DOCSLIB.ORG

Structural Econometrics of Auctions: a Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Structural Econometrics of Auctions: a Review Foundations and Trends R in Econometrics Vol. 9, Nos. 2-4 (2018) 79–302 c 2018 M. L. Gentry, T. P. Hubbard, D. Nekipelov, and H. J. Paarsch DOI: 10.1561/0800000031 Structural Econometrics of Auctions: A Review Matthew L. Gentry London School of Economics and Political Science [email protected] Timothy P. Hubbard Denis Nekipelov Colby College University of Virginia [email protected] [email protected] Harry J. Paarsch University of Central Florida [email protected] Contents 1 IntroductionandMotivation 80 1.1 Recommended, Additional Reading concerning Auctions . 97 2 Theoretical Models 98 2.1 IPVModel.......................... 98 2.2 CVModel .......................... 106 2.3 AVModel .......................... 112 2.4 Complications ........................ 119 3 Mapping Theory to Observables 145 3.1 Deriving the pdfs of Bids, and Winning Bids . 146 3.2 EmpiricalSpecifications . 154 3.3 Complications ........................ 157 4 Identification 158 4.1 NotationandDefinitions . 159 4.2 VickreyAuctions. 161 4.3 EnglishAuctions. 162 4.4 Sealed, Pay-Your-Bid Auctions . 168 4.5 DutchAuctions ....................... 176 4.6 Complications ........................ 177 ii iii 5 Two Approaches 192 5.1 Reduced-FormApproach . 194 5.2 StructuralApproach. 200 5.3 Summary........................... 205 6 Estimation Strategies 206 6.1 NonparametricMethods. 206 6.2 Semi-NonparametricMethods. 211 6.3 ParametricMethods. 217 7 Asymmetries 227 7.1 AsymmetricIPVModel . 230 8 Dependence 244 8.1 Copulas ........................... 248 8.2 UsingCopulas ........................ 250 9 Multi-Unit and Multi-Object Auctions 253 9.1 Multi-UnitAuctions . 254 9.2 Multi-ObjectAuctions. 268 9.3 Long-Lived,DynamicAuctions . 269 10 Summary, Conclusions, and Suggestions 272 Acknowledgements 277 Appendices 278 A.1 Permanent and Order Statistics with Different Urns . 278 A.2 Extreme-ValueDistributions . 281 A.3 ApproximationMethods . 282 A.4 B-Splines........................... 284 References 286 Abstract We review the literature concerned with the structural econometrics of observational data from auctions, discussing the problems that have been solved and highlighting those that remain unsolved as well as sug- gesting areas for future research. Where appropriate, we discuss differ- ent modeling choices as well as the fragility or robustness of different methods. Keywords: auctions; structural econometrics. JEL Classifications: C57, Econometrics of Games and Auctions; D44, Auctions. M. L. Gentry, T. P. Hubbard, D. Nekipelov, and H. J. Paarsch. Structural Econometrics of Auctions: A Review. Foundations and Trends R in Econometrics, vol. 9, nos. 2-4, pp. 79–302, 2018. DOI: 10.1561/0800000031. 1 Introduction and Motivation One of the great success stories in economics during the latter half of the twentieth century was the systematic theoretical investigation of incomplete information in various economic environments—for exam- ple, moral hazard in insurance markets and adverse selection in such market institutions as auctions, to name just two. Developed in tandem with the incredible advances in game theory since the Second World War, an important by-product of this research program was the for- mulation of many incomplete information problems as the design of optimal mechanisms.1 From an econometrician’s perspective, theoretical models of in- complete information are particularly compelling because they provide richer explanations of the observed heterogeneity in data than ones re- lying on measurement error or productivity shocks. For example, when individual agents use private information strategically to make deci- sions, the equilibrium interactions of those decisions with the decisions of others can generate new explanations of observed phenomena, par- ticularly in the field of industrial organization. 1The book by Tilman Börgers [2015], with chapter by Daniel Krähmer and Roland Strausz, provides a useful introduction to the topic. 80 81 As is common in economics, however, econometric and empirical de- velopments involving models of incomplete information lagged behind those in theory. For even though using theoretical models to put struc- ture on economic data was advocated by the late Nobel laureates Tryge Haavelmo [1944] and Tjalling C. Koopmans [1947, 1949, 1953] as well as associates of Koopmans at the Cowles Foundation, Yale University, in the 1950s (for example, the late Nobel laureate Leonid Hurwicz [1950]), the approach did not become generally accepted, let alone widespread, until the last quarter of the twentieth century, particularly in response to the devastating evaluation of reduced-form methods by the Nobel laureate Robert E. Lucas, Jr. [1976], which is now commonly referred to as the Lucas critique. In this review, we summarize a subset of this literature—that de- voted to the structural econometric analysis of observational data from auctions, as opposed to data from either laboratory or field experi- ments, although we mention some studies involving the latter two in passing. A classic, canonical problem in economic theory involves a seller of an object who faces several potential buyers. Although the seller probably knows the object’s value to himself, he typically has little or no information concerning what value any one of the potential buyers places on the object. Similarly, each potential buyer may have a good notion of the object’s value to