Mechanism Design for Decentralized Risk Detection: Strict Propriety, Network Coalitions, and the Backfiring Mandat
Authors: Jian Ni, Lecheng Zheng, John R Birge
Organizations: Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Tech · Booth School of Business, University of Chicago
Abstract
Competing firms that share a population of risky customers face a decentralized risk detection problem in which each firm holds fragmentary information whose aggregation would generate social value, but private incentives impede truthful sharing. We develop a dynamic mechanism design framework for this setting and identify three strategic frictions that distinguish it from classical mechanism design with decentralized information: compliance moral hazard, adversarial adaptation, and information destruction through intervention. A temporal value assignment (TVA) mechanism credits firms using a strictly proper scoring rule applied to discounted verified outcomes; under stated assumptions, TVA implements truthful posterior reporting as a Bayes--Nash equilibrium (uniquely optimal at each edge in large federations, with O(1/m) shading in finite systems). A network Shapley characterization shows that under edge-additive coalition value, each firm's marginal contribution is proportional to its weighted cross-firm interaction degree, yielding a sharp prescription for coalition design that prioritizes inter-firm volume over firm size. Embedding TVA in a model of competition among firms, we establish a welfare ordering across four regulatory regimes (autarky, voluntary federation, mandated full sharing, TVA) and identify conditions under which information-sharing mandates without compatible incentive design reduce welfare below autarky: a ``backfiring mandate.'' We illustrate the framework on a 1.4M-transaction synthetic anti-money-laundering benchmark; the same machinery extends to platform fraud, cybersecurity threat intelligence, and supply chain risk detection.
The rapid proliferation of AI applications has intensified debate on effective regulation of these black-box services. Effective regulation must balance two competing goals: (1) deterring non-compliant providers from entering the market, while (2) retaining compliant ones. We call this ideal the perfect market outcome (PMO). Regulators face two compounding obstacles that make PMO difficult to achieve: providers hold private information and can act strategically to evade compliance, while any evidence drawn or derived from a finite sample carries statistical uncertainty in proving non-compliance. As this information asymmetry and statistical uncertainty is inherent to any effective regulation, we formalise them through a mechanism design framework that explicitly accounts for such statistical uncertainty. This yields a sharp characterisation: a mechanism achieves PMO if and only if the set of non-compliant evidence distributions forms a closed, convex set of probability measures, known in imprecise probability as a credal set. This result serves as a diagnostic tool to determine whether PMO is achievable under a given regulation. We further show that PMO-achieving mechanisms can be constructed from a collection of hypothesis tests, and validate our theoretical contributions through experiments on spurious-feature and fairness-based regulations.
Traditional distributed consensus protocols classify nodes as either honest-but-faulty or actively malicious (Byzantine). However, in organizational structures, departmental agents rarely fit this binary. Instead, they exhibit bounded rationality and self-interested preferences while operating under asymmetric information. This paper presents the Organizational Consensus Algorithm (OCA), a mechanism design framework tailored for internal negotiation and decision coordination. OCA models inter-departmental conflict as an incomplete information dynamic game, integrating internal token staking, an exception-triggered challenge mechanism, and confidence-weighted consensus rules. Rather than enforcing instantaneous total ordering, OCA leverages a retrospective penalty system driven by delayed verifiable outcomes to deter structural bias and reduce exhaustive coordination overhead. A Python simulation prototype was developed to evaluate OCA. Across independent trials with varying organizational scales, OCA reports lower coordination overhead, higher informative reporting rates, and bounded welfare loss in noisy environments. Crucially, these results remain conditional on the stated simulation model and do not by themselves establish a general truthful equilibrium.
We develop a framework for mechanism design with AI agents whose alignment (preferences) and capabilities (feasible actions and information) are unknown. We want such agents to act on our behalf so mechanisms must incentivize both honesty and obedience. A one-sided imitation structure---capabilities can be concealed but not counterfeited---yields a revelation principle, a characterization of implementable policies via nested cyclical monotonicity, and conditions under which eliciting higher-order beliefs can discipline multiple agents. We apply our framework to stylized examples of (i) sandbagging in which a more capable agent pretends to be less capable; (ii) an alignment--interpretability trade-off, where the two are substitutes in the instrument but complements in value; (iii) discipline via peer scoring; (iv) coupling rewards to induce competition among multiple agents; and (v) scalable oversight and reward shaping.