Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2602.15246

Learning Against Nature: Minimax Regret and the Price of Robustness

Abstract

We study how a decision-maker (DM) learns from data of unknown quality to form robust, ''general-purpose'' posterior beliefs. We develop a framework for robust learning and belief formation under a minimax-regret criterion, cast as a zero-sum game: the DM chooses posterior beliefs to minimize ex-ante regret, while an adversarial Nature selects the data-generating process (DGP). We show that, in large samples of $n$ signal draws, Nature optimally induces ambiguity by choosing a process whose precision converges to the uninformative signals at the rate $1/\sqrt{n}$. As a result, learning against the adversarial DGP is nontrivial as well as incomplete: the DM's ex-ante regret remains strictly positive even with an infinite amount of data. However, when the true DGP is fixed and informative (even if only slightly), our DM with a robust updating rule eventually learns the state with enough data. Still, learning occurs at a sub-exponential rate -- quantifying the asymptotic price of robustness -- and it exhibits ''under-inference'' bias. Our framework provides a decision-theoretic dual to the local alternatives method in asymptotic statistics, deriving the characteristic $1/\sqrt{n}$-scaling endogenously from the signal ambiguity.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yeon-Koo Che, Longjian Li, Tianling Luo. 2026-02-16. Learning Against Nature: Minimax Regret and the Price of Robustness. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.15246

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Measurement of Trustworthiness of the Online Reviews

Online review platforms shape consumer decisions, yet reported ratings and comments may be unreliable when reviewers behave inconsistently. This paper models online reviews as a sequential choice problem and proposes a formal rationality pattern function that links a reviewer's current review to their revealed preference history. Building on a two-way consistency axiom for choices from nested sets, we derive an object-specific support trajectory and an associated degree measure in [0,1] (Average Propensity to Choose a Pattern, APCP) that quantifies review trustworthiness. The measure is designed to support information updating and reduce asymmetric information by discounting reviews that are inconsistent with past behavior. A worked example illustrates how the approach assigns trustworthiness grades to reviews for different objects and how these grades can complement aggregate rating statistics. Finally, a generalized theory has been established.

econ.TH

The Depth and Reach of Exploitation: Contracting with Endogenously Naive Consumers

Consumers can invest resources to understand and avoid their behavioral mistakes, and their incentives to do so depend on the market consequences of remaining naive. We incorporate this feedback between consumers' cognitive states and market outcomes into a general contracting model. Firms face a trade-off between the depth and reach of exploitation: deeper exploitation raises profit from a naive consumer but induces greater cognitive investment, promoting sophistication and shrinking the exploitable consumer base. This trade-off disciplines exploitation and can cause policies that benefit consumers when cognition is fixed to backfire when cognition is endogenous.

econ.TH

Contracting under Misspecification

This paper studies agency problems when both parties worry that the model linking action to output is misspecified. With observable actions, an optimal contract is linear in output, so performance pay arises solely to share misspecification exposure, the slope reflects the parties' relative robustness concerns, and its allocation is Pareto efficient. With hidden actions, this sharing rule survives and incentives add a nonlinear correction. Misspecification concerns can polarize effort by making intermediate actions impossible to implement. Moreover, ambiguity across competing models has asymmetric effects: uncertainty about desired actions raises the principal's payoff, whereas uncertainty about deviations can lower it.

econ.TH