Showing 1–12 of 12 results for author: Dasaratha, K

Markets for Models

Authors: Krishna Dasaratha, Juan Ortner, Chengyang Zhu

Abstract: Motivated by the prevalence of prediction problems in the economy, we study markets in which firms sell models to a consumer to help improve their prediction. Firms decide whether to enter, choose models to train on their data, and set prices. The consumer can purchase multiple models and use a weighted average of the models bought. Market outcomes can be expressed in terms of the \emph{bias-varia… ▽ More Motivated by the prevalence of prediction problems in the economy, we study markets in which firms sell models to a consumer to help improve their prediction. Firms decide whether to enter, choose models to train on their data, and set prices. The consumer can purchase multiple models and use a weighted average of the models bought. Market outcomes can be expressed in terms of the \emph{bias-variance decompositions} of the models that firms sell. We give conditions when symmetric firms will choose different modeling techniques, e.g., each using only a subset of available covariates. We also show firms can choose inefficiently biased models or inefficiently costly models to deter entry by competitors. △ Less

Submitted 13 June, 2025; v1 submitted 4 March, 2025; originally announced March 2025.

Incentive Design with Spillovers

Authors: Krishna Dasaratha, Benjamin Golub, Anant Shah

Abstract: A principal uses payments conditioned on stochastic outcomes of a team project to elicit costly effort from the team members. We develop a multi-agent generalization of a classic first-order approach to contract optimization by leveraging methods from network games. The main results characterize the optimal allocation of incentive pay across agents and outcomes. Incentive optimality requires equal… ▽ More A principal uses payments conditioned on stochastic outcomes of a team project to elicit costly effort from the team members. We develop a multi-agent generalization of a classic first-order approach to contract optimization by leveraging methods from network games. The main results characterize the optimal allocation of incentive pay across agents and outcomes. Incentive optimality requires equalizing, across agents, a product of (i) individual productivity (ii) organizational centrality and (iii) responsiveness to monetary incentives. △ Less

Submitted 12 November, 2024; originally announced November 2024.

Optimal Bailouts in Diversified Financial Networks

Authors: Krishna Dasaratha, Santosh Venkatesh, Rakesh Vohra

Abstract: Widespread default involves substantial deadweight costs which could be countered by injecting capital into failing firms. Injections have positive spillovers that can trigger a repayment cascade. But which firms should a regulator bailout so as to minimize the total injection of capital while ensuring solvency of all firms? While the problem is, in general, NP-hard, for a wide range of networks t… ▽ More Widespread default involves substantial deadweight costs which could be countered by injecting capital into failing firms. Injections have positive spillovers that can trigger a repayment cascade. But which firms should a regulator bailout so as to minimize the total injection of capital while ensuring solvency of all firms? While the problem is, in general, NP-hard, for a wide range of networks that arise from a stochastic block model, we show that the optimal bailout can be implemented by a simple policy that targets firms based on their characteristics and position in the network. Specific examples of the setting include core-periphery networks. △ Less

Submitted 18 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

Equity Pay In Networked Teams

Authors: Krishna Dasaratha, Benjamin Golub, Anant Shah

Abstract: A group of agents each exert effort to produce a joint output, with the complementarities between their efforts represented by a (weighted) network. Under equity compensation, a principal motivates the agents to work by giving them shares of the output. We describe the optimal equity allocation. It is characterized by a neighborhood balance condition: any two agents receiving equity have the same… ▽ More A group of agents each exert effort to produce a joint output, with the complementarities between their efforts represented by a (weighted) network. Under equity compensation, a principal motivates the agents to work by giving them shares of the output. We describe the optimal equity allocation. It is characterized by a neighborhood balance condition: any two agents receiving equity have the same (weighted) total equity assigned to their neighbors. We also study the problem of selecting the team of agents who receive positive equity, and show this team must form a tight-knit subset of the complementarity network, with any pair being complementary to one another or jointly to another team member. Finally, we give conditions under which the amount of equity used for compensation is increasing in the strength of a team's complementarities and discuss several other applications. △ Less

Submitted 28 August, 2023; originally announced August 2023.

Comments: 37 pages, 4 figures

Learning from Viral Content

Authors: Krishna Dasaratha, Kevin He

Abstract: We study learning on social media with an equilibrium model of users interacting with shared news stories. Rational users arrive sequentially, observe an original story (i.e., a private signal) and a sample of predecessors' stories in a news feed, and then decide which stories to share. The observed sample of stories depends on what predecessors share as well as the sampling algorithm generating n… ▽ More We study learning on social media with an equilibrium model of users interacting with shared news stories. Rational users arrive sequentially, observe an original story (i.e., a private signal) and a sample of predecessors' stories in a news feed, and then decide which stories to share. The observed sample of stories depends on what predecessors share as well as the sampling algorithm generating news feeds. We focus on how often this algorithm selects more viral (i.e., widely shared) stories. Showing users viral stories can increase information aggregation, but it can also generate steady states where most shared stories are wrong. These misleading steady states self-perpetuate, as users who observe wrong stories develop wrong beliefs, and thus rationally continue to share them. Finally, we describe several consequences for platform design and robustness. △ Less

Submitted 4 August, 2023; v1 submitted 3 October, 2022; originally announced October 2022.

