Is Knowledge Power? On the (Im)possibility of Learning from Strategic Interaction

When learning in strategic environments, a key question is whether agents can overcome uncertainty about their preferences to achieve outcomes they could have achieved absent any uncertainty. Can they do this solely through interactions with each other? We focus this question on the ability of agents to attain the value of their Stackelberg optimal strategy and study the impact of information asymmetry. We study repeated interactions in fully strategic environments where players' actions are decided based on learning algorithms that take into account their observed histories and knowledge of the game. We study the pure Nash equilibria (PNE) of a meta-game where players choose these algorithms as their actions. We demonstrate that if one player has perfect knowledge about the game, then any initial informational gap persists. That is, while there is always a PNE in which the informed agent achieves her Stackelberg value, there is a game where no PNE of the meta-game allows the partially informed player to achieve her Stackelberg value. On the other hand, if both players start with some uncertainty about the game, the quality of information alone does not determine which agent can achieve her Stackelberg value. In this case, the concept of information asymmetry becomes nuanced and depends on the game's structure. Overall, our findings suggest that repeated strategic interactions alone cannot facilitate learning effectively enough to earn an uninformed player her Stackelberg value.

Can Probabilistic Feedback Drive User Impacts in Online Platforms?

A common explanation for negative user impacts of content recommender systems is misalignment between the platform's objective and user welfare. In this work, we show that misalignment in the platform's objective is not the only potential cause of unintended impacts on users: even when the platform's objective is fully aligned with user welfare, the platform's learning algorithm can induce negative downstream impacts on users. The source of these user impacts is that different pieces of content may generate observable user reactions (feedback information) at different rates; these feedback rates may correlate with content properties, such as controversiality or demographic similarity of the creator, that affect the user experience. Since differences in feedback rates can impact how often the learning algorithm engages with different content, the learning algorithm may inadvertently promote content with certain such properties. Using the multi-armed bandit framework with probabilistic feedback, we examine the relationship between feedback rates and a learning algorithm's engagement with individual arms for different no-regret algorithms. We prove that no-regret algorithms can exhibit a wide range of dependencies: if the feedback rate of an arm increases, some no-regret algorithms engage with the arm more, some no-regret algorithms engage with the arm less, and other no-regret algorithms engage with the arm approximately the same number of times. From a platform design perspective, our results highlight the importance of looking beyond regret when measuring an algorithm's performance, and assessing the nature of a learning algorithm's engagement with different types of content as well as their resulting downstream impacts.

Bandits with Deterministically Evolving States

We propose a model for learning with bandit feedback while accounting for deterministically evolving and unobservable states that we call Bandits with Deterministically Evolving States. The workhorse applications of our model are learning for recommendation systems and learning for online ads. In both cases, the reward that the algorithm obtains at each round is a function of the short-term reward of the action chosen and how ``healthy'' the system is (i.e., as measured by its state). For example, in recommendation systems, the reward that the platform obtains from a user's engagement with a particular type of content depends not only on the inherent features of the specific content, but also on how the user's preferences have evolved as a result of interacting with other types of content on the platform. Our general model accounts for the different rate $\lambda \in [0,1]$ at which the state evolves (e.g., how fast a user's preferences shift as a result of previous content consumption) and encompasses standard multi-armed bandits as a special case. The goal of the algorithm is to minimize a notion of regret against the best-fixed sequence of arms pulled. We analyze online learning algorithms for any possible parametrization of the evolution rate $\lambda$. Specifically, the regret rates obtained are: for $\lambda \in [0, 1/T^2]$: $\widetilde O(\sqrt{KT})$; for $\lambda = T^{-a/b}$ with $b < a < 2b$: $\widetilde O (T^{b/a})$; for $\lambda \in (1/T, 1 - 1/\sqrt{T}): \widetilde O (K^{1/3}T^{2/3})$; and for $\lambda \in [1 - 1/\sqrt{T}, 1]: \widetilde O (K\sqrt{T})$.

Strategic Apple Tasting

Algorithmic decision-making in high-stakes domains often involves assigning decisions to agents with incentives to strategically modify their input to the algorithm. In addition to dealing with incentives, in many domains of interest (e.g. lending and hiring) the decision-maker only observes feedback regarding their policy for rounds in which they assign a positive decision to the agent; this type of feedback is often referred to as apple tasting (or one-sided) feedback. We formalize this setting as an online learning problem with apple-tasting feedback where a principal makes decisions about a sequence of $T$ agents, each of which is represented by a context that may be strategically modified. Our goal is to achieve sublinear strategic regret, which compares the performance of the principal to that of the best fixed policy in hindsight, if the agents were truthful when revealing their contexts. Our main result is a learning algorithm which incurs $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{T})$ strategic regret when the sequence of agents is chosen stochastically. We also give an algorithm capable of handling adversarially-chosen agents, albeit at the cost of $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(T^{(d+1)/(d+2)})$ strategic regret (where $d$ is the dimension of the context). Our algorithms can be easily adapted to the setting where the principal receives bandit feedback -- this setting generalizes both the linear contextual bandit problem (by considering agents with incentives) and the strategic classification problem (by allowing for partial feedback).

