Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Navin Kartik

dblp:43/11290 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · unresolved

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › cooperative game theory
bargaining
0.612022
Sequential Veto Bargaining with Incomplete Information · EC 2022
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
incomplete information
0.612022
Sequential Veto Bargaining with Incomplete Information · EC 2022
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
mechanism design
0.612022
Sequential Veto Bargaining with Incomplete Information · EC 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

mechanism design · 0.6equilibrium analysis · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Sequential Veto Bargaining with Incomplete Information
abstract
We study sequential bargaining between a proposer and a veto player. Both have single-peaked preferences, but the proposer is uncertain about the veto player's ideal point. The proposer cannot commit to future proposals. When players are patient, there can be equilibria with Coasian dynamics: the veto player's private information can largely nullify proposer's bargaining power. Our main result, however, is that there are also equilibria in which the proposer obtains the high payoff that he would with commitment power. The driving force is that the veto player's single-peaked preferences give the proposer an option to "leapfrog", i.e., to secure agreement from only low-surplus types early on to credibly extract surplus from high types later. Methodologically, we exploit the connection between sequential bargaining and static mechanism design.
S. Nageeb Ali, Navin Kartik, Andreas Kleiner
EC2