspense and surprise,

    Ely, J., A. Frankel, and E. Kamenica (2015): “Suspense and surprise,” Journal of Political Economy, 123, 215–260

    work page 2015

  10. [10]

    Bayes rule as a descriptive model: The representativeness heuris- tic,

    Grether, D. M. (1980): “Bayes rule as a descriptive model: The representativeness heuris- tic,” The Quarterly journal of economics , 95, 537–557. H¨orner, J. and A. Skrzypacz (2016): “Selling information,” Journal of Political Econ- omy, 124, 1515–1562

    work page 1980

  11. [11]

    Coarse bayesian updating,

    Jakobsen, A. M. (2023): “Coarse bayesian updating,” Work. Pap., Northwest. Univ.,

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Bayesian persuasion,

    Kamenica, E. and M. Gentzkow (2011): “Bayesian persuasion,” American Economic Review, 101, 2590–2615

    work page 2011

  13. [13]

    Optimal information disclosure,

    Rayo, L. and I. Segal (2010): “Optimal information disclosure,” Journal of political Economy, 118, 949–987

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty

    Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1974): “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty.” science, 185, 1124–1131

    work page 1974

  15. [15]

    Blackwell-Monotone Updating Rules,

    Whitmeyer, M. (2024): “Blackwell-Monotone Updating Rules,” . 21

    work page 2024