IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2301.06967.html

Binary Mechanisms under Privacy-Preserving Noise

Author

Listed:
  • Farzad Pourbabaee
  • Federico Echenique

Abstract

We study mechanism design for public-good provision under a noisy privacy-preserving transformation of individual agents' reported preferences. The setting is a standard binary model with transfers and quasi-linear utility. Agents report their preferences for the public good, which are randomly ``flipped,'' so that any individual report may be explained away as the outcome of noise. We study the tradeoffs between preserving the public decisions made in the presence of noise (noise sensitivity), pursuing efficiency, and mitigating the effect of noise on revenue.

Suggested Citation

  • Farzad Pourbabaee & Federico Echenique, 2023. "Binary Mechanisms under Privacy-Preserving Noise," Papers 2301.06967, arXiv.org, revised May 2024.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2301.06967
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.06967
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacques Laffont (Publisher’s Erratum)," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(4), pages 377-377, December.
    2. Avinatan Hassidim & Assaf Romm & Ran I. Shorrer, 2021. "The Limits of Incentives in Economic Matching Procedures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 951-963, February.
    3. repec:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:11471-11476 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Alex Rees-Jones & Samuel Skowronek, 2018. "An Experimental Investigation of Preference Misrepresentation in the Residency Match," Papers 1802.01990, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2018.
    5. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    6. Rees-Jones, Alex, 2018. "Suboptimal behavior in strategy-proof mechanisms: Evidence from the residency match," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 317-330.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pourbabaee, Farzad & Echenique, Federico, 2025. "Binary mechanisms under privacy-preserving noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    2. Pablo Guillen & Róbert F. Veszteg, 2021. "Strategy-proofness in experimental matching markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 650-668, June.
    3. Afacan, Mustafa Oğuz & Evdokimov, Piotr & Hakimov, Rustamdjan & Turhan, Bertan, 2022. "Parallel markets in school choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 181-201.
    4. Shorrer, Ran I. & Sóvágó, Sándor, 2024. "Dominated choices under deferred acceptance mechanism: The effect of admission selectivity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 167-182.
    5. Rustamdjan Hakimov & Dorothea Kübler, 2021. "Experiments on centralized school choice and college admissions: a survey," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 434-488, June.
    6. Avinatan Hassidim & Assaf Romm & Ran I. Shorrer, 2021. "The Limits of Incentives in Economic Matching Procedures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 951-963, February.
    7. Hu, Xinquan & Yao, Lan, 2024. "Cognitive ability in matching with strategic uncertainty: An experimental study," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    8. Klijn, Flip & Pais, Joana & Vorsatz, Marc, 2020. "Improving schools through school choice: An experimental study of deferred acceptance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    9. Ortega, Josué & Klein, Thilo, 2022. "Improving Efficiency and Equality in School Choice," QBS Working Paper Series 2022/02, Queen's University Belfast, Queen's Business School.
    10. Eric Budish & Judd B. Kessler, 2022. "Can Market Participants Report Their Preferences Accurately (Enough)?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1107-1130, February.
    11. Nikhil Agarwal & Eric Budish, 2021. "Market Design," NBER Working Papers 29367, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Meisner, Vincent & von Wangenheim, Jonas, 2023. "Loss aversion in strategy-proof school-choice mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    13. Vincent Meisner & Jonas von Wangenheim, 2022. "Loss aversion in strategy-proof school-choice mechanisms," Papers 2207.14666, arXiv.org.
    14. Thierry Magnac, 2018. "Quels étudiants pour quelles universités ? Analyses empiriques de mécanismes d’allocation centralisée," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(5), pages 683-708.
    15. Gian Caspari & Manshu Khanna, 2025. "Nonstandard Choice In Matching Markets," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 66(2), pages 757-786, May.
    16. Ortega, Josué & Klein, Thilo, 2023. "The cost of strategy-proofness in school choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 515-528.
    17. Yuichiro Kamada & Fuhito Kojima & Akira Matsushita, 2025. "The Walras-Bowley Lecture: Fragmentation of Matching Markets and How Economics Can Help Integrate Them," Papers 2508.19628, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2025.
    18. Zhang, Jun, 2021. "Level-k reasoning in school choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-17.
    19. Hojjat Shakiba & Maksim Belitski, 2025. "A game theory analysis of regional innovation ecosystems," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 797-820, June.
    20. Rees-Jones, Alex, 2018. "Suboptimal behavior in strategy-proof mechanisms: Evidence from the residency match," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 317-330.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2301.06967. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.