We introduce a game-theoretic framework that examines strategic interactions between a platform and its content creators in the presence of AI-generated content. Our model's main novelty is in capturing creators' dual strategic decisions: their investment in content quality and their (possible) consent to share their content with the platform's GenAI, both of which significantly impact their utility. To incentivize creators, the platform strategically allocates a portion of its GenAI-driven revenue to creators who share their content. We focus on the class of full-sharing equilibrium profiles, in which all creators willingly share their content with the platform's GenAI system. Such equilibria are highly desirable both theoretically and practically. Our main technical contribution is formulating and efficiently solving a novel optimization problem that approximates the platform's optimal revenue subject to inducing a full-sharing equilibrium. A key aspect of our approach is identifying conditions under which full-sharing equilibria exist and a surprising connection to the Prisoner's Dilemma. Finally, our simulations demonstrate how revenue-allocation mechanisms affect creator utility and the platform's revenue.

ChatGPT has established Generative AI (GenAI) as a significant technological advancement. However, GenAI's intricate relationship with competing platforms and its downstream impact on users remains under-explored. This paper initiates the study of GenAI's long-term social impact resulting from the weakening network effect of human-based platforms like Stack Overflow. First, we study GenAI's revenue-maximization optimization problem. We develop an approximately optimal solution and show that the optimal solution has a non-cyclic structure. Then, we analyze the social impact, showing that GenAI could be socially harmful. Specifically, we present an analog to Braess's paradox in which all users would be better off without GenAI. Finally, we develop necessary and sufficient conditions for a regulator with incomplete information to ensure that GenAI is socially beneficial.

Blockchains implement decentralized monetary systems and applications. Recent advancements enable what we call tethering a blockchain to a primary blockchain, securing the tethered chain by nodes that post primary-chain tokens as collateral. The collateral ensures nodes behave as intended, until they withdraw it. Unlike a Proof of Stake blockchain which uses its own token as collateral, using primary-chain tokens shields the tethered chain from the volatility of its own token. State-of-the-art tethered blockchains either rely on centralization, or make extreme assumptions: that all communication is synchronous, that operators remain correct even post-withdrawal, or that withdrawals can be indefinitely delayed by tethered-chain failures. We prove that with partial synchrony, there is no solution to the problem. However, under the standard assumptions that communication with the primary chain is synchronous and communication among the tethered chain nodes is partially synchronous, there is a solution. We present a tethered-chain protocol called Aegis. Aegis uses references from its blocks to primary blocks to define committees, checkpoints on the primary chain to perpetuate decisions, and resets to establish new committees when previous ones become obsolete. It ensures safety at all times and rapid progress when latency among Aegis nodes is low.

The rise of Generative AI (GenAI) has significantly impacted human-based forums like Stack Overflow, which are essential for generating high-quality data. This creates a negative feedback loop, hindering the development of GenAI systems, which rely on such data to provide accurate responses. In this paper, we provide a possible remedy: A novel strategy we call selective response. Selective response implies that GenAI could strategically provide inaccurate (or conservative) responses to queries involving emerging topics and novel technologies, thereby driving users to use human-based forums. We show that selective response can potentially have a compounding effect on the data generation process, increasing both GenAI's revenue and user welfare in the long term. From an algorithmic perspective, we propose an approximately optimal approach to maximize GenAI's revenue under social welfare constraints. From a regulatory perspective, we derive sufficient and necessary conditions for selective response to improve welfare.

Principal-agent problems arise when one party acts on behalf of another, leading to conflicts of interest. The economic literature has extensively studied principal-agent problems, and recent work has extended this to more complex scenarios such as Markov Decision Processes (MDPs). In this paper, we further explore this line of research by investigating how reward shaping under budget constraints can improve the principal's utility. We study a two-player Stackelberg game where the principal and the agent have different reward functions, and the agent chooses an MDP policy for both players. The principal offers an additional reward to the agent, and the agent picks their policy selfishly to maximize their reward, which is the sum of the original and the offered reward. Our results establish the NP-hardness of the problem and offer polynomial approximation algorithms for two classes of instances: Stochastic trees and deterministic decision processes with a finite horizon.

Personalization in machine learning (ML) tailors models' decisions to the individual characteristics of users. While this approach has seen success in areas like recommender systems, its expansion into high-stakes fields such as healthcare and autonomous driving is hindered by the extensive regulatory approval processes involved. To address this challenge, we propose a novel framework termed represented Markov Decision Processes (r-MDPs) that is designed to balance the need for personalization with the regulatory constraints. In an r-MDP, we cater to a diverse user population, each with unique preferences, through interaction with a small set of representative policies. Our objective is twofold: efficiently match each user to an appropriate representative policy and simultaneously optimize these policies to maximize overall social welfare. We develop two deep reinforcement learning algorithms that efficiently solve r-MDPs. These algorithms draw inspiration from the principles of classic K-means clustering and are underpinned by robust theoretical foundations. Our empirical investigations, conducted across a variety of simulated environments, showcase the algorithms' ability to facilitate meaningful personalization even under constrained policy budgets. Furthermore, they demonstrate scalability, efficiently adapting to larger policy budgets.

