Papers › How Much Due Diligence Before You Bid? Learning in Intractable Takeover Auctions
How Much Due Diligence Before You Bid? Learning in Intractable Takeover Auctions
Zain Naboulsi
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
When two companies bid to buy the same target, no one knows exactly what the target is worth. Each bidder pays for due diligence: costly, imperfect homework that sharpens its own private estimate before it bids. How much of that homework is worth buying? We build a simple computer model of the bidding contest and let it teach itself to bid well by playing against itself, the way a game engine learns chess. The economic question, how much diligence pays for itself, and the computational question, when the contest becomes too complex to solve exactly, are both controlled by a single thing: how many pieces of private information a bidder carries. Our main finding is that the right amount of diligence is modest and finite. It falls as diligence gets more expensive, and it falls further when both sides are doing their homework, because competition erodes the value of knowing more. We also test a recent claim from AI research: that simple, general self-play methods can rival the specialized, expensive algorithms usually built for games like these. Running on an ordinary laptop with no costly frontier AI, we find the simple methods are the best of the self-learning approaches, though purpose-built exact methods still win whenever the game is small enough to solve outright. The simple methods earn their keep only once the game grows too large to solve exactly, which is the regime real deals live in, and there we show they still find strong bidding strategies. The contribution is threefold: a cheap, reproducible way to study deal-making under uncertainty; a concrete, model-based answer to how much due diligence is worth buying; and evidence about when lightweight, general-purpose AI is good enough to replace specialized methods. We release all the games, code, and experiments.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2606.29457")
Code
Syntology Ran 3 of 5 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 2 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 3 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 5 samples from 1 repository, 3 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
5 samples harvested; 3 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 5 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from zainnab-sparq/imperfect-information-deal-games. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
c390ec9156c4fd9e · report
cf15e74ceda86fb8 · report
85017adc506d17ab · report
6b01c0ddac05fbdd · report
7539143b19bcd83c · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2606.29457, was issued in June 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections