paint-brush
Understanding Incentive-Compatible Signaling in Two-Phase Trialsby@bayesianinference
109 reads

Understanding Incentive-Compatible Signaling in Two-Phase Trials

by Bayesian Inference
Bayesian Inference HackerNoon profile picture

Bayesian Inference

@bayesianinference

At BayesianInference.Tech, as more evidence becomes available, we make predictions...

November 10th, 2024
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story in a terminal
Print this story
Read this story w/o Javascript
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

The sender’s phase-I experiment design influences the interim beliefs, impacting the available induced strategies in phase II. Table 1 outlines IC requirements for each induced strategy, showing how they limit the sender’s options based on the receiver’s incentive compatibility in each scenario.
featured image - Understanding Incentive-Compatible Signaling in Two-Phase Trials
1x
Read by Dr. One voice-avatar

Listen to this story

Bayesian Inference HackerNoon profile picture
Bayesian Inference

Bayesian Inference

@bayesianinference

At BayesianInference.Tech, as more evidence becomes available, we make predictions and refine beliefs.

Learn More
LEARN MORE ABOUT @BAYESIANINFERENCE'S
EXPERTISE AND PLACE ON THE INTERNET.
0-item

STORY’S CREDIBILITY

Academic Research Paper

Academic Research Paper

Part of HackerNoon's growing list of open-source research papers, promoting free access to academic material.

Authors:

(1) Shih-Tang Su, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (shihtang@umich.edu);

(2) Vijay G. Subramanian, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and (vgsubram@umich.edu);

(3) Grant Schoenebeck, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (schoeneb@umich.edu).

Abstract and 1. Introduction

2. Problem Formulation

2.1 Model of Binary-Outcome Experiments in Two-Phase Trials

3 Binary-outcome Experiments in Two-phase Trials and 3.1 Experiments with screenings

3.2 Assumptions and induced strategies

3.3 Constraints given by phase-II experiments

3.4 Persuasion ratio and the optimal signaling structure

3.5 Comparison with classical Bayesian persuasion strategies

4 Binary-outcome Experiments in Multi-phase trials and 4.1 Model of binary-outcome experiments in multi-phase trials

4.2 Determined versus sender-designed experiments

4.3 Multi-phase model and classical Bayesian persuasion and References

3.3 Constraints given by phase-II experiments

By her choice of the experiment in phase I, the sender decides how to split the prior into the interim beliefs for the two experiments available in phase-II. The resulting interim-beliefs then lead to certain induced strategies at stage-II being applicable, i.e., incentive compatible (for the receiver). In other words, the probability pair (p1, p2) must make each (applied) induced strategy yield the maximum utility for the receiver. These requirements constrain the sender’s choice of (p1, p2), and the sender needs to account for the (reduced) choice while deciding the split of the prior. Table 1 summarizes the impact in terms of the parameters of the phase-I experiment via primary requirements on (p1, p2) driven by the incentive compatibility while using each class of induced strategies. Hereafter, when we use IC requirements without additional specification, we mean primary IC requirements. From the entries in the table, it is clear that the phase-II experiments (indirectly) limit the sender’s strategy selection where this limitation arises due the receiver’s IC requirements for each induced strategy (when that induced strategy is used).


With this in mind, the sender’s experiment design in phase I, essentially, is to select between different combinations of these induced strategies such that each induced strategy satisfies the constraint listed in Table 1. Hence, we next seek to understand how these IC constraints collectively determine the sender’s strategy selection. To answer this, we first discuss the relationship between induced strategies, IC requirements, and the sender’s expected utility.


image


Table 1. IC requirements of the sender’s commitment based on the induced strategy

Table 1. IC requirements of the sender’s commitment based on the induced strategy


taken, she would like to use the “most efficient”[4] pair of induced strategies to persuade the receiver[5]. To better understand the “efficiency” of induced strategies, we evaluate each induced strategy under a given phase-II experiment EX:


image


image


image


image


This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license.


image

L O A D I N G
. . . comments & more!

About Author

Bayesian Inference HackerNoon profile picture
Bayesian Inference@bayesianinference
At BayesianInference.Tech, as more evidence becomes available, we make predictions and refine beliefs.

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN...

Permanent on Arweave
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story in a terminal
 Terminal
Read this story w/o Javascript
Read this story w/o Javascript
 Lite
Also published here
Hackernoon
X
Threads
X REMOVE AD