himself, but probably knows little about the seller’s valuation or the valuations of the other potential buyers. In short, the seller as well as the potential buyers face incomplete, asymmetric information. How should the seller dispose of the object? One commonly used method of sale involves announcing a take-it-or-leave-it price and then selling the object to the first who accepts that price. Another involves the seller’s engaging in pair-wise negotiations with individual potential buyers, either sequentially or simultaneously. Yet a third involves sell- ing the object at auction. In short, a set of different selling mechanisms exists, from which the seller must choose, guided by some objective—an auction being one of those potential choices. The choice of mechanism by the seller typically depends on many factors, for example, the ob- 82 Introduction and Motivation jective of the seller and transaction costs to name just two. Auctions are ubiquitous in market economies. They are also ancient, their durability suggesting that the institution serves an important al- locational role. Perhaps the most important feature defining environ- ments within which auctions are used is the existence of incomplete information of some sort—the asymmetry of information between the seller and the potential buyers. Because the potential buyers have no incentive to tell the seller or any of their competitors anything about those valuations, the auction plays an important allocative role by in- ducing the potential buyers to reveal to the seller information concern- ing their valuations of the object. The way potential buyers form their valuations remains an open question in economics. In fact, in auction theory, researchers are un- usually vague about what generates the demand structure, unlike in standard demand theory where considerable care is taken to specify the structure of preferences. Suffice it to say, however, when economic theorists come to modeling the asymmetry in information as well as the heterogeneity in valuations across agents, they employ random vari- ables. Typically, each potential buyer is assumed to demand at most one unit of the object in question. In the simplest model, for each potential buyer, the marginal utility of the one unit is assumed an in- dependent realization of a continuous random variable. By and large, the budget constraint and issues of substitution are ignored. With such an austere model, it is indeed somewhat surprising that economists can provide any practical insights concerning how to bid at auctions, let alone how to structure the institution with any purpose. In the workhorse model of auction theory, which was first developed by the late Nobel laureate William S. Vickrey [1961], each of a known number N of potential buyers draws an individual-specific random val- uation independently from the same differentiable cumulative distribu- tion function (cdf) FV (v) that has corresponding probability density function (pdf) fV (v) = dFV (v)/dv. In Vickrey’s model, he assumed that V is distributed uniformly on the unit interval: the specific value of his draw is that potential buyer’s private information; it represents the monetary value of the object to him. Economic theorists refer to 83 this as the symmetric independent private-values (IPV) model because the draws are independent and the valuations are bidder specific. Also, because the valuations are drawn from the same distribution (urn so to speak), the bidders are ex ante symmetric. Different auction formats (open-outcry versus sealed-bid) and dif- ferent pricing rules (pay-your-bid versus second-price) provide potential buyers with different incentives concerning how to bid. For example, under the pay-your-bid rule, a bidder’s action (his bid) determines what he pays should he win, whereas under the second-price rule, the action (bid) of his nearest rival determines what the winner pays. In equilibrium, different functions map the private information of potential buyers (their values) into their actions (their bids). For ex- ample, open-outcry (sometimes referred to as oral) auctions can be conducted in two different ways.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Next Digital Decade Essays on the Future of the Internet
    THE NEXT DIGITAL DECADE ESSAYS ON THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET Edited by Berin Szoka & Adam Marcus THE NEXT DIGITAL DECADE ESSAYS ON THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET Edited by Berin Szoka & Adam Marcus NextDigitalDecade.com TechFreedom techfreedom.org Washington, D.C. This work was published by TechFreedom (TechFreedom.org), a non-profit public policy think tank based in Washington, D.C. TechFreedom’s mission is to unleash the progress of technology that improves the human condition and expands individual capacity to choose. We gratefully acknowledge the generous and unconditional support for this project provided by VeriSign, Inc. More information about this book is available at NextDigitalDecade.com ISBN 978-1-4357-6786-7 © 2010 by TechFreedom, Washington, D.C. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. Cover Designed by Jeff Fielding. THE NEXT DIGITAL DECADE: ESSAYS ON THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword 7 Berin Szoka 25 Years After .COM: Ten Questions 9 Berin Szoka Contributors 29 Part I: The Big Picture & New Frameworks CHAPTER 1: The Internet’s Impact on Culture & Society: Good or Bad? 49 Why We Must Resist the Temptation of Web 2.0 51 Andrew Keen The Case for Internet Optimism, Part 1: Saving the Net from Its Detractors 57 Adam Thierer CHAPTER 2: Is the Generative
