  We study a Bayesian persuasion setting with binary actions (adopt and reject)
for Receiver. We examine the following question - how well can Sender perform,
in terms of persuading Receiver to adopt, when ignorant of Receiver's utility?
We take a robust (adversarial) approach to study this problem; that is, our
goal is to design signaling schemes for Sender that perform well for all
possible Receiver's utilities. We measure performance of signaling schemes via
the notion of (additive) regret: the difference between Sender's hypothetically
optimal utility had she known Receiver's utility function and her actual
utility induced by the given scheme.
  On the negative side, we show that if Sender has no knowledge at all about
Receiver's utility, then Sender has no signaling scheme that performs robustly
well. On the positive side, we show that if Sender only knows Receiver's
ordinal preferences of the states of nature - i.e., Receiver's utility upon
adoption is monotonic as a function of the state - then Sender can guarantee a
surprisingly low regret even when the number of states tends to infinity. In
fact, we exactly pin down the minimum regret value that Sender can guarantee in
this case, which turns out to be at most 1/e. We further show that such
positive results are not possible under the alternative performance measure of
a multiplicative approximation ratio by proving that no constant ratio can be
guaranteed even for monotonic Receiver's utility; this may serve to demonstrate
the merits of regret as a robust performance measure that is not too
pessimistic. Finally, we analyze an intermediate setting in between the
no-knowledge and the ordinal-knowledge settings.
