paint-brush
Bayesian Persuasion in Sequential Trials: Assumptions and induced strategiesby@bayesianinference
118 reads

Bayesian Persuasion in Sequential Trials: Assumptions and induced strategies

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

This section explores the sender’s optimal signaling strategy in two-phase trials with general binary-outcome experiments. Focusing on phase-I parameters and induced strategies in phase II, we outline key assumptions that guide the sender’s decision-making process.
featured image - Bayesian Persuasion in Sequential Trials: Assumptions and induced strategies
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

3.2 Assumptions and induced strategies

Next we detail the optimal signaling strategy in our two-phase trial setting with general binary-outcome experiments. To aid in the presentation and to avoid repetition, we make two assumptions without loss of generality and introduce several explanatory concepts before the analysis.


Lemma 2. We can make the following two assumptions WLOG.


image


The sender’s strategy consists of the following: choice of phase-I experiment parameters (p1, p2) and the persuasion strategies in phase-II for each outcome of the phase-I experiment. To understand better the choices available to the sender and her reasoning in determining her best strategy, we will study the possible persuasion strategies in phase-II; these will be called induced strategies to distinguish them from the entire strategy. Given the assumptions above on phase-II experiments, it’ll turn out we can directly rule out one class of induced strategies from the sender’s consideration. The other set of induced strategies will need careful assessment that we present next.


image


image


This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license.


[3] In terms of the Blackwell informativeness from [6].

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