    [Show full text]
  • The Flajolet-Martin Sketch Itself Preserves Differential Privacy: Private Counting with Minimal Space
    The Flajolet-Martin Sketch Itself Preserves Differential Privacy: Private Counting with Minimal Space Adam Smith Shuang Song Abhradeep Thakurta Boston University Google Research, Brain Team Google Research, Brain Team [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract We revisit the problem of counting the number of distinct elements F0(D) in a data stream D, over a domain [u]. We propose an ("; δ)-differentially private algorithm that approximates F0(D) within a factor of (1 ± γ), and with additive error of p O( ln(1/δ)="), using space O(ln(ln(u)/γ)/γ2). We improve on the prior work at least quadratically and up to exponentially, in terms of both space and additive p error. Our additive error guarantee is optimal up to a factor of O( ln(1/δ)), n ln(u) 1 o and the space bound is optimal up to a factor of O min ln γ ; γ2 . We assume the existence of an ideal uniform random hash function, and ignore the space required to store it. We later relax this requirement by assuming pseudo- random functions and appealing to a computational variant of differential privacy, SIM-CDP. Our algorithm is built on top of the celebrated Flajolet-Martin (FM) sketch. We show that FM-sketch is differentially private as is, as long as there are p ≈ ln(1/δ)=(εγ) distinct elements in the data set. Along the way, we prove a structural result showing that the maximum of k i.i.d. random variables is statisti- cally close (in the sense of "-differential privacy) to the maximum of (k + 1) i.i.d.
    [Show full text]
  • Peter Klibanoff
    Peter Klibanoff Curriculum Vitae (February 26, 2021) Office Address and telephone Department of Managerial Economics and Decision Sciences (MEDS) Kellogg School of Management Northwestern University 2211 Campus Drive Evanston, IL 60208 (847) 491-5153 e-mail: [email protected] web: http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/klibanof/ftp/klibanof.htm Google Scholar profile: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Q7dnutMAAAAJ&hl=en Citizenship: USA Education Ph.D., economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1994. Dissertation: “Essays on Uncertainty in Economics.” Advisors: Drew Fudenberg, Jean Tirole. B.A., applied mathematics, Harvard University, 1990, summa cum laude. Full-Time Positions Held Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University: Sept. 2018 – present John L. and Helen Kellogg Professor of Managerial Economics and Decision Sciences Sept. 2018 – present Department Chair, Managerial Economics and Decision Sciences Sept. 1994 - present Assistant -, Associate (with tenure) -, Full-, Professor of Managerial Economics and Decision Sciences Published and Forthcoming Journal Articles 1. Klibanoff, P., Mukerji, S., Seo, K. and Stanca, L. “Foundations of ambiguity models under symmetry: α-MEU and smooth ambiguity.” Journal of Economic Theory, forthcoming. 2. Ghili, S. and Klibanoff, P. “If it is surely better, do it more? Implications for preferences under ambiguity.” Management Science, forthcoming. 1 3. Hanany, E., Klibanoff, P. and Mukerji, S. “Incomplete Information Games with Ambiguity Averse Players.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 12(2) (May 2020), pp.135-187. 4. Klibanoff, P., Mukerji, S. and Seo, K. “Symmetry axioms and perceived ambiguity.” Mathematics and Financial Economics, 12(1) (January 2018), pp. 33-54. 5. Abdellaoui, M., Klibanoff, P. and Placido, L. “Experiments on compound risk in relation to simple risk and to ambiguity.” Management Science, 61(6) (June 2015), pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Hardness of Non-Interactive Differential Privacy from One-Way
    Hardness of Non-Interactive Differential Privacy from One-Way Functions Lucas Kowalczyk* Tal Malkin† Jonathan Ullman‡ Daniel Wichs§ May 30, 2018 Abstract A central challenge in differential privacy is to design computationally efficient non-interactive algorithms that can answer large numbers of statistical queries on a sensitive dataset. That is, we would like to design a differentially private algorithm that takes a dataset D Xn consisting of 2 some small number of elements n from some large data universe X, and efficiently outputs a summary that allows a user to efficiently obtain an answer to any query in some large family Q. Ignoring computational constraints, this problem can be solved even when X and Q are exponentially large and n is just a small polynomial; however, all algorithms with remotely similar guarantees run in exponential time. There have been several results showing that, under the strong assumption of indistinguishability obfuscation (iO), no efficient differentially private algorithm exists when X and Q can be exponentially large. However, there are no strong separations between information-theoretic and computationally efficient differentially private algorithms under any standard complexity assumption. In this work we show that, if one-way functions exist, there is no general purpose differen- tially private algorithm that works when X and Q are exponentially large, and n is an arbitrary polynomial. In fact, we show that this result holds even if X is just subexponentially large (assuming only polynomially-hard one-way functions). This result solves an open problem posed by Vadhan in his recent survey [Vad16]. *Columbia University Department of Computer Science.
