A platform’s choice of who gets attention changes what evidence each side shows, not just how loudly they speak; by committing exposure shares the platform shifts disclosure cutoffs and can (in large pools) choose a state-contingent share that reproduces the full-record decision, while finite panels require explicit bias-variance adjustments.

Main Finding

When opposed advocates control separate but verifiable evidence pools and a platform commits ex ante how much exposure each side receives, the platform’s attention share does more than reweight fixed messages: it changes what each advocate chooses to disclose. In every finite-pool equilibrium there is a single endogenous disclosure cutoff (the same action chosen by the receiver) so that the upward advocate reveals observations above it and the downward advocate reveals observations below it. Changing exposure therefore alters the cutoff, the set of disclosed items, and the decision itself. In large pools with a common evidence law, the platform share that reproduces full-information (complete-evidence) decisions equates directional tail moments (an r-expectile), not observed counts; when the state is unknown the optimal ex ante share is a compromise between state-contingent balances. Finite-pool optimal shares require an order-1/n correction that separates endogenous-cutoff bias, the receiver benchmark pull, and sampling variance.

Key Points

• Model setup
  • Two senders (advocates): one prefers higher actions (upward), the other lower (downward).
  • Each controls a separate finite pool of verifiable observations. Senders can suppress but not alter or fabricate items.
  • A platform commits, before evidence/state realization, to an exposure share rn (fraction of total display weight to sender 1); within-camp prominence schedule is fixed.
  • A receiver takes a weighted average of displayed items plus a fixed benchmark (and treats empty slots as simply unfilled — selection-naive inference).
• Equilibrium disclosure structure (finite pools)
  • All Nash equilibria (pure or mixed) deliver the same action cn in each realized pool.
  • cn is simultaneously (i) the receiver’s action, (ii) the upward advocate’s lower disclosure cutoff, and (iii) the downward advocate’s upper disclosure cutoff. Observations equal to cn are immaterial.
  • Therefore disclosure is threshold-based: upward reveals Xi > cn; downward reveals Xi < cn.
• Representation paradox / feedback
  • Increasing an advocate’s exposure does not only raise its weight; it shifts the endogenous cutoff cn.
  • Example phenomenon: giving the upward side more exposure can make it reveal less often (only extreme positives above a higher cutoff) but still move the average outcome upward.
  • Thus attention affects both selection (which items are shown) and weighting.
• Robustness to (partial) imputation of empty slots
  • If empty slots are imputed to the benchmark but with less weight than displayed observations, the cutoff still responds to attention and the paradox survives.
  • Full imputation (empty slots given full weight equal to a displayed item) pins the cutoff at the benchmark and eliminates the attention response.
• Large-pool / ex ante design
  • Under a common evidence law (both sides draw from same distribution), there exists a unique exposure share that makes the large-pool equilibrium action equal the complete-evidence mean: this share equates expected directional tail moments (the r-expectile).
  • The correcting share generally does not equalize displayed counts nor observed influence shares.
  • If advocates have different evidence-generation technologies, the side with greater capacity to generate favorable evidence should receive less exposure to correct bias.
  • Because the balancing share typically depends on the realized state, the platform (which must commit before the state is known) will choose an ex ante compromise lying between state-contingent optimal shares; the paper characterizes this compromise and solves a primitive two-state economy with a unique second-best policy.
• Finite-pool adjustment and exact risk characterization
  • Finite samples introduce sampling variability and move both the tail composition and the endogenous cutoff.
  • The paper derives the cutoff’s sampling distribution, bias, and risk, and shows the exact optimal finite-pool adjustment decomposes into three forces: cutoff-induced selection bias, the pull of the receiver’s fixed benchmark, and sampling variance.
  • Under regularity, the risk-minimizing adjustment to the large-pool share is of order 1/n.
• Conceptual/statistical connection
  • The large-pool cutoff for a given share r is an r-expectile of the evidence distribution; in particular the 1/2-expectile equals the mean (recovering the complete-information benchmark).
• Relation to literature
  • Builds on verifiable disclosure and selective-presentation literatures (e.g., Kartik et al., classical disclosure models), but key novelty is the institutional attention/design margin: committing exposure before state realization and a selection-naive receiver yields endogenous cutoffs and feedback from attention to what is disclosed.

