MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121358881

Discriminatory Information Disclosure∗

2009· preprint· en· W3121358881 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hao Li, Xianwen Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2009
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAuction Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivate information retrievalFull disclosureMicroeconomicsValue (mathematics)Complete informationBusinessActuarial scienceEconomicsComputer scienceComputer security
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a price discrimination problem in which a seller has a single object for sale to a potential buyer. At the time of contracting, the buyer’s private type is his incomplete private information about his value, and the seller can disclose additional private information to the buyer. We study the question of whether discriminatory infor-mation disclosure can be profitable to the seller under the assumption that, for the same disclosure policy, the amount of additional private information that the buyer can learn depends on his private type. In both discrete-type and continuous-type setting, we show that discriminatory disclosure can be optimal because, compared to full disclosure, it re-duces the information rent accrued to private types of the buyer without much impact on the trade surplus. A complete characterization of the optimal discriminatory disclosure policy is provided in the discrete-type setting. We also establish sufficient conditions for the optimality of full information disclosure in the continuous-type setting. ∗We are indebted to Dirk Bergemann for his support in various stages of this project. We thank the participants of 2013 Cowles Summer Conference in Economic Theory, especially our discussant Philipp Strack, and Simon Board, Alessandro Pavan, Roland Strauss and Balazs Szentes for many helpful comments and suggestions. Shi is grateful to Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for financial support. 1

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicAuction Theory and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207