Abstract not found

Abstract not found

The US government recently sold spectrum rights using an innovative auction design, the simultaneous ascending auction, invented by economic theorists. The auction outcomes were broadly consistent with the expectations of the theorists. The auction form should have many other applications. March 21, 1998 Just as the Nobel committee was recognizing game theory's role in economics by awarding the 1994 prize to John Nash, John Harsanyi, and Reinhard Selten, game theory was being put to its biggest use ever. Billions of dollars worth of spectrum licenses were being sold by the US government, using a novel auction form designed by economic theorists. Suddenly, game theory became news. William Safire in the New York Times called it "the greatest auction in history." The Economist remarked, "When government auctioneers need worldly advice, where can they turn? To mathematical economists, of course . . . As for the firms that want to get their hands on a sliver of the airwaves, their best bet is to go out first and hire themselves a good game theorist." Fortune said it was the "most dramatic example of game theory's new power . . . It was a triumph, not only for the FCC and the taxpayers, but also for game theory (and game theorists)." Forbes said, "Game theory, long an intellectual pastime, came into its own as a business tool." The Wall Street Journal said, "Game theory is hot." The government auctioned licenses to use the electromagnetic spectrum for personal communications services (PCS): mobile telephones, two-way paging, portable fax machines, and wireless computer networks. Thousands of licenses were offered, varying in both geographic coverage and the amount of spectrum covered. The bidders were the local, long-distance, and cellular telephone companies, as well as...

An important part of our information-gathering behavior has always been to find out what other people think. With the growing availability and popularity of opinion-rich resources such as online review sites and personal blogs, new opportunities and challenges arise as people now can, and do, actively use information technologies to seek out and understand the opinions of others. The sudden eruption of activity in the area of opinion mining and sentiment analysis, which deals with the computational treatment of opinion, sentiment, and subjectivity in text, has thus occurred at least in part as a direct response to the surge of interest in new systems that deal directly with opinions as a first-class object. This survey covers techniques and approaches that promise to directly enable opinion-oriented information-seeking systems. Our focus is on methods that seek to address the new challenges raised by sentiment-aware applications, as compared to those that are already present in more traditional fact-based analysis. We include materialon summarization of evaluative text and on broader issues regarding privacy, manipulation, and economic impact that the development of opinion-oriented information-access services gives rise to. To facilitate future work, a discussion of available resources, benchmark datasets, and evaluation campaigns is also provided. 1

According to one common view, information security comes down to technical measures. Given better access control policy models, formal proofs of cryptographic protocols, approved firewalls, better ways of detecting intrusions and malicious code, and better tools for system evaluation and assurance, the problems can be solved. In this note, I put forward a contrary view: information insecurity is at least as much due to perverse incentives. Many of the problems can be explained more clearly and convincingly using the language of microeconomics: network externalities, asymmetric information, moral hazard, adverse selection, liability dumping and the tragedy of the commons.

Economists have long been ambivalent about whether the discipline should focus on the analysis of markets or should be concerned with social interactions more generally. Recently the discipline has sought to broaden its scope while maintaining the rigor of modern economic analysis. Major theoretical developments in game theory, the economics of the family, and endogenous growth theory have taken place. Economists have also performed new empirical research on social interactions, but the empirical literature does not show progress comparable to that achieved in economic theory. This paper examines why and discusses how economists might make sustained contributions to the empirical analysis of social interactions.

Online reputation mechanisms are emerging as a promising alternative to more traditional trust building mechanisms, such as branding and formal contracting, in settings where the latter may be ineffective or prohibitively expensive; a lot of electronic trading communities fall under these categories. Although a number of commercial websites already employ various forms of reputation mechanisms, rigorous research into their properties is still in its infancy. This fledgling field can benefit from past results in economics and game theory. Moreover, in order to translate the stylized results of game theory into concrete managerial guidance for implementing and participating in effective reputation mechanisms further advances are needed in a number of important areas: First, the design space of such mechanisms needs to be scoped and the effects of different design choices on performance need to be better understood. Second, the economic efficiency of various classes of reputation mechanisms needs to be quantified and compared to that of alternative mechanisms for building trust. Third, the robustness of those mechanisms against boundedly rational players, noisy ratings and strategic manipulation needs to be studied and improved. This paper surveys past results that have been derived in a variety of contexts, but which are relevant as a basis for building online reputation systems, presents two analytical models that illustrate the role of such systems in electronic markets and identifies opportunities for further MS/OR research in this fascinating area.

Abstract not found

Dichotomies between privacy attitudes and behavior have been noted in the literature but not yet fully explained. We apply lessons from the research on behavioral economics to understand the individual decision making process with respect to privacy in electronic commerce. We show that it is unrealistic to expect individual rationality in this context. Models of self-control problems and immediate gratification offer more realistic descriptions of the decision process and are more consistent with currently available data. In particular, we show why individuals who may genuinely want to protect their privacy might not do so because of psychological distortions well documented in the behavioral literature; we show that these distortions may affect not only `naïve' individuals but also `sophisticated' ones; and we prove that this may occur also when individuals perceive the risks from not protecting their privacy as significant.

This paper introduces a model for analyzing marketplaces, such as eBay, which rely on binary reputation mechanisms for quality signaling and quality control. In our model sellers keep their actual quality private and choose what quality to advertise. The reputation mechanism is primarily used to determine whether sellers advertise truthfully. Buyers may exercise some leniency when rating sellers, which needs to be compensated by corresponding strictness when judging sellers' feedback profiles. It is shown that, the more lenient buyers are when rating sellers, the more likely it is that sellers will find it optimal to settle down to steady-state quality levels, as opposed to oscillating between good quality and bad quality. Furthermore, the fairness of the market outcome is determined by the relationship between rating leniency and strictness when assessing a seller's feedback profile. If buyers judge sellers too strictly (relative to how leniently they rate) then, at steady state, sellers will be forced to understate their true quality. On the other hand, if buyers judge too leniently then sellers can get away with consistently overstating their true quality. An optimal judgment rule, which results in outcomes where at steady state buyers accurately estimate the true quality of sellers, is analytically derived. However, it is argued that this optimal rule depends on several system parameters, which are difficult to estimate from the information that marketplaces, such as eBay, currently make available to their members. It is therefore questionable to what extent unsophisticated buyers are capable of deriving and applying it correctly in actual settings.