Can AI Model the Complexities of Human Moral Decision-Making? A Qualitative Study of Kidney Allocation Decisions

A growing body of work in Ethical AI attempts to capture human moral judgments through simple computational models. The key question we address in this work is whether such simple AI models capture {the critical} nuances of moral decision-making by focusing on the use case of kidney allocation. We conducted twenty interviews where participants explained their rationale for their judgments about who should receive a kidney. We observe participants: (a) value patients' morally-relevant attributes to different degrees; (b) use diverse decision-making processes, citing heuristics to reduce decision complexity; (c) can change their opinions; (d) sometimes lack confidence in their decisions (e.g., due to incomplete information); and (e) express enthusiasm and concern regarding AI assisting humans in kidney allocation decisions. Based on these findings, we discuss challenges of computationally modeling moral judgments {as a stand-in for human input}, highlight drawbacks of current approaches, and suggest future directions to address these issues.

Learning and Computation of $Φ$-Equilibria at the Frontier of Tractability

$\Phi$-equilibria -- and the associated notion of $\Phi$-regret -- are a powerful and flexible framework at the heart of online learning and game theory, whereby enriching the set of deviations $\Phi$ begets stronger notions of rationality. Recently, Daskalakis, Farina, Fishelson, Pipis, and Schneider (STOC '24) -- abbreviated as DFFPS -- settled the existence of efficient algorithms when $\Phi$ contains only linear maps under a general, $d$-dimensional convex constraint set $\mathcal{X}$. In this paper, we significantly extend their work by resolving the case where $\Phi$ is $k$-dimensional; degree-$\ell$ polynomials constitute a canonical such example with $k = d^{O(\ell)}$. In particular, positing only oracle access to $\mathcal{X}$, we obtain two main positive results: i) a $\text{poly}(n, d, k, \text{log}(1/\epsilon))$-time algorithm for computing $\epsilon$-approximate $\Phi$-equilibria in $n$-player multilinear games, and ii) an efficient online algorithm that incurs average $\Phi$-regret at most $\epsilon$ using $\text{poly}(d, k)/\epsilon^2$ rounds. We also show nearly matching lower bounds in the online learning setting, thereby obtaining for the first time a family of deviations that captures the learnability of $\Phi$-regret. From a technical standpoint, we extend the framework of DFFPS from linear maps to the more challenging case of maps with polynomial dimension. At the heart of our approach is a polynomial-time algorithm for computing an expected fixed point of any $\phi : \mathcal{X} \to \mathcal{X}$ based on the ellipsoid against hope (EAH) algorithm of Papadimitriou and Roughgarden (JACM '08). In particular, our algorithm for computing $\Phi$-equilibria is based on executing EAH in a nested fashion -- each step of EAH itself being implemented by invoking a separate call to EAH.

Expected Variational Inequalities

Variational inequalities (VIs) encompass many fundamental problems in diverse areas ranging from engineering to economics and machine learning. However, their considerable expressivity comes at the cost of computational intractability. In this paper, we introduce and analyze a natural relaxation -- which we refer to as expected variational inequalities (EVIs) -- where the goal is to find a distribution that satisfies the VI constraint in expectation. By adapting recent techniques from game theory, we show that, unlike VIs, EVIs can be solved in polynomial time under general (nonmonotone) operators. EVIs capture the seminal notion of correlated equilibria, but enjoy a greater reach beyond games. We also employ our framework to capture and generalize several existing disparate results, including from settings such as smooth games, and games with coupled constraints or nonconcave utilities.

Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI

The rapid development of advanced AI agents and the imminent deployment of many instances of these agents will give rise to multi-agent systems of unprecedented complexity. These systems pose novel and under-explored risks. In this report, we provide a structured taxonomy of these risks by identifying three key failure modes (miscoordination, conflict, and collusion) based on agents' incentives, as well as seven key risk factors (information asymmetries, network effects, selection pressures, destabilising dynamics, commitment problems, emergent agency, and multi-agent security) that can underpin them. We highlight several important instances of each risk, as well as promising directions to help mitigate them. By anchoring our analysis in a range of real-world examples and experimental evidence, we illustrate the distinct challenges posed by multi-agent systems and their implications for the safety, governance, and ethics of advanced AI.

Computing Game Symmetries and Equilibria That Respect Them

Strategic interactions can be represented more concisely, and analyzed and solved more efficiently, if we are aware of the symmetries within the multiagent system. Symmetries also have conceptual implications, for example for equilibrium selection. We study the computational complexity of identifying and using symmetries. Using the classical framework of normal-form games, we consider game symmetries that can be across some or all players and/or actions. We find a strong connection between game symmetries and graph automorphisms, yielding graph automorphism and graph isomorphism completeness results for characterizing the symmetries present in a game. On the other hand, we also show that the problem becomes polynomial-time solvable when we restrict the consideration of actions in one of two ways. Next, we investigate when exactly game symmetries can be successfully leveraged for Nash equilibrium computation. We show that finding a Nash equilibrium that respects a given set of symmetries is PPAD- and CLS-complete in general-sum and team games respectively -- that is, exactly as hard as Brouwer fixed point and gradient descent problems. Finally, we present polynomial-time methods for the special cases where we are aware of a vast number of symmetries, or where the game is two-player zero-sum and we do not even know the symmetries.