Virus Dynamics with Behavioral Responses

Authors: Krishna Dasaratha

Abstract: Motivated by epidemics such as COVID-19, we study the spread of a contagious disease when behavior responds to the disease's prevalence. We extend the SIR epidemiological model to include endogenous meeting rates. Individuals benefit from economic activity, but activity involves interactions with potentially infected individuals. The main focus is a theoretical analysis of contagion dynamics and b… ▽ More Motivated by epidemics such as COVID-19, we study the spread of a contagious disease when behavior responds to the disease's prevalence. We extend the SIR epidemiological model to include endogenous meeting rates. Individuals benefit from economic activity, but activity involves interactions with potentially infected individuals. The main focus is a theoretical analysis of contagion dynamics and behavioral responses to changes in risk. We obtain a simple condition for when public-health interventions or variants of a disease will have paradoxical effects on infection rates due to risk compensation. Behavioral responses are most likely to undermine public-health interventions near the peak of severe diseases. △ Less

Submitted 21 September, 2023; v1 submitted 29 April, 2020; originally announced April 2020.

Aggregative Efficiency of Bayesian Learning in Networks

Authors: Krishna Dasaratha, Kevin He

Abstract: When individuals in a social network learn about an unknown state from private signals and neighbors' actions, the network structure often causes information loss. We consider rational agents and Gaussian signals in the canonical sequential social-learning problem and ask how the network changes the efficiency of signal aggregation. Rational actions in our model are log-linear functions of observa… ▽ More When individuals in a social network learn about an unknown state from private signals and neighbors' actions, the network structure often causes information loss. We consider rational agents and Gaussian signals in the canonical sequential social-learning problem and ask how the network changes the efficiency of signal aggregation. Rational actions in our model are log-linear functions of observations and admit a signal-counting interpretation of accuracy. Networks where agents observe multiple neighbors but not their common predecessors confound information, and even a small amount of confounding can lead to much lower accuracy. In a class of networks where agents move in generations and observe the previous generation, we quantify the information loss with an aggregative efficiency index. Aggregative efficiency is a simple function of network parameters: increasing in observations and decreasing in confounding. Later generations contribute little additional information, even with arbitrarily large generations. △ Less

Submitted 3 September, 2024; v1 submitted 22 November, 2019; originally announced November 2019.

Innovation and Strategic Network Formation

Authors: Krishna Dasaratha

Abstract: We study a model of innovation with a large number of firms that create new technologies by combining several discrete ideas. These ideas are created via private investment and spread between firms. Firms face a choice between secrecy, which protects existing intellectual property, and openness, which facilitates learning from others. Their decisions determine interaction rates between firms, and… ▽ More We study a model of innovation with a large number of firms that create new technologies by combining several discrete ideas. These ideas are created via private investment and spread between firms. Firms face a choice between secrecy, which protects existing intellectual property, and openness, which facilitates learning from others. Their decisions determine interaction rates between firms, and these interaction rates enter our model as link probabilities in a learning network. Higher interaction rates impose both positive and negative externalities, as there is more learning but also more competition. We show that the equilibrium learning network is at a critical threshold between sparse and dense networks. At equilibrium, the positive externality from interaction dominates: the innovation rate and welfare would be dramatically higher if the network were denser. So there are large returns to increasing interaction rates above the critical threshold. Nevertheless, several natural types of interventions fail to move the equilibrium away from criticality. One effective policy solution is to introduce informational intermediaries, such as public innovators who do not have incentives to be secretive. These intermediaries can facilitate a high-innovation equilibrium by transmitting ideas from one private firm to another. △ Less

Submitted 31 March, 2022; v1 submitted 15 November, 2019; originally announced November 2019.

An Experiment on Network Density and Sequential Learning

Authors: Krishna Dasaratha, Kevin He

Abstract: We conduct a sequential social-learning experiment where subjects each guess a hidden state based on private signals and the guesses of a subset of their predecessors. A network determines the observable predecessors, and we compare subjects' accuracy on sparse and dense networks. Accuracy gains from social learning are twice as large on sparse networks compared to dense networks. Models of naive… ▽ More We conduct a sequential social-learning experiment where subjects each guess a hidden state based on private signals and the guesses of a subset of their predecessors. A network determines the observable predecessors, and we compare subjects' accuracy on sparse and dense networks. Accuracy gains from social learning are twice as large on sparse networks compared to dense networks. Models of naive inference where agents ignore correlation between observations predict this comparative static in network density, while the finding is difficult to reconcile with rational-learning models. △ Less

Submitted 19 May, 2021; v1 submitted 5 September, 2019; originally announced September 2019.

