Researcher profile

Yakov Babichenko

Yakov Babichenko contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
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

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A Population's Feasible Posterior Beliefs

We consider a population of Bayesian agents who share a common prior over some finite state space and each agent is exposed to some information about the state. We ask which distributions over empirical distributions of posteriors beliefs in the population are feasible. We provide a necessary and sufficient condition for feasibility. We apply this result in several domains. First, we study the problem of maximizing the polarization of beliefs in a population. Second, we provide a characterization of the feasible agent-symmetric product distributions of posteriors. Finally, we study an instance of a private Bayesian persuasion problem and provide a clean formula for the sender's optimal value.

preprint2022arXiv

Bayesian Persuasion with Mediators

An informed sender communicates with an uninformed receiver through a sequence of uninformed mediators; agents' utilities depend on receiver's action and the state. For any number of mediators, the sender's optimal value is characterized. For one mediator, the characterization has a geometric meaning of constrained concavification of sender's utility, optimal persuasion requires the same number of signals as without mediators, and the presence of the mediator is never profitable for the sender. Surprisingly, the second mediator may improve the value but optimal persuasion may require more signals.

preprint2022arXiv

Multi-Channel Bayesian Persuasion

The celebrated Bayesian persuasion model considers strategic communication between an informed agent (the sender) and uninformed decision makers (the receivers). The current rapidly-growing literature mostly assumes a dichotomy: either the sender is powerful enough to communicate separately with each receiver (a.k.a. private persuasion), or she cannot communicate separately at all (a.k.a. public persuasion). We study a model that smoothly interpolates between the two, by considering a natural multi-channel communication structure in which each receiver observes a subset of the sender's communication channels. This captures, e.g., receivers on a network, where information spillover is almost inevitable. We completely characterize when one communication structure is better for the sender than another, in the sense of yielding higher optimal expected utility universally over all prior distributions and utility functions. The characterization is based on a simple pairwise relation among receivers - one receiver information-dominates another if he observes at least the same channels. We prove that a communication structure $M_1$ is (weakly) better than $M_2$ if and only if every information-dominating pair of receivers in $M_1$ is also such in $M_2$. We also provide an additive FPTAS for the optimal sender's signaling scheme when the number of states is constant and the graph of information-dominating pairs is a directed forest. Finally, we prove that finding an optimal signaling scheme under multi-channel persuasion is, generally, computationally harder than under both public and private persuasion.

preprint2021arXiv

Sequential Naive Learning

We analyze boundedly rational updating from aggregate statistics in a model with binary actions and binary states. Agents each take an irreversible action in sequence after observing the unordered set of previous actions. Each agent first forms her prior based on the aggregate statistic, then incorporates her signal with the prior based on Bayes rule, and finally applies a decision rule that assigns a (mixed) action to each belief. If priors are formed according to a discretized DeGroot rule, then actions converge to the state (in probability), i.e., \emph{asymptotic learning}, in any informative information structure if and only if the decision rule satisfies probability matching. This result generalizes to unspecified information settings where information structures differ across agents and agents know only the information structure generating their own signal. Also, the main result extends to the case of $n$ states and $n$ actions.

preprint2020arXiv

Incentive-Compatible Selection Mechanisms for Forests

Given a directed forest-graph, a probabilistic \emph{selection mechanism} is a probability distribution over the vertex set. A selection mechanism is \emph{incentive-compatible} (IC), if the probability assigned to a vertex does not change when we alter its outgoing edge (or even remove it). The quality of a selection mechanism is the worst-case ratio between the expected progeny under the mechanism's distribution and the maximal progeny in the forest. In this paper we prove an upper bound of 4/5 and a lower bound of $ 1/\ln16\approx0.36 $ for the quality of any IC selection mechanism. The lower bound is achieved by two novel mechanisms and is a significant improvement to the results of Babichenko et al. (WWW '18). The first, simpler mechanism, has the nice feature of generating distributions which are fair (i.e., monotone and proportional). The downside of this mechanism is that it is not exact (i.e., the probabilities might sum-up to less than 1). Our second, more involved mechanism, is exact but not fair. We also prove an impossibility for an IC mechanism that is both exact and fair and has a positive quality.