    [Show full text]
  • Communication Complexity (For Algorithm Designers)
    Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0400000076 Communication Complexity (for Algorithm Designers) Tim Roughgarden Stanford University, USA [email protected] Boston — Delft Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0400000076 Foundations and Trends R in Theoretical Computer Science Published, sold and distributed by: now Publishers Inc. PO Box 1024 Hanover, MA 02339 United States Tel. +1-781-985-4510 www.nowpublishers.com [email protected] Outside North America: now Publishers Inc. PO Box 179 2600 AD Delft The Netherlands Tel. +31-6-51115274 The preferred citation for this publication is T. Roughgarden. Communication Complexity (for Algorithm Designers). Foundations and Trends R in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 11, nos. 3-4, pp. 217–404, 2015. R This Foundations and Trends issue was typeset in LATEX using a class file designed by Neal Parikh. Printed on acid-free paper. ISBN: 978-1-68083-115-3 c 2016 T. Roughgarden All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publishers. Photocopying. In the USA: This journal is registered at the Copyright Clearance Cen- ter, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by now Publishers Inc for users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC). The ‘services’ for users can be found on the internet at: www.copyright.com For those organizations that have been granted a photocopy license, a separate system of payment has been arranged.
    [Show full text]
  • Should First-Price Auctions Be Transparent?∗
    Should First-Price Auctions be Transparent?∗ Dirk Bergemann† Johannes H¨orner‡ April 7, 2017 Abstract We investigate the role of market transparency in repeated first-price auctions. We consider a setting with independent private and persistent values. We analyze three distinct disclosure regimes regarding the bid and award history. In the minimal disclosure regime each bidder only learns privately whether he won or lost the auction. In equilibrium the allocation is efficient and the minimal disclosure regime does not give rise to pooling equilibria. In contrast, in disclosure settings where either all or only the winner’s bids are public, an inefficient pooling equilibrium with low revenues exists. ∗We gratefully acknowledge financial support from NSF SES 0851200 and ICES 1215808. We thank the co- editor, Phil Reny, and two anonymous referees, for helpful comments and suggestions. We are grateful to seminar participants at the NBER Market Design Meeting, University of Mannheim, University of Munich and the University of Pennsylvania for their constructive comments. Lastly, thanks to Yi Chen for excellent research assistance. †Department of Economics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, [email protected] ‡Department of Economics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, [email protected] 1 1 Introduction 1.1 Motivation Information revelation policies vary widely across auction formats. In the U.S. procurement context, as a consequence of the “Freedom of Information Act,” the public sector is generally subject to strict transparency requirements that require full disclosure of the identity of the bidders and the terms of each bid. In auctions of mineral rights to U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Sponsored Search Auctions: an Overview of Research with Emphasis on Game Theoretic Aspects
    Sponsored Search Auctions: An Overview of Research with emphasis on Game Theoretic Aspects Patrick Maill´e∗ Evangelos Markakisy Maurizio Naldiz George D. Stamoulisy Bruno Tuffinx Abstract We provide a broad overview of the research that has been conducted until recently on the design of sponsored search auctions. We mainly focus on game theoretic and mechanism design aspects of these auctions, and we analyze the issues associated with each of the three participating entities, i.e., the search engine, the advertisers, and the users of the search engine, as well as their resulting behavior. Regarding the search engine, we overview the various mechanisms that have been proposed including the currently used GSP mechanism. The issues that are addressed include analysis of Nash equilibria and their performance, design of alternative mechanisms and aspects of competition among search engines. We then move on to the advertisers and discuss the problem of choosing a bidding strategy, given the mechanism of the search engine. Following this, we consider the end users and we examine how user behavior may create externalities and influence the performance of the advertisers. Finally, we also overview statistical methods for estimating modeling parameters that are of interest to the three entities. In each section, we point out interesting open problems and directions for future research. 1 Introduction Online advertising is a booming industry, accounting for a large percentage of the revenue generated by web services [51]. Online ads are essential to monetize valuable Internet services, offered for free to the general public, like search engines, blogs, and social networking sites; e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • An Axiomatic Approach to Block Rewards
    An Axiomatic Approach to Block Rewards Xi Chen Christos Papadimitriou Tim Roughgarden [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Columbia University Columbia University Columbia University New York, NY 10027 New York, NY 10027 New York, NY 10027 ABSTRACT of view and the methodology of Economic Theory, the science of Proof-of-work blockchains reward each miner for one completed incentives. block by an amount that is, in expectation, proportional to the Flaws in the incentives of a blockchain protocol can manifest number of hashes the miner contributed to the mining of the block. themselves at multiple timescales. For longest-chain proof-of-work Is this proportional allocation rule optimal? And in what sense? And blockchains like Bitcoin, the most well-studied incentive-based what other rules are possible? In particular, what are the desirable attacks, such as selfish mining [4, 5, 10] and transaction sniping [3], properties that any łgoodž allocation rule should satisfy? To answer concern miners reasoning strategically over multiple block creation these questions, we embark on an axiomatic theory of incentives in epochs. For example, in selfish mining, a miner relinquishes revenue proof-of-work blockchains at the time scale of a single block. We in the short term to achieve greater revenue (in expectation) in the consider desirable properties of allocation rules including: symme- long run via a type of forking attack. try; budget balance (weak or strong); sybil-proofness; and various This paper studies incentive issues and potential deviations from grades of collusion-proofness. We show that Bitcoin’s proportional intended miner behavior at the most basic time scale, that of a allocation rule is the unique allocation rule satisfying a certain single block creation epoch.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Note 11.Pdf
    IEOR8100: Economics, AI, and Optimization Lecture Note 11: Introduction to Auctions Christian Kroer∗ March 30, 2020 1 Introduction In fair division we initially did not worry about the fact that we might not necessarily know the utility function ui of each agent. We briefly studied settings where agents may misreport their valuation in the context of dominant-resource fairness. In this lecture note we continue the study of settings where we will worry about whether agents tell the truth or not. The general study of this type of setting is called mechanism design. We will study the most classical mechanism-design setting: auctions. We will start by consid- ering single-item auctions: there is a single good for sale, and there is a set of n buyers, with each buyer having some value vi for the good. The goal will be to sell the item via a sealed-bid auction, which works as follows: 1. Each bidder i submits a bid bi ≥ 0, without seeing the bids of anyone else. 2. The seller decides who gets the good based on the submitted bids. 3. Each buyer i is charged a price pi which is a function of the bid vector b. A few things in our setup may seem strange. First, most people would not think of sealed bids when envisioning an auction. Instead, they typically envision what's called the English auction. In the English auction, bidders repeatedly call out increasing bids, until the bidding stops, at which point the highest bidder wins and pays their last bid. This auction can be conceptualized as having a price that starts at zero, and then rises continuously, with bidders dropping out as they become priced out.
