Soft Condorcet Optimization for Ranking of General Agents

A common way to drive progress of AI models and agents is to compare their performance on standardized benchmarks. Comparing the performance of general agents requires aggregating their individual performances across a potentially wide variety of different tasks. In this paper, we describe a novel ranking scheme inspired by social choice frameworks, called Soft Condorcet Optimization (SCO), to compute the optimal ranking of agents: the one that makes the fewest mistakes in predicting the agent comparisons in the evaluation data. This optimal ranking is the maximum likelihood estimate when evaluation data (which we view as votes) are interpreted as noisy samples from a ground truth ranking, a solution to Condorcet's original voting system criteria. SCO ratings are maximal for Condorcet winners when they exist, which we show is not necessarily true for the classical rating system Elo. We propose three optimization algorithms to compute SCO ratings and evaluate their empirical performance. When serving as an approximation to the Kemeny-Young voting method, SCO rankings are on average 0 to 0.043 away from the optimal ranking in normalized Kendall-tau distance across 865 preference profiles from the PrefLib open ranking archive. In a simulated noisy tournament setting, SCO achieves accurate approximations to the ground truth ranking and the best among several baselines when 59\% or more of the preference data is missing. Finally, SCO ranking provides the best approximation to the optimal ranking, measured on held-out test sets, in a problem containing 52,958 human players across 31,049 games of the classic seven-player game of Diplomacy.

Imagining and building wise machines: The centrality of AI metacognition

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have produced systems capable of increasingly sophisticated performance on cognitive tasks. However, AI systems still struggle in critical ways: unpredictable and novel environments (robustness), lack of transparency in their reasoning (explainability), challenges in communication and commitment (cooperation), and risks due to potential harmful actions (safety). We argue that these shortcomings stem from one overarching failure: AI systems lack wisdom. Drawing from cognitive and social sciences, we define wisdom as the ability to navigate intractable problems - those that are ambiguous, radically uncertain, novel, chaotic, or computationally explosive - through effective task-level and metacognitive strategies. While AI research has focused on task-level strategies, metacognition - the ability to reflect on and regulate one's thought processes - is underdeveloped in AI systems. In humans, metacognitive strategies such as recognizing the limits of one's knowledge, considering diverse perspectives, and adapting to context are essential for wise decision-making. We propose that integrating metacognitive capabilities into AI systems is crucial for enhancing their robustness, explainability, cooperation, and safety. By focusing on developing wise AI, we suggest an alternative to aligning AI with specific human values - a task fraught with conceptual and practical difficulties. Instead, wise AI systems can thoughtfully navigate complex situations, account for diverse human values, and avoid harmful actions. We discuss potential approaches to building wise AI, including benchmarking metacognitive abilities and training AI systems to employ wise reasoning. Prioritizing metacognition in AI research will lead to systems that act not only intelligently but also wisely in complex, real-world situations.

Democratizing Reward Design for Personal and Representative Value-Alignment

Aligning AI agents with human values is challenging due to diverse and subjective notions of values. Standard alignment methods often aggregate crowd feedback, which can result in the suppression of unique or minority preferences. We introduce Interactive-Reflective Dialogue Alignment, a method that iteratively engages users in reflecting on and specifying their subjective value definitions. This system learns individual value definitions through language-model-based preference elicitation and constructs personalized reward models that can be used to align AI behaviour. We evaluated our system through two studies with 30 participants, one focusing on "respect" and the other on ethical decision-making in autonomous vehicles. Our findings demonstrate diverse definitions of value-aligned behaviour and show that our system can accurately capture each person's unique understanding. This approach enables personalized alignment and can inform more representative and interpretable collective alignment strategies.

Liquid Ensemble Selection for Continual Learning

Continual learning aims to enable machine learning models to continually learn from a shifting data distribution without forgetting what has already been learned. Such shifting distributions can be broken into disjoint subsets of related examples; by training each member of an ensemble on a different subset it is possible for the ensemble as a whole to achieve much higher accuracy with less forgetting than a naive model. We address the problem of selecting which models within an ensemble should learn on any given data, and which should predict. By drawing on work from delegative voting we develop an algorithm for using delegation to dynamically select which models in an ensemble are active. We explore a variety of delegation methods and performance metrics, ultimately finding that delegation is able to provide a significant performance boost over naive learning in the face of distribution shifts.

