We study strategic classification in binary decision-making settings where agents can modify their features in order to improve their classification outcomes. Importantly, our work considers the causal structure across different features, acknowledging that effort in one feature may affect other features. The main goal of our work is to understand when and how much agent effort is invested towards desirable features, and how this is influenced by the deployed classifier, the causal structure of the agent's features, their ability to modify them, and the information available to the agent about the classifier and the feature causal graph. We characterize conditions under which agents with full information about the causal structure and the principal's classifier align with the principal's goals of incentivizing effort mostly in ``desirable'' features, and identify cases where designing such classifiers (from the principal's side) is still tractable despite general non-convexity. Under incomplete information, we show that uncertainty leads agents to prioritize features with high expected impact and low variance, which may often be misaligned with the principal's goals. Finally, using numerical experiments based on a cardiovascular disease risk study, we illustrate how to incentivize desirable modifications even under uncertainty.

We initiate the study of contextual dynamic pricing with a heterogeneous population of buyers, where a seller repeatedly posts prices (over $T$ rounds) that depend on the observable $d$-dimensional context and receives binary purchase feedback. Unlike prior work assuming homogeneous buyer types, in our setting the buyer's valuation type is drawn from an unknown distribution with finite support size $K_{\star}$. We develop a contextual pricing algorithm based on optimistic posterior sampling with regret $\widetilde{O}(K_{\star}\sqrt{dT})$, which we prove to be tight in $d$ and $T$ up to logarithmic terms. Finally, we refine our analysis for the non-contextual pricing case, proposing a variance-aware zooming algorithm that achieves the optimal dependence on $K_{\star}$.

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.

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.

Online platforms that deliver ads and general recommendation systems are now integral to our daily routines. These platforms aim to maximize user engagement with their content, whether it involves ads or general recommendations. And yet, for all of their importance, researchers are still struggling to fully capture which factors drive user engagement on these platforms. Understanding these factors can not only unlock the possibility of increased revenue for the platforms, but can also help increase user satisfaction. Despite the multitude of models put forth to explain user engagement behavior, most focus on short-sighted/myopic preferences; i.e., users are assumed to make engagement decisions not caring about their prior interactions with the platform. In this paper, we take a different approach and aim to model users' evolving preferences.

In this paper, we introduce a generalization of the standard Stackelberg Games (SGs) framework: _Calibrated Stackelberg Games_. 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 to infer the principal's actions 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.

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).

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 $\epsilon$-ball loss, we give a tight regret bound of $O(C + d \log(1/\epsilon))$ improving over the $O(d^3 \log(1/\epsilon)) \log^2(T) + C \log(T) \log(1/\epsilon))$ bound of Krishnamurthy et al (STOC’21). For the symmetric loss, we give an efficient algorithm with regret $O(C+d \log T)$. In terms of techniques, our algorithms are a departure from previous contextual search models in the sense that they keep track of density functions over the candidate vectors instead of a knowledge set consisting of the candidate vectors consistent with the feedback obtained.

We initiate the study of the effects of non-transparency in decision rules on individuals’ ability to improve in strategic learning settings. Inspired by real-life settings, such as loan approvals and college admissions, we remove the assumption typically made in the strategic learning literature, that the decision rule is fully known to individuals, and focus instead on settings where it is inaccessible. In their lack of knowledge, individuals try to infer this rule by learning from their peers (e.g., friends and acquaintances who previously applied for a loan), naturally forming groups in the population, each with possibly different type and level of information regarding the decision rule. We show that, in equilibrium, the principal’s decision rule optimizing welfare across sub-populations may cause a strong negative externality: the true quality of some of the groups can actually deteriorate. On the positive side, we show that, in many natural cases, optimal improvement can be guaranteed simultaneously for all sub-populations. We further introduce a measure we term information overlap proxy, and demonstrate its usefulness in characterizing the disparity in improvements across sub-populations. Finally, we identify a natural condition under which improvement can be guaranteed for all sub-populations while maintaining high predictive accuracy. We complement our theoretical analysis with experiments on real-world datasets.

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 adversarial 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. A version with full proofs (and additional results) appears at arxiv.org/abs/2006.12367v2.

We study contextual search, a generalization of binary search in higher dimensions, which captures settings such as feature-based dynamic pricing. Standard game-theoretic formulations of this problem assume that agents act in accordance with a specific behavioral model. In practice, some agents may not subscribe to the dominant behavioral model or may act in ways that are seemingly arbitrarily irrational. Existing algorithms heavily depend on the behavioral model being (approximately) accurate for all agents and have poor performance even with a few arbitrarily irrational agents.