Truth discovery is a general name for a broad range of statistical methods aimed to extract the correct answers to questions, based on multiple answers coming from noisy sources. For example, workers in a crowdsourcing platform. In this paper, we consider an extremely simple heuristic for estimating workers' competence using average proximity to other workers. We prove that this estimates well the actual competence level and enables separating high and low quality workers in a wide spectrum of domains and statistical models. Under Gaussian noise, this simple estimate is the unique solution to the MLE with a constant regularization factor. Finally, weighing workers according to their average proximity in a crowdsourcing setting, results in substantial improvement over unweighted aggregation and other truth discovery algorithms in practice.

Recommendation systems are dynamic economic systems that balance the needs of multiple stakeholders. A recent line of work studies incentives from the content providers’ point of view. Content providers, e.g., vloggers and bloggers, contribute fresh content and rely on user engagement to create revenue and finance their operations. In this work, we propose a contextual multi-armed bandit setting to model the dependency of content providers on exposure. In our model, the system receives a user context in every round and has to select one of the arms. Every arm is a content provider who must receive a minimum number of pulls every fixed time period (e.g., a month) to remain viable in later rounds; otherwise, the arm departs and is no longer available. The system aims to maximize the users’ (content consumers) welfare. To that end, it should learn which arms are vital and ensure they remain viable by subsidizing arm pulls if needed. We develop algorithms with sub-linear regret, as well as a lower bound that demonstrates that our algorithms are optimal up to logarithmic factors.

Traditionally, when recommender systems are formalized as multi-armed bandits, the policy of the recommender system influences the rewards accrued, but not the length of interaction. However, in real-world systems, dissatisfied users may depart (and never come back). In this work, we propose a novel multi-armed bandit setup that captures such policy-dependent horizons. Our setup consists of a finite set of user types, and multiple arms with Bernoulli payoffs. Each (user type, arm) tuple corresponds to an (unknown) reward probability. Each user's type is initially unknown and can only be inferred through their response to recommendations. Moreover, if a user is dissatisfied with their recommendation, they might depart the system. We first address the case where all users share the same type, demonstrating that a recent UCB-based algorithm is optimal. We then move forward to the more challenging case, where users are divided among two types. While naive approaches cannot handle this setting, we provide an efficient learning algorithm that achieves O(sqrt(T)ln(T)) regret, where T is the number of users.

The recent literature on fair Machine Learning manifests that the choice of fairness constraints must be driven by the utilities of the population. However, virtually all previous work makes the unrealistic assumption that the exact underlying utilities of the population (representing private tastes of individuals) are known to the regulator that imposes the fairness constraint. In this paper we initiate the discussion of the \emph{mismatch}, the unavoidable difference between the underlying utilities of the population and the utilities assumed by the regulator. We demonstrate that the mismatch can make the disadvantaged protected group worse off after imposing the fairness constraint and provide tools to design fairness constraints that help the disadvantaged group despite the mismatch.

Recommendation systems often face exploration-exploitation tradeoffs: the system can only learn about the desirability of new options by recommending them to some user. Such systems can thus be modeled as multi-armed bandit settings; however, users are self-interested and cannot be made to follow recommendations. We ask whether exploration can nevertheless be performed in a way that scrupulously respects agents’ interests—i.e., by a system that acts as a fiduciary. More formally, we introduce a model in which a recommendation system faces an exploration-exploitation tradeoff under the constraint that it can never recommend any action that it knows yields lower reward in expectation than an agent would achieve if it acted alone. Our main contribution is a positive result: an asymptotically optimal, incentive compatible, and ex-ante individually rational recommendation algorithm.

Most recommender systems (RS) research assumes that a user’s utility can be maximized independently of the utility of the other agents (e.g., other users, content providers). In realistic settings, this is often not true – the dynamics of an RS ecosystem couple the long-term utility of all agents. In this work, we explore settings in which content providers cannot remain viable unless they receive a certain level of user engagement. We formulate this problem as one of equilibrium selection in the induced dynamical system, and show that it can be solved as an optimal constrained matching problem. Our model ensures the system reaches an equilibrium with maximal social welfare supported by a sufficiently diverse set of viable providers. We demonstrate that even in a simple, stylized dynamical RS model, the standard myopic approach to recommendation - always matching a user to the best provider - performs poorly. We develop several scalable techniques to solve the matching problem, and also draw connections to various notions of user regret and fairness, arguing that these outcomes are fairer in a utilitarian sense.

