  Persuasion, defined as the act of exploiting an informational advantage in
order to effect the decisions of others, is ubiquitous. Indeed, persuasive
communication has been estimated to account for almost a third of all economic
activity in the US. This paper examines persuasion through a computational
lens, focusing on what is perhaps the most basic and fundamental model in this
space: the celebrated Bayesian persuasion model of Kamenica and Gentzkow. Here
there are two players, a sender and a receiver. The receiver must take one of a
number of actions with a-priori unknown payoff, and the sender has access to
additional information regarding the payoffs. The sender can commit to
revealing a noisy signal regarding the realization of the payoffs of various
actions, and would like to do so as to maximize her own payoff assuming a
perfectly rational receiver.
  We examine the sender's optimization task in three of the most natural input
models for this problem, and essentially pin down its computational complexity
in each. When the payoff distributions of the different actions are i.i.d. and
given explicitly, we exhibit a polynomial-time (exact) algorithm, and a
"simple" $(1-1/e)$-approximation algorithm. Our optimal scheme for the i.i.d.
setting involves an analogy to auction theory, and makes use of Border's
characterization of the space of reduced-forms for single-item auctions. When
action payoffs are independent but non-identical with marginal distributions
given explicitly, we show that it is #P-hard to compute the optimal expected
sender utility. Finally, we consider a general (possibly correlated) joint
distribution of action payoffs presented by a black box sampling oracle, and
exhibit a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme (FPTAS) with a bi-criteria
guarantee. We show that this result is the best possible in the black-box model
for information-theoretic reasons.