Unraveling the Dilemma of AI Errors: Exploring the Effectiveness of Human and Machine Explanations for Large Language Models

The field of eXplainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has produced a plethora of methods (e.g., saliency-maps) to gain insight into artificial intelligence (AI) models, and has exploded with the rise of deep learning (DL). However, human-participant studies question the efficacy of these methods, particularly when the AI output is wrong. In this study, we collected and analyzed 156 human-generated text and saliency-based explanations collected in a question-answering task (N=40) and compared them empirically to state-of-the-art XAI explanations (integrated gradients, conservative LRP, and ChatGPT) in a human-participant study (N=136). Our findings show that participants found human saliency maps to be more helpful in explaining AI answers than machine saliency maps, but performance negatively correlated with trust in the AI model and explanations. This finding hints at the dilemma of AI errors in explanation, where helpful explanations can lead to lower task performance when they support wrong AI predictions.

Liquid Democracy for Low-Cost Ensemble Pruning

We argue that there is a strong connection between ensemble learning and a delegative voting paradigm -- liquid democracy -- that can be leveraged to reduce ensemble training costs. We present an incremental training procedure that identifies and removes redundant classifiers from an ensemble via delegation mechanisms inspired by liquid democracy. Through both analysis and extensive experiments we show that this process greatly reduces the computational cost of training compared to training a full ensemble. By carefully selecting the underlying delegation mechanism, weight centralization in the classifier population is avoided, leading to higher accuracy than some boosting methods. Furthermore, this work serves as an exemplar of how frameworks from computational social choice literature can be applied to problems in nontraditional domains.

Evaluating Agents using Social Choice Theory

We argue that many general evaluation problems can be viewed through the lens of voting theory. Each task is interpreted as a separate voter, which requires only ordinal rankings or pairwise comparisons of agents to produce an overall evaluation. By viewing the aggregator as a social welfare function, we are able to leverage centuries of research in social choice theory to derive principled evaluation frameworks with axiomatic foundations. These evaluations are interpretable and flexible, while avoiding many of the problems currently facing cross-task evaluation. We apply this Voting-as-Evaluation (VasE) framework across multiple settings, including reinforcement learning, large language models, and humans. In practice, we observe that VasE can be more robust than popular evaluation frameworks (Elo and Nash averaging), discovers properties in the evaluation data not evident from scores alone, and can predict outcomes better than Elo in a complex seven-player game. We identify one particular approach, maximal lotteries, that satisfies important consistency properties relevant to evaluation, is computationally efficient (polynomial in the size of the evaluation data), and identifies game-theoretic cycles.

Towards a Better Understanding of Learning with Multiagent Teams

While it has long been recognized that a team of individual learning agents can be greater than the sum of its parts, recent work has shown that larger teams are not necessarily more effective than smaller ones. In this paper, we study why and under which conditions certain team structures promote effective learning for a population of individual learning agents. We show that, depending on the environment, some team structures help agents learn to specialize into specific roles, resulting in more favorable global results. However, large teams create credit assignment challenges that reduce coordination, leading to large teams performing poorly compared to smaller ones. We support our conclusions with both theoretical analysis and empirical results.

Revealed Multi-Objective Utility Aggregation in Human Driving

A central design problem in game theoretic analysis is the estimation of the players' utilities. In many real-world interactive situations of human decision making, including human driving, the utilities are multi-objective in nature; therefore, estimating the parameters of aggregation, i.e., mapping of multi-objective utilities to a scalar value, becomes an essential part of game construction. However, estimating this parameter from observational data introduces several challenges due to a host of unobservable factors, including the underlying modality of aggregation and the possibly boundedly rational behaviour model that generated the observation. Based on the concept of rationalisability, we develop algorithms for estimating multi-objective aggregation parameters for two common aggregation methods, weighted and satisficing aggregation, and for both strategic and non-strategic reasoning models. Based on three different datasets, we provide insights into how human drivers aggregate the utilities of safety and progress, as well as the situational dependence of the aggregation process. Additionally, we show that irrespective of the specific solution concept used for solving the games, a data-driven estimation of utility aggregation significantly improves the predictive accuracy of behaviour models with respect to observed human behaviour.

Combining Tree-Search, Generative Models, and Nash Bargaining Concepts in Game-Theoretic Reinforcement Learning

Multiagent reinforcement learning (MARL) has benefited significantly from population-based and game-theoretic training regimes. One approach, Policy-Space Response Oracles (PSRO), employs standard reinforcement learning to compute response policies via approximate best responses and combines them via meta-strategy selection. We augment PSRO by adding a novel search procedure with generative sampling of world states, and introduce two new meta-strategy solvers based on the Nash bargaining solution. We evaluate PSRO's ability to compute approximate Nash equilibrium, and its performance in two negotiation games: Colored Trails, and Deal or No Deal. We conduct behavioral studies where human participants negotiate with our agents ($N = 346$). We find that search with generative modeling finds stronger policies during both training time and test time, enables online Bayesian co-player prediction, and can produce agents that achieve comparable social welfare negotiating with humans as humans trading among themselves.