Information Design

In school choice, a lottery number is often used by the matching mechanism to break ties when there are more students who prefer the same school than the number of seats available. There has been growing theoretical and empirical interest in understanding the impact of revealing the lottery number to students. In practice, in recent years, the NYC Public Schools started revealing the lottery number to students to improve transparency. Theoretical findings from prior literature also suggest that revealing the lottery number strictly improves the number of matches under the deferred acceptance algorithm. However, these theoretical results are based on the over-simplifying assumption that all students share the same preference ranking for schools. In this work, we relax this assumption and allow students to have heterogeneous preference rankings. Under a game-theoretic model where student strategies form a Bayesian Nash equilibrium, we characterize scenarios where revealing the lottery number can either improve or worsen the matching outcome, measured by two metrics of match rate and social welfare. We further consider revealing partial information about the lottery, and demonstrate non-monotonic effects in the amount of information available to students. These results together illustrate complex tradeoffs induced by the lottery revealing policy.

We study information design in games where players choose from a continuum of actions and have continuously differentiable payoffs. We show that an information structure is optimal when the equilibrium it induces can also be implemented in a principal-agent contracting problem. Building on this result, we characterize optimal information structures in symmetric linear-quadratic games. With common values, targeted disclosure is robustly optimal across all priors. With interdependent and normally distributed values, linear disclosure is uniquely optimal. We illustrate our findings with applications in venture capital, Bayesian polarization, and price competition.

Shippers are beginning to delegate carrier selection to large language model (LLM) agents. We ask what such delegation does to a freight matching market, and which platform design choices contain it. We carried out agent-based simulations in which fifty shipper agents, built on commercial LLMs from OpenAI (GPT), Anthropic (Claude), and Google (Gemini), procure truckload capacity for thirty days. The market implements the rules of digital freight matching: each load is offered down the shipper's ranked list of carriers (waterfall tendering), carriers have daily capacity limits, spot prices respond to congestion, and carrier ratings accumulate with transactions. We found three risks and one remedy that works. Agents converged at once: for a fixed sampled carrier population, the same carrier was the modal first choice of every model on day one, attracting up to 76% of requests. Because each agent picks from its own randomly drawn list of displayed candidates, the platform controls how many options each shipper sees; concentration rose steeply once lists exceeded about ten carriers, with the onset differing across models. Which carriers ended up dominant varied widely from one sampled market to another, and displaying true quality instead of estimated ratings changed neither the level nor this variability (by design, quality affects only what agents see, never delivery outcomes). Against these risks, disclosing each carrier's remaining daily capacity cut concentration by a third and doubled shipper surplus, while vendor diversification, list-order randomization, and popularity display showed no clearly detectable effect. Platform information design, ahead of model choice or model regulation, is the lever that works.

Misalignment can change how information moves from an AI agent to a human user. We model this as an information advantage: the AI agent observes the world state, while the human receiver only knows a prior and must act after seeing the agent's signal. A strategic AI sender may withhold evidence or garble information in order to steer the human's decision. We ask how much useful information can still reach the human when the AI optimizes a misaligned objective. We study a Bayesian persuasion model in which the world state is a bit string, the human receiver wants to guess the bits correctly, and a single AI sender wants the receiver to guess as many bits as possible as $1$. For a prior $μ$, let $R_0(μ)$ be the receiver's utility from using only the prior, and let $R_{\max}(μ)$ be the largest receiver utility among signaling schemes that are optimal for the sender. We prove $R_{\max}(μ)/R_0(μ)\leq 3/2$. This bound improves for priors close to the independent product prior with the same marginals: if $μ(x)\geq (1-η)π_μ(x)$ for every state $x$, then $R_{\max}(μ)\leq R_0(μ)+ηn$. We also give a six-bit prior for which $R_{\max}(μ)/R_0(μ)=39/31>5/4$, so no universal $5/4$ bound is possible.

Strategic machine learning investigates scenarios where agents manipulate their features to receive favorable decisions from predictive models. To address fairness concerns intrinsic to strategic classification, recent work has introduced group-specific fairness constraints. However, current fairness-aware approaches face a fundamental dilemma in the issue of fairness exposure: making these constraints public enables strategic manipulation and can lead to fairness reversal, while keeping them hidden may reduce social welfare and discourage genuine improvement. To fill this gap, we subsequently propose the problem of partial fairness awareness (PFA), as our theoretical analysis informs that such a dilemma can be mitigated by releasing the candidate set of fairness constraints and concealing the grounding constraint. To be specific, we introduce a belief-guided strategic mechanism, wherein agents iteratively interact with the decision system and maintain a belief distribution over the candidate set of fairness constraints. This belief-guided process enables agents, through iterative interaction and feedback, to update their belief distribution over the candidate set, thereby gradually aligning their belief with the grounding fairness constraint employed by the system. Extensive experiments on real-world and synthetic datasets demonstrate that PFA achieves lower group fairness gaps, higher acceptance of truly qualified individuals, and more stable outcomes compared to fully public or private fairness regimes.