The connection between messaging and action is fundamental both to web applications, such as web search and sentiment analysis, and to economics. However, while prominent online applications exploit messaging in natural (human) language in order to predict non-strategic action selection, the economics literature focuses on the connection between structured stylized messaging to strategic decisions in games and multi-agent encounters. This paper aims to connect these two strands of research, which we consider highly timely and important due to the vast online textual communication on the web. Particularly, we introduce the following question: can free text expressed in natural language serve for the prediction of action selection in an economic context, modeled as a game? We initiate research on this question by providing preliminary positive results.

Recommendation Systems like YouTube are vibrant ecosystems with two types of users: Content consumers (those who watch videos) and content providers (those who create videos). While the computational task of recommending relevant content is largely solved, designing a system that guarantees high social welfare for \textit{all} stakeholders is still in its infancy. In this work, we investigate the dynamics of content creation using a game-theoretic lens. Employing a stylized model that was recently suggested by other works, we show that the dynamics will always converge to a pure Nash Equilibrium (PNE), but the convergence rate can be exponential. We complement the analysis by proposing an efficient PNE computation algorithm via a combinatorial optimization problem that is of independent interest.

The connection between messaging and action is fundamental both to web applications, such as web search and sentiment analysis, and to economics. However, while prominent online applications exploit messaging in natural (human) language in order to predict non-strategic action selection, the economics literature focuses on the connection between structured stylized messaging to strategic decisions in games and multi-agent encounters. This paper aims to connect these two strands of research, which we consider highly timely and important due to the vast online textual communication on the web. Particularly, we introduce the following question: Can free text expressed in natural language serve for the prediction of action selection in an economic context, modeled as a game In order to initiate the research on this question, we introduce the study of an individual’s action prediction in a one-shot game based on free text he/she provides, while being unaware of the game to be played. We approach the problem by attributing commonsensical personality attributes via crowd-sourcing to free texts written by individuals, and employing transductive learning to predict actions taken by these individuals in one-shot games based on these attributes. Our approach allows us to train a single classifier that can make predictions with respect to actions taken in multiple games. In experiments with three well-studied games, our algorithm compares favorably with strong alternative approaches. In ablation analysis, we demonstrate the importance of our modeling choices—the representation of the text with the commonsensical personality attributes and our classifier—to the predictive power of our model.

Recommendation systems are extremely popular tools for matching users and contents. However, when content providers are strategic, the basic principle of matching users to the closest content, where both users and contents are modeled as points in some semantic space, may yield low social welfare. This is due to the fact that content providers are strategic and optimize their offered content to be recommended to as many users as possible. Motivated by modern applications, we propose the widely studied framework of facility location games to study recommendation systems with strategic content providers. Our conceptual contribution is the introduction of a mediator to facility location models, in the pursuit of better social welfare. We aim at designing mediators that a) induce a game with high social welfare in equilibrium, and b) intervene as little as possible. In service of the latter, we introduce the notion of intervention cost, which quantifies how much damage a mediator may cause to the social welfare when an off-equilibrium profile is adopted. As a case study in high-welfare low-intervention mediator design, we consider the one-dimensional segment as the user domain. We propose a mediator that implements the socially optimal strategy profile as the unique equilibrium profile, and show a tight bound on its intervention cost. Ultimately, we consider some extensions, and highlight open questions for the general agenda.

We consider a game-theoretic model of information retrieval with strategic authors. We examine two different utility schemes: authors who aim at maximizing exposure and authors who want to maximize active selection of their content (i.e., the number of clicks). We introduce the study of author learning dynamics in such contexts. We prove that under the probability ranking principle (PRP), which forms the basis of the current state-of-the-art ranking methods, any betterresponse learning dynamics converges to a pure Nash equilibrium. We also show that other ranking methods induce a strategic environment under which such a convergence may not occur.

We introduce a game-theoretic approach to the study of recommendation systems with strategic content providers. Such systems should be fair and stable. Showing that traditional approaches fail to satisfy these requirements, we propose the Shapley mediator. We show that the Shapley mediator satisfies the fairness and stability requirements, runs in linear time, and is the only economically efficient mechanism satisfying these properties.

In a regression task, a predictor is given a set of instances, along with a real value for each point. Subsequently, she has to identify the value of a new instance as accurately as possible. In this work, we initiate the study of strategic predictions in machine learning. We consider a regression task tackled by two players, where the payoff of each player is the proportion of the points she predicts more accurately than the other player. We first revise the probably approximately correct learning framework to deal with the case of a duel between two predictors. We then devise an algorithm which finds a linear regression predictor that is a best response to any (not necessarily linear) regression algorithm. We show that it has linearithmic sample complexity, and polynomial time complexity when the dimension of the instances domain is fixed. We also test our approach in a high-dimensional setting, and show it significantly defeats classical regression algorithms in the prediction duel. Together, our work introduces a novel machine learning task that lends itself well to current competitive online settings, provides its theoretical foundations, and illustrates its applicability.