In Bayesian persuasion, an informed sender, who observes a state, commits to a randomized signaling scheme that guides a self-interested receiver's actions. Classical models assume the receiver knows the commitment. We, instead, study the setting where the receiver infers the scheme from repeated interactions. We bound the sender's performance loss relative to the known-commitment case by a term that grows with the signal space size and shrinks as the receiver's optimal actions become more distinct. We then lower bound the samples required for the sender to approximately achieve their known-commitment performance in the inference setting. We show that the sender requires more samples in persuasion compared to the leader in a Stackelberg game, which includes commitment but lacks signaling. Motivated by these bounds, we propose two methods for designing inferable signaling schemes, one being stochastic gradient descent (SGD) on the sender's inference-setting utility, and the other being optimization with a boundedly-rational receiver model. SGD performs best in low-interaction regimes, but modeling the receiver as boundedly-rational and tuning the rationality constant still provides a flexible method for designing inferable schemes. Finally, we apply SGD to a safety alert example and show it to find schemes that have fewer signals and make citizens' optimal actions more distinct compared to the known-commitment case.
Probine et al. (Wed,) studied this question.