IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2410.19011.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Local hedging approximately solves Pandora's box problems with nonobligatory inspection

Author

Listed:
  • Ziv Scully
  • Laura Doval

Abstract

We consider search problems with nonobligatory inspection and single-item or combinatorial selection. A decision maker is presented with a number of items, each of which contains an unknown price, and can pay an inspection cost to observe the item's price before selecting it. Under single-item selection, the decision maker must select one item; under combinatorial selection, the decision maker must select a set of items that satisfies certain constraints. In our nonobligatory inspection setting, the decision maker can select items without first inspecting them. It is well-known that search with nonobligatory inspection is harder than the well-studied obligatory inspection case, for which the optimal policy for single-item selection (Weitzman, 1979) and approximation algorithms for combinatorial selection (Singla, 2018) are known. We introduce a technique, local hedging, for constructing policies with good approximation ratios in the nonobligatory inspection setting. Local hedging transforms policies for the obligatory inspection setting into policies for the nonobligatory inspection setting, at the cost of an extra factor in the approximation ratio. The factor is instance-dependent but is at most 4/3. We thus obtain the first approximation algorithms for a variety of combinatorial selection problems, including matroid basis, matching, and facility location.

Suggested Citation

  • Ziv Scully & Laura Doval, 2024. "Local hedging approximately solves Pandora's box problems with nonobligatory inspection," Papers 2410.19011, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2410.19011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.19011
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weitzman, Martin L, 1979. "Optimal Search for the Best Alternative," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(3), pages 641-654, May.
    2. Raluca Ursu & Stephan Seiler & Elisabeth Honka, 2023. "The Sequential Search Model: A Framework for Empirical Research," CESifo Working Paper Series 10264, CESifo.
    3. David B. Brown & James E. Smith, 2013. "Optimal Sequential Exploration: Bandits, Clairvoyants, and Wildcats," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(3), pages 644-665, June.
    4. Mark Armstrong, 2017. "Ordered Consumer Search," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(5), pages 989-1024.
    5. Doval, Laura, 2018. "Whether or not to open Pandora's box," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 127-158.
    6. Mahsa Derakhshan & Negin Golrezaei & Vahideh Manshadi & Vahab Mirrokni, 2022. "Product Ranking on Online Platforms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4024-4041, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hedyeh Beyhaghi & Linda Cai, 2023. "Recent Developments in Pandora's Box Problem: Variants and Applications," Papers 2308.12242, arXiv.org.
    2. Petrikaitė, Vaiva, 2022. "Escaping search when buying," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    3. Giovanni Compiani & Gregory Lewis & Sida Peng & Peichun Wang, 2024. "Online Search and Optimal Product Rankings: An Empirical Framework," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(3), pages 615-636, May.
    4. Rafael P. Greminger, 2022. "Optimal Search and Discovery," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3904-3924, May.
    5. Chen, Yanbin & Li, Sanxi & Lin, Kai & Yu, Jun, 2021. "Consumer search with blind buying," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 402-427.
    6. Greminger, Rafael, 2019. "Optimal Search and Awareness Expansion," Other publications TiSEM ac47e6ff-42a4-4d70-addd-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. T. Tony Ke & Song Lin, 2020. "Informational Complementarity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3699-3716, August.
    8. Rafael P. Greminger, 2019. "Optimal Search and Discovery," Papers 1911.07773, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    9. Greminger, Rafael, 2019. "Optimal Search and Awareness Expansion," Discussion Paper 2019-034, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    10. Grenet, Julien & He, YingHua & Kübler, Dorothea, 2022. "Preference Discovery in University Admissions: The Case for Dynamic Multioffer Mechanisms," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 130(6), pages 1-1.
    11. Pak Hung Au & Mark Whitmeyer, 2018. "Attraction versus Persuasion: Information Provision in Search Markets," Papers 1802.09396, arXiv.org, revised May 2022.
    12. Lyu, Chen, 2023. "Information design for selling search goods and the effect of competition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    13. Rustamdjan Hakimov & Dorothea Kübler & Siqi Pan, 2023. "Costly information acquisition in centralized matching markets," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(4), pages 1447-1490, November.
    14. Murali Agastya & Oleksii Birulin, 2023. "Optimal Task Scheduling under Adverse Selection and Hidden Actions," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 660-698, May.
    15. Manuel Mueller-Frank & Mallesh M. Pai, 2016. "Social Learning with Costly Search," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 83-109, February.
    16. Haan, Marco A. & Moraga-González, José L. & Petrikaitė, Vaiva, 2018. "A model of directed consumer search," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 223-255.
    17. Mustafa Dogan & Ju Hu, 2022. "Consumer search and optimal information," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 53(2), pages 386-403, June.
    18. Maxey, Tyler, 2024. "School choice with costly information acquisition," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 248-268.
    19. Mark Armstrong, 2017. "Ordered Consumer Search," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(5), pages 989-1024.
    20. Noda, Shunya, 2022. "Strategic experimentation with random serial dictatorship," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 115-125.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2410.19011. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.