Observation Interference in Partially Observable Assistance Games

We study partially observable assistance games (POAGs), a model of the human-AI value alignment problem which allows the human and the AI assistant to have partial observations. Motivated by concerns of AI deception, we study a qualitatively new phenomenon made possible by partial observability: would an AI assistant ever have an incentive to interfere with the human's observations? First, we prove that sometimes an optimal assistant must take observation-interfering actions, even when the human is playing optimally, and even when there are otherwise-equivalent actions available that do not interfere with observations. Though this result seems to contradict the classic theorem from single-agent decision making that the value of perfect information is nonnegative, we resolve this seeming contradiction by developing a notion of interference defined on entire policies. This can be viewed as an extension of the classic result that the value of perfect information is nonnegative into the cooperative multiagent setting. Second, we prove that if the human is simply making decisions based on their immediate outcomes, the assistant might need to interfere with observations as a way to query the human's preferences. We show that this incentive for interference goes away if the human is playing optimally, or if we introduce a communication channel for the human to communicate their preferences to the assistant. Third, we show that if the human acts according to the Boltzmann model of irrationality, this can create an incentive for the assistant to interfere with observations. Finally, we use an experimental model to analyze tradeoffs faced by the AI assistant in practice when considering whether or not to take observation-interfering actions.

Efficiently Solving Turn-Taking Stochastic Games with Extensive-Form Correlation

We study equilibrium computation with extensive-form correlation in two-player turn-taking stochastic games. Our main results are two-fold: (1) We give an algorithm for computing a Stackelberg extensive-form correlated equilibrium (SEFCE), which runs in time polynomial in the size of the game, as well as the number of bits required to encode each input number. (2) We give an efficient algorithm for approximately computing an optimal extensive-form correlated equilibrium (EFCE) up to machine precision, i.e., the algorithm achieves approximation error $\varepsilon$ in time polynomial in the size of the game, as well as $\log(1 / \varepsilon)$. Our algorithm for SEFCE is the first polynomial-time algorithm for equilibrium computation with commitment in such a general class of stochastic games. Existing algorithms for SEFCE typically make stronger assumptions such as no chance moves, and are designed for extensive-form games in the less succinct tree form. Our algorithm for approximately optimal EFCE is, to our knowledge, the first algorithm that achieves 3 desiderata simultaneously: approximate optimality, polylogarithmic dependency on the approximation error, and compatibility with stochastic games in the more succinct graph form. Existing algorithms achieve at most 2 of these desiderata, often also relying on additional technical assumptions.

Characterising Simulation-Based Program Equilibria

In Tennenholtz's program equilibrium, players of a game submit programs to play on their behalf. Each program receives the other programs' source code and outputs an action. This can model interactions involving AI agents, mutually transparent institutions, or commitments. Tennenholtz (2004) proves a folk theorem for program games, but the equilibria constructed are very brittle. We therefore consider simulation-based programs -- i.e., programs that work by running opponents' programs. These are relatively robust (in particular, two programs that act the same are treated the same) and are more practical than proof-based approaches. Oesterheld's (2019) $\epsilon$Grounded$\pi$Bot is such an approach. Unfortunately, it is not generally applicable to games of three or more players, and only allows for a limited range of equilibria in two player games. In this paper, we propose a generalisation to Oesterheld's (2019) $\epsilon$Grounded$\pi$Bot. We prove a folk theorem for our programs in a setting with access to a shared source of randomness. We then characterise their equilibria in a setting without shared randomness. Both with and without shared randomness, we achieve a much wider range of equilibria than Oesterheld's (2019) $\epsilon$Grounded$\pi$Bot. Finally, we explore the limits of simulation-based program equilibrium, showing that the Tennenholtz folk theorem cannot be attained by simulation-based programs without access to shared randomness.

Can CDT rationalise the ex ante optimal policy via modified anthropics?

In Newcomb's problem, causal decision theory (CDT) recommends two-boxing and thus comes apart from evidential decision theory (EDT) and ex ante policy optimisation (which prescribe one-boxing). However, in Newcomb's problem, you should perhaps believe that with some probability you are in a simulation run by the predictor to determine whether to put a million dollars into the opaque box. If so, then causal decision theory might recommend one-boxing in order to cause the predictor to fill the opaque box. In this paper, we study generalisations of this approach. That is, we consider general Newcomblike problems and try to form reasonable self-locating beliefs under which CDT's recommendations align with an EDT-like notion of ex ante policy optimisation. We consider approaches in which we model the world as running simulations of the agent, and an approach not based on such models (which we call 'Generalised Generalised Thirding', or GGT). For each approach, we characterise the resulting CDT policies, and prove that under certain conditions, these include the ex ante optimal policies.

Game Theory with Simulation in the Presence of Unpredictable Randomisation

AI agents will be predictable in certain ways that traditional agents are not. Where and how can we leverage this predictability in order to improve social welfare? We study this question in a game-theoretic setting where one agent can pay a fixed cost to simulate the other in order to learn its mixed strategy. As a negative result, we prove that, in contrast to prior work on pure-strategy simulation, enabling mixed-strategy simulation may no longer lead to improved outcomes for both players in all so-called "generalised trust games". In fact, mixed-strategy simulation does not help in any game where the simulatee's action can depend on that of the simulator. We also show that, in general, deciding whether simulation introduces Pareto-improving Nash equilibria in a given game is NP-hard. As positive results, we establish that mixed-strategy simulation can improve social welfare if the simulator has the option to scale their level of trust, if the players face challenges with both trust and coordination, or if maintaining some level of privacy is essential for enabling cooperation.