BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Samantha Leung

Samantha Leung contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computer Science and Game TheoryArtificial Intelligenceq-fin.TR

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
6works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2015arXiv

Maximin Safety: When Failing to Lose is Preferable to Trying to Win

We present a new decision rule, \emph{maximin safety}, that seeks to maintain a large margin from the worst outcome, in much the same way minimax regret seeks to minimize distance from the best. We argue that maximin safety is valuable both descriptively and normatively. Descriptively, maximin safety explains the well-known \emph{decoy effect}, in which the introduction of a dominated option changes preferences among the other options. Normatively, we provide an axiomatization that characterizes preferences induced by maximin safety, and show that maximin safety shares much of the same behavioral basis with minimax regret.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Minimizing Regret in Dynamic Decision Problems

The menu-dependent nature of regret-minimization creates subtleties when it is applied to dynamic decision problems. Firstly, it is not clear whether \emph{forgone opportunities} should be included in the \emph{menu}, with respect to which regrets are computed, at different points of the decision problem. If forgone opportunities are included, however, we can characterize when a form of dynamic consistency is guaranteed. Secondly, more subtleties arise when sophistication is used to deal with dynamic inconsistency. In the full version of this paper, we examine, axiomatically and by common examples, the implications of different menu definitions for sophisticated, regret-minimizing agents.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Stronger Impossibility Results for Strategy-Proof Voting with i.i.d. Beliefs

The classic Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem says that every strategy-proof voting rule with at least three possible candidates must be dictatorial. In \cite{McL11}, McLennan showed that a similar impossibility result holds even if we consider a weaker notion of strategy-proofness where voters believe that the other voters' preferences are i.i.d.~(independent and identically distributed): If an anonymous voting rule (with at least three candidates) is strategy-proof w.r.t.~all i.i.d.~beliefs and is also Pareto efficient, then the voting rule must be a random dictatorship. In this paper, we strengthen McLennan's result by relaxing Pareto efficiency to $ε$-Pareto efficiency where Pareto efficiency can be violated with probability $ε$, and we further relax $ε$-Pareto efficiency to a very weak notion of efficiency which we call $ε$-super-weak unanimity. We then show the following: If an anonymous voting rule (with at least three candidates) is strategy-proof w.r.t.~all i.i.d.~beliefs and also satisfies $ε$-super-weak unanimity, then the voting rule must be $O(ε)$-close to random dictatorship.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Voting with Coarse Beliefs

The classic Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem says that every strategy-proof voting rule with at least three possible candidates must be dictatorial. Similar impossibility results hold even if we consider a weaker notion of strategy-proofness where voters believe that the other voters' preferences are i.i.d.~(independent and identically distributed). In this paper, we take a bounded-rationality approach to this problem and consider a setting where voters have "coarse" beliefs (a notion that has gained popularity in the behavioral economics literature). In particular, we construct good voting rules that satisfy a notion of strategy-proofness with respect to coarse i.i.d.~beliefs, thus circumventing the above impossibility results.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Bayesian Mechanism Design with Efficiency, Privacy, and Approximate Truthfulness

Recently, there has been a number of papers relating mechanism design and privacy (e.g., see \cite{MT07,Xia11,CCKMV11,NST12,NOS12,HK12}). All of these papers consider a worst-case setting where there is no probabilistic information about the players' types. In this paper, we investigate mechanism design and privacy in the \emph{Bayesian} setting, where the players' types are drawn from some common distribution. We adapt the notion of \emph{differential privacy} to the Bayesian mechanism design setting, obtaining \emph{Bayesian differential privacy}. We also define a robust notion of approximate truthfulness for Bayesian mechanisms, which we call \emph{persistent approximate truthfulness}. We give several classes of mechanisms (e.g., social welfare mechanisms and histogram mechanisms) that achieve both Bayesian differential privacy and persistent approximate truthfulness. These classes of mechanisms can achieve optimal (economic) efficiency, and do not use any payments. We also demonstrate that by considering the above mechanisms in a modified mechanism design model, the above mechanisms can achieve actual truthfulness.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Weighted Sets of Probabilities and MinimaxWeighted Expected Regret: New Approaches for Representing Uncertainty and Making Decisions

We consider a setting where an agent's uncertainty is represented by a set of probability measures, rather than a single measure. Measure-bymeasure updating of such a set of measures upon acquiring new information is well-known to suffer from problems; agents are not always able to learn appropriately. To deal with these problems, we propose using weighted sets of probabilities: a representation where each measure is associated with a weight, which denotes its significance. We describe a natural approach to updating in such a situation and a natural approach to determining the weights. We then show how this representation can be used in decision-making, by modifying a standard approach to decision making-minimizing expected regret-to obtain minimax weighted expected regret (MWER).We provide an axiomatization that characterizes preferences induced by MWER both in the static and dynamic case.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access