Data & Methods

• Theoretical framework: game-theoretic model with three layers — a designer (platform), two strategic senders, and a receiver.
  • Timing: platform chooses exposure share rn before state/evidence; then nature draws state and finite pools; senders choose which assigned opportunities to fill; receiver averages displayed values plus benchmark to choose action.
• Strategic analysis:
  • Characterize equilibrium disclosure behavior in arbitrary finite pools: threshold disclosure with a unique equilibrium action/cutoff cn; analyze pure and mixed equilibria and uniqueness properties.
  • Comparative statics: how rn (attention) affects cn, disclosure frequencies, and action.
• Large-pool (asymptotic) analysis:
  • Introduce stochastic evidence environment (i.i.d. draws under common or camp-specific laws), derive limiting cutoff as expectile balancing directional tail moments.
  • Identify state-contingent exposure share that yields the complete-evidence decision; analyze feasibility when the share cannot depend on the unknown state.
  • Solve ex ante design problem and a primitive two-state economy to show uniqueness and monotonicity properties.
• Finite-sample (exact) analysis:
  • Derive the sampling distribution and bias of the endogenous cutoff and compute exact risk; characterize the optimal finite-pool correction (order 1/n) to the large-pool policy.
• Robustness checks:
  • Partial imputation: analyze the effect of imputing empty slots at benchmark with lower weight than displayed items; identify full-imputation boundary where feedback vanishes.
• Interpretations and comparisons to Bayesian and behavioral models: show receiver’s averaging rule can be seen as quadratic-loss Bayes under a subjective Gaussian model that treats the displayed sample as exogenous (selection-naive).

Implications for AI Economics

• Platform design matters beyond simple weighting: in AI-mediated information systems (newsfeeds, recommender systems, moderated forums), allocating attention/opportunity across opposing content producers affects not just how much their outputs count but what they choose to reveal. Algorithms that only reweight already-produced messages miss this selection feedback.
• Equal exposure ≠ equal representation in observables: equal potential exposure across producers can produce unequal observed content shares that, under common evidence laws, may nonetheless be the correct correction (because the equilibrium cutoff adjusts). Conversely, equal observed counts can be systematically biased.
• Curation policies should target underlying evidence-generation asymmetries:
  • If opposing agents have different abilities to generate favorable evidence (e.g., models/data-collection pipelines, research teams), attention shares should compensate by giving less exposure to the side that systematically generates stronger favorable tails.
  • Designing exposure to balance directional tail moments (expectiles) is the relevant objective for reproducing full-information decisions, not merely equalizing displayed counts or visibility.
• Beware selection-naive aggregation rules:
  • Many deployed aggregation rules (simple averaging, top-k averaging) implicitly assume samples are exogenous. If content providers strategically suppress items, those aggregation rules can be biased. Mechanism designers should either model selection behavior or modify aggregation (e.g., explicit imputation policies, transparency about suppressed items) to mitigate bias.
  • Full imputation (treating empty slots as full observations at benchmark) removes the attention-to-cutoff feedback but may have other costs; partial imputation still allows strategic feedback.
• Finite-data corrections matter in practice:
  • In finite datasets (small panels, few studies, limited model outputs), sampling variance and the endogenous cutoff induce bias. Practitioners should apply finite-sample adjustments (order-1/n corrections) rather than rely solely on large-sample prescriptions.
• Practical suggestions for AI system designers and regulators:
  • When designing exposure/attention across competing sources (e.g., partisan outlets, model ensembles), analyze whether evidence-generation processes differ and tailor exposure shares to offset directional tail imbalances.
  • If feasible, collect metadata about suppressed or unshown items (even counts of empties) and consider imputation rules carefully — full imputation eliminates the feedback but may be artificial; partial imputation reduces bias but preserves the selection response.
  • For classifier/selector systems that aggregate outputs from multiple agents, internalize agents’ incentives: committing exposure rules changes agents’ reporting behavior and thus downstream decisions.
• Research implications for AI economics:
  • Empirical work should account for the endogenous relationship between attention allocation and content selection when estimating platform effects.
  • Laboratory or field experiments that vary exposure shares across opposing information sources can test the representation paradox and measure the relevant expectile-balancing shares.
  • The model highlights a new design lever — exposure opportunity — which complements price, ranking, and content-moderation levers studied in platform economics.