arXiv:2602.09490v2 Announce Type: cross Abstract: An agent chooses an action based on her private information and a recommendation from an informed but potentially misaligned adviser. With a known probability, the adviser truthfully reports his signal; with the remaining probability, he can send any message. We characterize optimal robust decision rules that maximize the agent's worst-case expected payoff. Every optimal rule is equivalent to a trust-region policy in belief space: the adviser's reported beliefs are taken at face value if they fall within the trust region but are otherwise clipped to the trust region's boundary. We derive alignment thresholds above which advice is strictly valuable and fully characterize the solution in both binary-state and binary-action environments.

arXiv:2602.12224v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Two-sided matching platforms rely on preferences from both sides, yet participants can evaluate only a small fraction of potential partners. In practice, they use low-cost pre-match screening, e.g., interviews, profile views, or trial tasks, to form noisy impressions before committing to applications and offers. We study bandit learning in matching markets with interviews, modeling these interactions as queried \emph{hints}~\citep{DBLP:conf/innovations/BhaskaraGIKM23} that reveal partial preference information to both sides while constraining subsequent applications. Our framework also allows firm-side uncertainty: firms, like agents, learn their preferences and may make early hiring mistakes. To address this, we introduce strategic deferral, a firm-side action that permits temporary vacancy, corrects premature commitments, and enables decentralized learning under coarse anonymous feedback. We design algorithms for centralized and decentralized markets and show that a constant number of interviews per round suffices for horizon-independent regret, improving over the $O(\log T)$ guarantees known without interviews. Our bounds are near-optimal: the centralized guarantee is within a factor $m$ of an information-theoretic lower bound, while decentralized algorithms match it up to polynomial factors in structured markets and remain horizon-independent in general markets.

arXiv:2604.04906v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) changes social learning when aggregated outputs become training data for future predictions. To study this, we extend the DeGroot model by introducing an AI aggregator that trains on population beliefs and feeds synthesized signals back to agents. We define the learning gap as the deviation of long-run beliefs from the efficient benchmark, allowing us to capture how AI aggregation affects learning. Our main result identifies a threshold in the speed of updating: when the aggregator updates too quickly, there is no positive-measure set of training weights that robustly improves learning across a broad class of environments, whereas such weights exist when updating is sufficiently slow. We then compare global and local architectures. Local aggregators trained on proximate or topic-specific data robustly improve learning in all environments. Consequently, replacing specialized local aggregators with a single global aggregator worsens learning in at least one dimension of the state.

arXiv:2604.01443v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When does consulting one information source raise the value of another, and when does it diminish it? We study this question for Bayesian decision-makers facing finite actions. The interaction decomposes into two opposing forces: a complement force, measuring how one source moves beliefs to where the other becomes more useful, and a substitute force, measuring how much the current decision is resolved. Their balance obeys a localization principle: substitution requires an observation to cross a decision boundary, though crossing alone does not guarantee it. Whenever posteriors remain inside the current decision region, the substitute force vanishes, and sources are guaranteed to complement each other, even when one source cannot, on its own, change the decision. The results hold for arbitrarily correlated sources and are formalized in Lean 4. Substitution is confined to the thin boundaries where decisions change. Everywhere else, information cooperates. Code and proofs: https://github.com/nidhishs/all-substitution-is-local.

arXiv:2502.14708v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We conduct an incentivized laboratory experiment to study people's perception of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) alignment in the context of economic decision-making. Using a panel of economic problems spanning the domains of risk, time preference, social preference, and strategic interactions, we ask human subjects to make choices for themselves and to predict the choices made by GenAI on behalf of a human user. We find that people overestimate the degree of alignment between GenAI and human choices. In every problem, human subjects' average prediction about GenAI's choice is substantially closer to the average human-subject choice than it is to the GenAI choice. At the individual level, different subjects' predictions about GenAI's choice in a given problem are highly correlated with their own choices in the same problem. We explore the implications of people overestimating GenAI alignment in a simple theoretical model.

arXiv:2603.12630v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rise of foundation models has driven the emergence of AI supply chains, where upstream foundation model providers offer fine-tuning and inference services to downstream firms developing domain-specific applications. Downstream firms pay providers to use their computing infrastructure to fine-tune models with proprietary data, creating a co-creation dynamic that enhances model quality. Amid concerns that foundation model providers and downstream firms may capture excessive consumer surplus, along with increasing regulatory measures, this study employs a game-theoretic model involving a provider and two competing downstream firms to analyze how policy interventions affect consumer surplus in the AI supply chain. Our analysis shows that policies promoting price competition in downstream markets (i.e., pro-price-competitive policies) boost consumer surplus only when compute or data preprocessing costs are high, while compute subsidies are effective only when these costs are low, suggesting these policies complement each other. In contrast, policies promoting quality competition in downstream markets (i.e., pro-quality-competitive policies) always improve consumer surplus. We also find that under pro-price-competitive policies or compute subsidies, both the provider and downstream firms can achieve higher profits along with greater consumer surplus, creating a win-win-win outcome. However, pro-quality-competitive policies increase the provider's profits while reducing those of downstream firms. Finally, as compute costs decline, pro-price-competitive policies may lose their effectiveness, whereas compute subsidies may shift from ineffective to effective. These findings offer insights for policymakers seeking to foster AI supply chains that are economically efficient and socially beneficial.

arXiv:2603.08679v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The celebrated Myerson--Satterthwaite theorem shows that in bilateral trade, no mechanism can be simultaneously fully efficient, Bayesian incentive compatible (BIC), and budget balanced (BB). This naturally raises the question of how closely the gains from trade (GFT) achievable by a BIC and BB mechanism can approximate the first-best (fully efficient) benchmark. The optimal BIC and BB mechanism is typically complex and highly distribution-dependent, making it difficult to characterize directly. Consequently, much of the literature analyzes simpler mechanisms such as the Random-Offerer (RO) mechanism and establishes constant-factor guarantees relative to the first-best GFT. An important open question concerns the worst-case performance of the RO mechanism relative to first-best (FB) efficiency. While it was originally hypothesized that the approximation ratio $\frac{\text{GFT}_{\text{FB}}}{\text{GFT}_{\text{RO}}}$ is bounded by $2$, recent work provided counterexamples to this conjecture: Cai et al. proved that the ratio can be strictly larger than $2$, and Babaioff et al. exhibited an explicit example with ratio approximately $2.02$. In this work, we employ AlphaEvolve, an AI-guided evolutionary search framework, to explore the space of value distributions. We identify a new worst-case instance that yields an improved lower bound of $\frac{\text{GFT}_{\text{FB}}}{\text{GFT}_{\text{RO}}} \ge \textbf{2.0749}$. This establishes a new lower bound on the worst-case performance of the Random-Offerer mechanism, demonstrating a wider efficiency gap than previously known.

arXiv:2603.02961v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI systems enter institutional workflows, workers must decide whether to delegate task execution to AI and how much effort to invest in verifying AI outputs, while institutions evaluate workers using outcome-based standards that may misalign with workers' private costs. We model delegation and verification as the solution to a rational worker's optimization problem, and define worker quality by evaluating an institution-centered utility (distinct from the worker's objective) at the resulting optimal action. We formally characterize optimal worker workflows and show that AI induces *phase transitions*, where arbitrarily small differences in verification ability lead to sharply different behaviors. As a result, AI can amplify workers with strong verification reliability while degrading institutional worker quality for others who rationally over-delegate and reduce oversight, even when baseline task success improves and no behavioral biases are present. These results identify a structural mechanism by which AI reshapes institutional worker quality and amplifies quality disparities between workers with different verification reliability.