We develop a game-theoretic framework that compares welfare efficiency across three market mechanisms: continuous double auctions with transparent order books (lit exchanges), opaque order books (dark pools), and periodic batch auctions. Each mechanism is modeled as a queuing system where heterogeneous traders face trade-offs between the execution price, waiting costs, and transaction costs. Our main result establishes that under moderate arrival rates and bounded adverse selection, dark pools dominate both alternatives in aggregate ex-ante welfare. Observable order books create costly strategic timing games in which traders delay or rush submissions to optimize their position in the queue, generating wasteful social waiting costs. Opaque order books eliminate these timing games through information design. We formally characterize the equilibrium strategies in each mechanism and prove the welfare ranking $W^{DARK} > W^{LIT} > W^{BATCH}$. Extensions incorporate asymmetric information and endogenous venue choice. The results demonstrate how the information structure and the discipline of the service jointly determine efficiency in strategic matching environments.

Human decision-makers often face choices about complex cases with many potentially relevant features, but limited bandwidth to inspect and integrate all available information. In such settings, we study algorithms that highlight a small subset of case-specific features for human consideration, rather than producing a single prediction or recommendation. We model highlighting as a constrained information policy that selects a small number of features to reveal. A central issue is how humans interpret the algorithm's choice of features: a sophisticated agent correctly conditions on the selection rule, while a naive agent updates only on revealed feature values and treats the selection event as exogenous. We show that optimizing highlighting for sophisticated agents can be computationally intractable, even in simple discrete and binary settings, whereas optimizing for naive agents is tractable as long as the maximal bandwidth is fixed. We also show that a highlighting policy that is optimal for sophisticated agents can perform arbitrarily poorly when deployed to naive agents, motivating robust, implementable alternatives. We illustrate our framework in a calibrated empirical exercise based on the American Housing Survey. Overall, our results establish the value of highlighting a context-specific set of features rather than a fixed one as a practically appealing and computationally feasible tool for achieving human-algorithm complementarity.

AI agents often pick tools from registries, where each tool's provider writes its description. We ask whether sales language in those descriptions changes which tool an agent picks. We built pairs of listings differing in one controlled way (added praise, a verifiable specification, or list order) and asked two OpenAI models to call one tool. In a preregistered study, stacked praise (four kinds combined) raised a tool's pick rate by about 43 percentage points, matching or beating a verifiable specification. Praise also pulled some picks toward tools that could not do the task, but rarely toward tools asking for unneeded data access. With identical listings, the first-listed tool was picked about 72 points more often. On tasks with numeric limits, structured fields helped agents pick the capable tool; adding the provider's sales text beside the fields reduced or erased that gain. Registries could list limits as fields, hide sales text from agents, and randomize order. Stacked praise, but no single kind, replicated on held-out domains. Results are provisional until blind phrase ratings are complete, and cover two small models.

The data market design problem is a problem in economic theory to find a set of signaling schemes (statistical experiments) to maximize expected revenue to the information seller, where each experiment reveals some of the information known to a seller and has a corresponding price [Bergemann et al., 2018]. Each buyer has their own decision to make in a world environment, and their subjective expected value for the information associated with a particular experiment comes from the improvement in this decision and depends on their prior and value for different outcomes. In a setting with multiple buyers, a buyer's expected value for an experiment may also depend on the information sold to others [Bonatti et al., 2022]. We introduce the application of deep learning for the design of revenue-optimal data markets, looking to expand the frontiers of what can be understood and achieved. Relative to earlier work on deep learning for auction design [Dütting et al., 2023], we must learn signaling schemes rather than allocation rules and handle obedience constraints $-$ these arising from modeling the downstream actions of buyers $-$ in addition to incentive constraints on bids. Our experiments demonstrate that this new deep learning framework can almost precisely replicate all known solutions from theory, expand to more complex settings, and be used to establish the optimality of new designs for data markets and make conjectures in regard to the structure of optimal designs.