    [Show full text]
  • Fall 2016 Dear Computer Science Alumni and Friends, These Are
    Alex Aiken Alcatel-Lucent Professor Tencent Chair, Department of Computer Science Fall 2016 Dear Computer Science Alumni and Friends, These are exciting times in computer science, with research, education, and the industry continuing to evolve at a rapid and seemingly increasing rate. The role of computer science is also changing, shifting from being a dynamic, exciting intellectual field driving technological change to becoming a dynamic, exciting intellectual field that is a significant component of many other fields of inquiry as well as a major social and cultural force. The effects of these changes on academic computer science departments, at least in the United States, are well known: soaring enrollments at all levels; a major expansion of research efforts, particularly in collaborations with other fields; and the stresses associated with trying to adapt and grow to meet these challenges and opportunities. The CS department at Stanford has been riding this wave with excitement and enthusiasm—and sometimes exhaustion! In this newsletter, I’ll talk about some of the changes that are taking place. A key part of this process has been discussions with the alumni and friends of the department; many of you have helped by sharing your thoughts with me and other faculty, for which we are sincerely grateful. Faculty Hiring The School of Engineering and the department have agreed that the CS department will grow by a net of 10 full-time faculty positions, from about 40 full-time positions today to about 50. Many of you will no doubt recognize that this won’t change our hiring rate (we’ve been hiring as fast as we can for several years), but it will allow us to take a step back and think about the future composition of the department.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter from the President
    Letter from the President Dear EATCS members, As usual this time of the year, I have the great pleasure to announce the assignments of this year’s Gódel Prize, EATCS Award and Presburger Award. The Gödel Prize 2012, which is co-sponsored by EATCS and ACM SIGACT, has been awarded jointly to Elias Koutsoupias, Christos H. Papadimitriou, Tim Roughgarden, Éva Tardos, Noam Nisan and Amir Ronen. In particular, the prize has been awarded to Elias Koutsoupias and Christos H. Papadimitriou for their paper Worst-case equilibria, Computer Science Review, 3(2): 65-69, 2009; to Tim Roughgarden and Éva Tardos for their paper How Bad Is Selfish Routing? , Journal of the ACM, 49(2): 236-259, 2002; and to Noam Nisan and Amir Ronen for their paper Algorithmic Mechanism Design, Games and Economic Behavior, 35: 166-196, 2001. As you can read in the laudation published in this issue of the bulletin, these three papers contributed highly influential concepts and results that laid the foundation for an explosive growth in algorithmic game theory, a trans-disciplinary combination of the theory of algorithms and the theory of games that has greatly enriched both fields. The purpose of all three papers was to improve our understanding of how the internet and other complex computational systems behave when users and service providers in these systems act selfishly. On behalf of this year’s Gödel Prize Committee (consisting of Sanjeev Arora, Josep Díaz, Giuseppe F. Italiano, Daniel ✸ ❇❊❆❚❈❙ ♥♦ ✶✵✼ ❊❆❚❈❙ ▼❆❚❚❊❘❙ Spielman, Eli Upfal and Mogens Nielsen as chair) and the whole EATCS community I would like to offer our congratulations and deep respect to all of the six winners! The EATCS Award 2012 has been granted to Moshe Vardi for his decisive influence on the development of theoretical computer science, for his pre-eminent career as a distinguished researcher, and for his role as a most illustrious leader and disseminator.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Conference Program
    Thank You 2019 NASMES Partners Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics 2 Organizaonal Details Venue University of Washington Main Campus: Kane Hall, Mary Gates Hall, Johnson Hall, Nano Engineering Sciences Building, Husky Union Building Thursday, June 27, 2019 8:00 – 19:00 Registration – Kane Hall, Walker Ames, Room 225 9:00 – 12:30 Hotelling Lectures – Johnson (JHN) Hall, Room 102 “Matching with Constraints and Market Design” Fuhito Kojima, Stanford University 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch (on your own) 13:30 – 15:00 Parallel Session A – Mary Gates Hall, Johnson Hall, Nano Engineering Sciences Building, Husky Union Building 15:00 – 15:30 Refreshment Break – Kane Hall, Walker Ames Room 225 15:30 – 17:00 Parallel Session B Mary Gates Hall, Johnson Hall, Nano Engineering Sciences Building, Husky Union Building 17:00 – 17:30 Break (move to Kane Hall Room 130 for plenary) 17:30 – 18:30 Walras-Bowley Lecture – Kane Hall Room130 “Goals and Gaps: Educational Careers of Immigrant Children” Eliana La Ferrara, Bocconi University, Milan 18:30 – 20:30 Welcome Dinner – HUB North Ballroom, Husky Union Building, Second floor Friday, June 28, 2019 8:00 – 19:00 Registration – Kane Hall, Walker Ames Room 225 9:00 – 10:30 Semi-Plenary I – Microeconomics I – Kane Hall Room 110 “Learning Dynamics in Social Networks” Simon Board, University of California Los Angeles “Stability and Belief Consistency of Matching with Incomplete Information” Qingmin Liu, Columbia University Semi-Plenary II – Macroeconomics I - Kane Hall Room 210 “Professional Forecasts and Inflation
    [Show full text]