Calibrated Stackelberg Games: Learning Optimal Commitments Against Calibrated Agents

In this paper, we introduce a generalization of the standard Stackelberg Games (SGs) framework: Calibrated Stackelberg Games (CSGs). In CSGs, a principal repeatedly interacts with an agent who (contrary to standard SGs) does not have direct access to the principal's action but instead best-responds to calibrated forecasts about it. CSG is a powerful modeling tool that goes beyond assuming that agents use ad hoc and highly specified algorithms for interacting in strategic settings and thus more robustly addresses real-life applications that SGs were originally intended to capture. Along with CSGs, we also introduce a stronger notion of calibration, termed adaptive calibration, that provides fine-grained any-time calibration guarantees against adversarial sequences. We give a general approach for obtaining adaptive calibration algorithms and specialize them for finite CSGs. In our main technical result, we show that in CSGs, the principal can achieve utility that converges to the optimum Stackelberg value of the game both in finite and continuous settings, and that no higher utility is achievable. Two prominent and immediate applications of our results are the settings of learning in Stackelberg Security Games and strategic classification, both against calibrated agents.

Recommending to Strategic Users

Recommendation systems are pervasive in the digital economy. An important assumption in many deployed systems is that user consumption reflects user preferences in a static sense: users consume the content they like with no other considerations in mind. However, as we document in a large-scale online survey, users do choose content strategically to influence the types of content they get recommended in the future. We model this user behavior as a two-stage noisy signalling game between the recommendation system and users: the recommendation system initially commits to a recommendation policy, presents content to the users during a cold start phase which the users choose to strategically consume in order to affect the types of content they will be recommended in a recommendation phase. We show that in equilibrium, users engage in behaviors that accentuate their differences to users of different preference profiles. In addition, (statistical) minorities out of fear of losing their minority content exposition may not consume content that is liked by mainstream users. We next propose three interventions that may improve recommendation quality (both on average and for minorities) when taking into account strategic consumption: (1) Adopting a recommendation system policy that uses preferences from a prior, (2) Communicating to users that universally liked ("mainstream") content will not be used as basis of recommendation, and (3) Serving content that is personalized-enough yet expected to be liked in the beginning. Finally, we describe a methodology to inform applied theory modeling with survey results.

Strategyproof Decision-Making in Panel Data Settings and Beyond

We propose a framework for decision-making in the presence of strategic agents with panel data, a standard setting in econometrics and statistics where one gets noisy, repeated measurements of multiple units. We consider a setup where there is a pre-intervention period, when the principal observes the outcomes of each unit, after which the principal uses these observations to assign treatment to each unit. Our model can be thought of as a generalization of the synthetic controls and synthetic interventions frameworks, where units (or agents) may strategically manipulate pre-intervention outcomes to receive a more desirable intervention. We identify necessary and sufficient conditions under which a strategyproof mechanism that assigns interventions in the post-intervention period exists. Under a latent factor model assumption, we show that whenever a strategyproof mechanism exists, there is one with a simple closed form. In the setting where there is a single treatment and control (i.e., no other interventions), we establish that there is always a strategyproof mechanism, and provide an algorithm for learning such a mechanism. For the setting of multiple interventions, we provide an algorithm for learning a strategyproof mechanism, if there exists a sufficiently large gap in rewards between the different interventions. Along the way, we prove impossibility results for multi-class strategic classification, which may be of independent interest.

Corruption-Robust Contextual Search through Density Updates

We study the problem of contextual search in the adversarial noise model. Let $d$ be the dimension of the problem, $T$ be the time horizon and $C$ be the total amount of noise in the system. For the $\eps$-ball loss, we give a tight regret bound of $O(C + d \log(1/\eps))$ improving over the $O(d^3 \log(1/\eps)) \log^2(T) + C \log(T) \log(1/\eps))$ bound of Krishnamurthy et al (STOC21). For the symmetric loss, we give an efficient algorithm with regret $O(C+d \log T)$. Our techniques are a significant departure from prior approaches. Specifically, we keep track of density functions over the candidate vectors instead of a knowledge set consisting of the candidate vectors consistent with the feedback obtained.

Information Discrepancy in Strategic Learning

We study a decision-making model where a principal deploys a scoring rule and the agents strategically invest effort to improve their scores. Unlike existing work in the strategic learning literature, we do not assume that the principal's scoring rule is fully known to the agents, and agents may form different estimates of the scoring rule based on their own sources of information. We focus on disparities in outcomes that stem from information discrepancies in our model. To do so, we consider a population of agents who belong to different subgroups, which determine their knowledge about the deployed scoring rule. Agents within each subgroup observe the past scores received by their peers, which allow them to construct an estimate of the deployed scoring rule and to invest their efforts accordingly. The principal, taking into account the agents' behaviors, deploys a scoring rule that maximizes the social welfare of the whole population. We provide a collection of theoretical results that characterize the impact of the welfare-maximizing scoring rules on the strategic effort investments across different subgroups. In particular, we identify sufficient and necessary conditions for when the deployed scoring rule incentivizes optimal strategic investment across all groups for different notions of optimality. Finally, we complement and validate our theoretical analysis with experimental results on the real-world datasets Taiwan-Credit and Adult.

Adaptive Discretization for Adversarial Bandits with Continuous Action Spaces

Lipschitz bandits is a prominent version of multi-armed bandits that studies large, structured action spaces such as the [0,1] interval, where similar actions are guaranteed to have similar rewards. A central theme here is the adaptive discretization of the action space, which gradually "zooms in" on the more promising regions thereof. The goal is to take advantage of "nicer" problem instances, while retaining near-optimal worst-case performance. While the stochastic version of the problem is well-understood, the general version with adversarially chosen rewards is not. We provide the first algorithm for adaptive discretization in the adversarial version, and derive instance-dependent regret bounds. In particular, we recover the worst-case optimal regret bound for the adversarial version, and the instance-dependent regret bound for the stochastic version. Further, an application of our algorithm to dynamic pricing (a version in which the algorithm repeatedly adjusts prices for a product) enjoys these regret bounds without any smoothness assumptions.