High dialogue engagement is a crucial indicator of an effective conversation. A reliable measure of engagement could help benchmark large language models, enhance the effectiveness of human-computer interactions, or improve personal communication skills. However, quantifying engagement is challenging, since it is subjective and lacks a ''gold standard''. This paper proposes PMIScore, an efficient unsupervised approach to quantify dialogue engagement. It uses pointwise mutual information (PMI), which is the probability of generating a response conditioning on the conversation history. Thus, PMIScore offers a clear interpretation of engagement. As directly computing PMI is intractable due to the complexity of dialogues, PMIScore learned it through a dual form of divergence. The algorithm includes generating positive and negative dialogue pairs, extracting embeddings by large language models (LLMs), and training a small neural network using a mutual information loss function. We validated PMIScore on both synthetic and real-world datasets. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of PMIScore in PMI estimation and the reasonableness of the PMI metric itself.

The standard framework of online bidding algorithm design assumes that the seller commits himself to faithfully implementing the rules of the adopted auction.However, the seller may attempt to cheat in execution to increase his revenue if the auction belongs to the class of non-credible auctions.For example, in a second-price auction, the seller could create a fake bid between the highest bid and the second highest bid.This paper focuses on one such case of online bidding in repeated second-price auctions.At each time 𝑡, the winner with bid 𝑏 𝑡 is charged not the highest competing bid 𝑑 𝑡 but a manipulated price 𝑝 𝑡 = 𝛼 0 𝑑 𝑡 + (1 -𝛼 0 )𝑏 𝑡 , where the parameter 𝛼 0 ∈ [0, 1] in essence measures the seller's credibility.Unlike classic repeated-auction settings where the bidder has access to samples (𝑑 𝑠 ) 𝑡 -1 𝑠=1 , she can only receive mixed signals of𝑠=1 and 𝛼 0 in this problem.The task for the bidder is to learn not only the bid distributions of her competitors but also the seller's credibility.We establish regret lower bounds in various information models and provide corresponding online bidding algorithms that can achieve near-optimal performance.Specifically, * Both authors contributed equally to this research.

We consider a robust aggregation problem in the presence of both truthful and adversarial experts. The truthful experts will report their private signals truthfully, while the adversarial experts can report arbitrarily. We assume experts are marginally symmetric in the sense that they share the same common prior and marginal posteriors. The rule maker needs to design an aggregator to predict the true world state from these experts' reports, without knowledge of the underlying information structures or adversarial strategies. We aim to find the optimal aggregator that outputs a forecast minimizing regret under the worst information structure and adversarial strategies. The regret is defined by the difference in expected loss between the aggregator and a benchmark who aggregates optimally given the information structure and reports of truthful experts.

Rating aggregation plays a crucial role in various fields, such as product recommendations, hotel rankings, and teaching evaluations. However, traditional averaging methods can be affected by participation bias, where some raters do not participate in the rating process, leading to potential distortions. In this paper, we consider a robust rating aggregation task under the participation bias. We assume that raters may not reveal their ratings with a certain probability depending on their individual ratings, resulting in partially observed samples. Our goal is to minimize the expected squared loss between the aggregated ratings and the average of all underlying ratings (possibly unobserved) in the worst-case scenario.

We consider a decision aggregation problem with two experts who each make a binary recommendation after observing a private signal about an unknown binary world state. An agent, who does not know the joint information structure between signals and states, sees the experts' recommendations and aims to match the action with the true state. Under the scenario, we study whether supplemented additionally with second-order information (each expert's forecast on the other's recommendation) could enable a better aggregation.

A/B testing, or controlled experiments, is the gold standard approach to causally compare the performance of algorithms on online platforms. However, conventional Bernoulli randomization in A/B testing faces many challenges such as spillover and carryover effects. Our study focuses on another challenge, especially for A/B testing on two-sided platforms – budget constraints. Buyers on two-sided platforms often have limited budgets, where the conventional A/B testing may be infeasible to be applied, partly because two variants of allocation algorithms may conflict and lead some buyers to exceed their budgets if they are implemented simultaneously. We develop a model to describe two-sided platforms where buyers have limited budgets. We then provide an optimal experimental design that guarantees small bias and minimum variance. Bias is lower when there is more budget and a higher supply-demand rate. We test our experimental design on both synthetic data and real-world data, which verifies the theoretical results and shows our advantage compared to Bernoulli randomization.

Multi-round competitions often double or triple the points awarded in the final round, calling it a bonus, to maximize spectators’ excitement. In a two-player competition with n rounds, we aim to derive the optimal bonus size to maximize the audience’s overall expected surprise (as defined in [7]). We model the audience’s prior belief over the two players’ ability levels as a beta distribution. Using a novel analysis that clarifies and simplifies the computation, we find that the optimal bonus depends greatly upon the prior belief and obtain solutions of various forms for both the case of a finite number of rounds and the asymptotic case. In an interesting special case, we show that the optimal bonus approximately and asymptotically equals to the “expected lead”, the number of points the weaker player will need to come back in expectation. Moreover, we observe that priors with a higher skewness lead to a higher optimal bonus size, and in the symmetric case, priors with a higher uncertainty also lead to a higher optimal bonus size. This matches our intuition since a highly asymmetric prior leads to a high “expected lead”, and a highly uncertain symmetric prior often leads to a lopsided game, which again benefits from a larger bonus.