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

Elliot Lipnowski

dblp:268/6927 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
3since 2021 · last 2023
0009-0005-4215-6358ORCID · corroborated

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 1 first-author · 3 since 2021Theory of computation · 3 · 1 first-author · 3 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
3 papers
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 100%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computational social science and digital humanities · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computational social science and digital humanities
social media
0.612022
The Production and Consumption of Social Media · EC 2022
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › mechanism design
auction design
0.512021
Selling to a Group · EC 2021
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
mechanism design
0.512021
Selling to a Group · EC 2021
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › mechanism design
public good provision
0.512021
Selling to a Group · EC 2021
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › market design
platform design
0.212022
The Production and Consumption of Social Media · EC 2022

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

user survey · 1.1empirical analysis · 1.1rational inattention · 0.7bayesian decision theory · 0.7reduced-form implementation · 0.5duality · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Predicting Choice from Information Costs
abstract
We study a canonical flexible-learning model in which an agent chooses from a finite set of alternatives, the benefits from which depend on a stochastic state. Before making her decision, the agent chooses what signal to acquire about this state. Learning comes at a cost, which the agent subtracts from the expected benefit she derives from her final decision. After choosing her information, the agent observes a signal realization and takes an action.
Elliot Lipnowski, Doron Ravid
EC1
2022 The Production and Consumption of Social Media
abstract
We model social media as collections of users producing and consuming content. Users value consuming content but due to scarce attention they may not value all content from other users. Users also value receiving attention, creating the incentive to attract an audience by producing valuable content but also through attention bartering—users mutually becoming each others’ audience. Attention bartering shapes substantially the patterns of production and consumption on social media, explains key features of social media behavior and platform decision-making, and yields sharp predictions that are consistent with data we collect from #EconTwitter. We conduct Twitter and Instagram user surveys that yield additional direct evidence in support of attention bartering, and we discuss the implications of attention bartering for the design of social media platforms.
Apostolos Filippas, John Joseph Horton, Elliot Lipnowski
EC3
2021 Selling to a Group
abstract
A group of agents can collectively purchase a public good that yields heterogeneous benefits to its members. Combining a reduced-form implementation result with a duality argument, we characterize the seller's profit-maximizing mechanism. Trade outcomes depend solely on a weighted average of the agents' virtual values, with endogenous voting weights. Heterogeneity in voting weights reflects heterogeneity in agents' value distributions, where agents with lower value distributions are given more weight in trade decisions. Simple pricing rules are generally not (even approximately) optimal.
Nima Haghpanah, Aditya Kuvalekar, Elliot Lipnowski
EC3