Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Ex-post Individually Rational Bayesian Persuasion

Jiahao Zhang, Shuran Zheng, Renato Paes Leme, Zhiwei Steven Wu

TL;DR

This paper introduces ex-post individually rational (ex-post IR) Bayesian persuasion, where signals must not decrease the sender's payoff relative to no disclosure after observing the state. It shows that ex-post IR constraints are linear and solvable via linear programming, and provides a geometric concave/ quasiconcave-closure view of optimal schemes. The authors prove no sender utility gap under ex-post IR for several nontrivial game classes, notably trading games and credence-market scenarios, and they compare ex-post IR with other credibility models, showing that ex-post IR and credible persuasion sit between standard Bayesian persuasion and cheap talk in terms of sender payoff. The results offer practical methods for designing robust signaling policies under credibility constraints and deepen our understanding of when commitment costs can be avoided while maintaining trust.

Abstract

In the Bayesian persuasion model, a sender can convince a receiver to choose an alternative action to the one originally preferred by the receiver. A crucial assumption in this model is the sender's commitment to a predetermined information disclosure policy (signaling scheme) and the receiver's trust in this commitment. However, in practice, it is difficult to monitor whether the sender adheres to the disclosure policy, and the receiver may refuse to follow the persuasion due to a lack of trust. Trust becomes particularly strained when the receiver knows that the sender will incur obvious losses when truthfully following the protocol. In this work, we propose the notion of ex-post individually rational (ex-post IR) Bayesian persuasion: after observing the state, the sender is never asked to send a signal that is less preferred than no information disclosure. An ex-post IR Bayesian persuasion policy is more likely to be truthfully followed by the sender, thereby providing stronger incentives for the receiver to trust the sender. Our contributions are threefold. First, we demonstrate that the optimal ex-post IR persuasion policy can be efficiently computed through a linear program, while also offering its geometric characterization. Second, we show that surprisingly, for non-trivial classes of games, the requirement of ex-post IR constraints does not incur any cost to the sender's utility. Finally, we compare ex-post IR Bayesian persuasion to other information disclosure models that ensure different notions of credibility.

Ex-post Individually Rational Bayesian Persuasion

TL;DR

This paper introduces ex-post individually rational (ex-post IR) Bayesian persuasion, where signals must not decrease the sender's payoff relative to no disclosure after observing the state. It shows that ex-post IR constraints are linear and solvable via linear programming, and provides a geometric concave/ quasiconcave-closure view of optimal schemes. The authors prove no sender utility gap under ex-post IR for several nontrivial game classes, notably trading games and credence-market scenarios, and they compare ex-post IR with other credibility models, showing that ex-post IR and credible persuasion sit between standard Bayesian persuasion and cheap talk in terms of sender payoff. The results offer practical methods for designing robust signaling policies under credibility constraints and deepen our understanding of when commitment costs can be avoided while maintaining trust.

Abstract

In the Bayesian persuasion model, a sender can convince a receiver to choose an alternative action to the one originally preferred by the receiver. A crucial assumption in this model is the sender's commitment to a predetermined information disclosure policy (signaling scheme) and the receiver's trust in this commitment. However, in practice, it is difficult to monitor whether the sender adheres to the disclosure policy, and the receiver may refuse to follow the persuasion due to a lack of trust. Trust becomes particularly strained when the receiver knows that the sender will incur obvious losses when truthfully following the protocol. In this work, we propose the notion of ex-post individually rational (ex-post IR) Bayesian persuasion: after observing the state, the sender is never asked to send a signal that is less preferred than no information disclosure. An ex-post IR Bayesian persuasion policy is more likely to be truthfully followed by the sender, thereby providing stronger incentives for the receiver to trust the sender. Our contributions are threefold. First, we demonstrate that the optimal ex-post IR persuasion policy can be efficiently computed through a linear program, while also offering its geometric characterization. Second, we show that surprisingly, for non-trivial classes of games, the requirement of ex-post IR constraints does not incur any cost to the sender's utility. Finally, we compare ex-post IR Bayesian persuasion to other information disclosure models that ensure different notions of credibility.
Paper Structure (19 sections, 17 theorems, 29 equations, 5 figures, 3 tables, 1 algorithm)

This paper contains 19 sections, 17 theorems, 29 equations, 5 figures, 3 tables, 1 algorithm.

Key Result

Theorem 3.1

The value of the optimal ex-post IR signaling scheme is $V_{\textsc{ex-post}}(\mu_0)$. The sender benefits from ex-post IR persuasion if and only if $V_{\textsc{ex-post}}(\mu_0)>\hat{v}(\mu_0)$.

Figures (5)

  • Figure 1: The black line is the utility curve of the sender's expected utility function $\hat{v}$ in \ref{['ex:lending']}. The red line is the concave closure $V$. The blue line is the concave closure with ex-post IR constraints $V_{\textsc{ex-post}}$.
  • Figure 2: A function with its concave (left) and quasiconcave (right) closures.
  • Figure 3: A simple example of smoothed quasiconcave closure. Left: the curve of the sender's expected utility function $\hat{v}$ corresponding to a partition $\hat{P}=(\{I_i\}_{i=1}^5,\{\alpha_i\}_{i=0}^5)$ of $[0,1]$ that $\alpha_i=\frac{i}{5}$ for all $0\le i\le5$. Right: the dashed line is the quasiconcave closure $\overline{V}$ corresponding to a partition $\overline{P}=(\{J_1,J_2\},\{\beta_0=0,\beta_1=\frac{2}{5},\beta_2=1\})$ and the red line is the smoothed quasiconcave closure.
  • Figure 4: The example corresponding to the first sender (\ref{['tab: quasi']}) that the optimal signaling scheme is not ex-post IR. From left to right: the curve of the first sender's utility function (dashed line in \ref{['fig: NIR-utility']}), the concave closure of the first sender's utility function (dashed line in \ref{['fig: NIR-concave']}), the quasiconcave closure (dashed line in \ref{['fig: NIR-quasiconcave']}) and the smoothed quasiconcave closure (red line in \ref{['fig: NIR-quasiconcave']}) of the first sender's expected utility function. The smoothed quasiconcave closure is not concave.
  • Figure 5: The example corresponding to the second sender (\ref{['tab: quasi']}) that the optimal signaling scheme is ex-post IR. From left to right: the curve of the second sender's expected utility function (dashed line in \ref{['fig: IR-utility']}), the concave closure of the second sender's utility function (dashed line in \ref{['fig: IR-concave']}), the quasiconcave closure (dashed line in \ref{['fig: NIR-quasiconcave']}) and the smoothed quasiconcave closure (red line in \ref{['fig: NIR-quasiconcave']}) of the second sender's utility function. The smoothed quasiconcave closure is concave.

Theorems & Definitions (44)

  • Example 1.1: Lending
  • Definition 2.1: Ex-post individual rationality
  • Definition 2.2: game
  • Theorem 3.1
  • Definition 4.1: partition
  • Definition 4.2: quasiconcave function
  • Definition 4.3: quasiconcave closure
  • Definition 4.4: monotone with respect to intervals
  • Lemma 4.1
  • Definition 4.5: smoothed quasiconcave closure
  • ...and 34 more