We study online learning settings in which experts act strategically to maximize their influence on the learning algorithm’s predictions by potentially misreporting their beliefs about a sequence of binary events. Our goal is twofold. First, we want the learning algorithm to be no-regret with respect to the best-fixed expert in hindsight. Second, we want incentive compatibility, a guarantee that each expert’s best strategy is to report his true beliefs about the realization of each event. To achieve this goal, we build on the literature on wagering mechanisms, a type of multi-agent scoring rule. We provide algorithms that achieve no regret and incentive compatibility for myopic experts for both the full and partial information settings. In experiments on datasets from FiveThirtyEight, our algorithms have regret comparable to classic no-regret algorithms, which are not incentive-compatible. Finally, we identify an incentive-compatible algorithm for forward-looking strategic agents that exhibits diminishing regret in practice.

We address the question of repeatedly learning linear classifiers against agents who are \emph{strategically} trying to \emph{game} the deployed classifiers, and we use the \emph{Stackelberg regret} to measure the performance of our algorithms. First, we show that Stackelberg and external regret for the problem of strategic classification are \emph{strongly incompatible}: i.e., there exist worst-case scenarios, where \emph{any} sequence of actions providing \emph{sublinear} external regret might result in \emph{linear} Stackelberg regret and vice versa. Second, we present a strategy-aware algorithm for minimizing the Stackelberg regret for which we prove nearly matching upper and lower regret bounds. Finally, we provide simulations to complement our theoretical analysis. Our results advance the growing literature of learning from revealed preferences, which has so far focused on ``smoother'' assumptions from the perspective of the learner and the agents respectively.

We study incentive compatible mechanisms for Combinatorial Auctions where the bidders have submodular (or XOS) valuations and are budget-constrained. Our objective is to maximize the liquid welfare, a notion of efficiency for budgetconstrained bidders introduced by Dobzinski and Paes Leme (2014). We show that some of the known truthful mechanisms that best-approximate the social welfare for Combinatorial Auctions with submodular bidders through demand query oracles can be adapted, so that they retain truthfulness and achieve asymptotically the same approximation guarantees for the liquid welfare. More specifically, for the problem of optimizing the liquid welfare in Combinatorial Auctions with submodular bidders, we obtain a universally truthful randomized O(log m)-approximate mechanism, where m is the number of items, by adapting the mechanism of Krysta and Vöcking (2012).Additionally, motivated by large market assumptions often used in mechanism design, we introduce a notion of competitive markets and show that in such markets, liquid welfare can be approximated within a constant factor by a randomized universally truthful mechanism. Finally, in the Bayesian setting, we obtain a truthful O(1)-approximate mechanism for the case where bidder valuations are generated as independent samples from a known distribution, by adapting the results of Feldman, Gravin and Lucier (2014).

We address online learning in complex auction settings, such as sponsored search auctions, where the value of the bidder is unknown to her, evolving in an arbitrary manner and observed only if the bidder wins an allocation. We leverage the structure of the utility of the bidder and the partial feedback that bidders typically receive in auctions, in order to provide algorithms with regret rates against the best fixed bid in hindsight, that are exponentially faster in convergence in terms of dependence on the action space, than what would have been derived by applying a generic bandit algorithm and almost equivalent to what would have been achieved in the full information setting. Our results are enabled by analyzing a new online learning setting with outcome-based feedback, which generalizes learning with feedback graphs. We provide an online learning algorithm for this setting, of independent interest, with regret that grows only logarithmically with the number of actions and linearly only in the number of potential outcomes (the latter being very small in most auction settings). Last but not least, we show that our algorithm outperforms the bandit approach experimentally and that this performance is robust to dropping some of our theoretical assumptions or introducing noise in the feedback that the bidder receives.

This paper is part of an emerging line of work at the intersection of machine learning and mechanism design, which aims to avoid noise in training data by correctly aligning the incentives of data sources. Specifically, we focus on the ubiquitous problem of linear regression, where strategyproof mechanisms have previously been identified in two dimensions. In our setting, agents have single-peaked preferences and can manipulate only their response variables. Our main contribution is the discovery of a family of group strategyproof linear regression mechanisms in any number of dimensions, which we call generalized resistant hyperplane mechanisms. The game-theoretic properties of these mechanisms --- and, in fact, their very existence --- are established through a connection to a discrete version of the Ham Sandwich Theorem.