Comments: Incorporates the experimental results from a previous version of arXiv:1703.02105

Journal ref: Games and Economic Behavior, Vol. 128, July 2021, 182-192

Learning from Neighbors about a Changing State

Authors: Krishna Dasaratha, Benjamin Golub, Nir Hak

Abstract: Agents learn about a changing state using private signals and their neighbors' past estimates of the state. We present a model in which Bayesian agents in equilibrium use neighbors' estimates simply by taking weighted sums with time-invariant weights. The dynamics thus parallel those of the tractable DeGroot model of learning in networks, but arise as an equilibrium outcome rather than a behaviora… ▽ More Agents learn about a changing state using private signals and their neighbors' past estimates of the state. We present a model in which Bayesian agents in equilibrium use neighbors' estimates simply by taking weighted sums with time-invariant weights. The dynamics thus parallel those of the tractable DeGroot model of learning in networks, but arise as an equilibrium outcome rather than a behavioral assumption. We examine whether information aggregation is nearly optimal as neighborhoods grow large. A key condition for this is signal diversity: each individual's neighbors have private signals that not only contain independent information, but also have sufficiently different distributions. Without signal diversity $\unicode{x2013}$ e.g., if private signals are i.i.d. $\unicode{x2013}$ learning is suboptimal in all networks and highly inefficient in some. Turning to social influence, we find it is much more sensitive to one's signal quality than to one's number of neighbors, in contrast to standard models with exogenous updating rules. △ Less

Submitted 23 November, 2022; v1 submitted 6 January, 2018; originally announced January 2018.

Comments: final manuscript submitted to journal -- revised exposition throughout, corrected details in Section 3.1

Distributions of Centrality on Networks

Authors: Krishna Dasaratha

Abstract: We provide a framework for determining the centralities of agents in a broad family of random networks. Current understanding of network centrality is largely restricted to deterministic settings, but practitioners frequently use random network models to accommodate data limitations or prove asymptotic results. Our main theorems show that on large random networks, centrality measures are close to… ▽ More We provide a framework for determining the centralities of agents in a broad family of random networks. Current understanding of network centrality is largely restricted to deterministic settings, but practitioners frequently use random network models to accommodate data limitations or prove asymptotic results. Our main theorems show that on large random networks, centrality measures are close to their expected values with high probability. We illustrate the economic consequences of these results by presenting three applications: (1) In network formation models based on community structure (called stochastic block models), we show network segregation and differences in community size produce inequality. Benefits from peer effects tend to accrue disproportionately to bigger and better-connected communities. (2) When link probabilities depend on geography, we can compute and compare the centralities of agents in different locations. (3) In models where connections depend on several independent characteristics, we give a formula that determines centralities 'characteristic-by-characteristic'. The basic techniques from these applications, which use the main theorems to reduce questions about random networks to deterministic calculations, extend to many network games. △ Less

Submitted 10 June, 2019; v1 submitted 29 September, 2017; originally announced September 2017.

Journal ref: Games and Economic Behavior, Vol. 122, July 2020, 1-27

Network Structure and Naive Sequential Learning

Authors: Krishna Dasaratha, Kevin He

Abstract: We study a sequential-learning model featuring a network of naive agents with Gaussian information structures. Agents apply a heuristic rule to aggregate predecessors' actions. They weigh these actions according the strengths of their social connections to different predecessors. We show this rule arises endogenously when agents wrongly believe others act solely on private information and thus neg… ▽ More We study a sequential-learning model featuring a network of naive agents with Gaussian information structures. Agents apply a heuristic rule to aggregate predecessors' actions. They weigh these actions according the strengths of their social connections to different predecessors. We show this rule arises endogenously when agents wrongly believe others act solely on private information and thus neglect redundancies among observations. We provide a simple linear formula expressing agents' actions in terms of network paths and use this formula to characterize the set of networks where naive agents eventually learn correctly. This characterization implies that, on all networks where later agents observe more than one neighbor, there exist disproportionately influential early agents who can cause herding on incorrect actions. Going beyond existing social-learning results, we compute the probability of such mislearning exactly. This allows us to compare likelihoods of incorrect herding, and hence expected welfare losses, across network structures. The probability of mislearning increases when link densities are higher and when networks are more integrated. In partially segregated networks, divergent early signals can lead to persistent disagreement between groups. △ Less

Submitted 1 May, 2020; v1 submitted 25 February, 2017; originally announced March 2017.

Journal ref: Theoretical Economics 15(2):415-444, 2020