IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2507.17609.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Divide or Confer: Aggregating Information without Verification

Author

Listed:
  • James Best
  • Daniel Quigley
  • Maryam Saeedi
  • Ali Shourideh

Abstract

We examine receiver-optimal mechanisms for aggregating information divided across many biased senders. Each sender privately observes an unconditionally independent signal about an unknown state, so no sender can verify another's report. A receiver makes a binary accept/reject decision that determines the players' payoffs via the state. When information is divided across a small population, and bias is low, the receiver-optimal mechanism coincides with the sender-preferred allocation, and can be implemented by letting senders confer privately before reporting. However, for larger populations, the receiver can benefit from the informational divide. We introduce a novel incentive-compatibility-in-the-large approach to solve the high-dimensional mechanism design problem for the large-population limit. Using this, we show that optimal mechanisms converge to one that depends only on the accept payoff and punishes excessive consensus in the direction of the common bias. These surplus burning punishments lead to payoffs that are bounded away from the first-best.

Suggested Citation

  • James Best & Daniel Quigley & Maryam Saeedi & Ali Shourideh, 2025. "Divide or Confer: Aggregating Information without Verification," Papers 2507.17609, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2025.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2507.17609
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.17609
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vijay Krishna & John Morgan, 2001. "A Model of Expertise," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(2), pages 747-775.
    2. Cremer, Jacques & McLean, Richard P, 1988. "Full Extraction of the Surplus in Bayesian and Dominant Strategy Auctions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(6), pages 1247-1257, November.
    3. Gerardi, Dino & McLean, Richard & Postlewaite, Andrew, 2009. "Aggregation of expert opinions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 339-371, March.
    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. Amorós, Pablo, 2023. "Evaluation and strategic manipulation," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    2. Jackson, Matthew O. & Tan, Xu, 2013. "Deliberation, disclosure of information, and voting," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 2-30.
    3. Pablo Amorós, 2020. "Aggregating experts’ opinions to select the winner of a competition," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 49(3), pages 833-849, September.
    4. Junichiro Ishida & Takashi Shimizu, 2009. "Cheap Talk with an Informed Receiver," ISER Discussion Paper 0746r, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka, revised Jun 2015.
    5. Irene Valsecchi, 2013. "The expert problem: a survey," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 303-331, November.
    6. Dezsö Szalay & Ramon Arean, 2005. "Communicating with a Team of Experts," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 05.12, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    7. Pablo Amorós, 2017. "The problem of aggregating experts' opinions to select the winner of a competition," Working Papers 2017-04, Universidad de Málaga, Department of Economic Theory, Málaga Economic Theory Research Center.
    8. Arve, Malin & Zwart, Gijsbert, 2023. "Optimal procurement and investment in new technologies under uncertainty," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    9. Persson, Petra, 2018. "Attention manipulation and information overload," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 78-106, May.
    10. Dirk Bergemann & Juuso Valimaki, 2002. "Information Acquisition and Efficient Mechanism Design," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(3), pages 1007-1033, May.
    11. Feltenstein, Andrew & Lagunoff, Roger, 2005. "International versus domestic auditing of bank solvency," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 73-96, September.
    12. Vaccari, Federico, 2023. "Competition in costly talk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    13. Robert Gary‐Bobo & Yossi Spiegel, 2006. "Optimal state‐contingent regulation under limited liability," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(2), pages 431-448, June.
    14. Chan, Jimmy & Suen, Wing, 2009. "Media as watchdogs: The role of news media in electoral competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(7), pages 799-814, October.
    15. Renato Gomes & Alessandro Pavan, 2013. "Cross-Subsidization and Matching Design," Discussion Papers 1559, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    16. Dirk Bergemann & Marek Bojko & Paul DŸtting & Renato Paes Leme & Haifeng Xu & Song Zuo, 2024. "Data-Driven Mechanism Design: Jointly Eliciting Preferences and Information," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2418, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    17. Obara Ichiro, 2008. "The Full Surplus Extraction Theorem with Hidden Actions," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-28, March.
    18. Lagunoff, Roger, 2006. "Credible communication in dynastic government," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1-2), pages 59-86, January.
    19. Fu, Hu & Haghpanah, Nima & Hartline, Jason & Kleinberg, Robert, 2021. "Full surplus extraction from samples," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    20. Ronen Gradwohl, 2018. "Privacy in implementation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(3), pages 547-580, March.

    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:2507.17609. 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.