2022
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2202.06660
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Non-Obvious Manipulability for Single-Parameter Agents and Bilateral Trade

Abstract: A recent line of work in mechanism design has focused on guaranteeing incentive compatibility for agents without contingent reasoning skills: obviously strategyproof mechanisms [20] guarantee that it is "obvious" for these imperfectly rational agents to behave honestly, whereas non-obviously manipulable (NOM) mechanisms [26] take a more optimistic view and ensure that these agents will only misbehave when it is "obvious" for them to do so. Technically, obviousness requires comparing certain extrema (defined ov… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 17 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Besides Featherstone (2020), who provides a detailed analysis of rank efficiency criteria and related mechanisms and was discussed in the Introduction, there are only two other papers I am aware of in the economics literature that 6 Following Troyan and Morrill (2020), several other papers have applied non-obvious manipulability to various settings, including Aziz and Lam (2021), Ortega and Segal-Halevi (2019), Archbold et al (2022), and Cerrone et al (2022.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides Featherstone (2020), who provides a detailed analysis of rank efficiency criteria and related mechanisms and was discussed in the Introduction, there are only two other papers I am aware of in the economics literature that 6 Following Troyan and Morrill (2020), several other papers have applied non-obvious manipulability to various settings, including Aziz and Lam (2021), Ortega and Segal-Halevi (2019), Archbold et al (2022), and Cerrone et al (2022.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%