Behavioral game theory models serve two purposes: yielding insights into how human decision-making works, and predicting how people would behave in novel strategic settings. A system called GameNet represents the state of the art for predicting human behavior in the setting of unrepeated simultaneous-move games, combining a simple "level-k" model of strategic reasoning with a complex neural network model of non-strategic "level-0" behavior. Although this reliance on well-established ideas from cognitive science ought to make GameNet interpretable, the flexibility of its level-0 model raises the possibility that it is able to emulate strategic reasoning. In this work, we prove that GameNet's level-0 model is indeed too general. We then introduce ElementaryNet, a novel neural network that is provably incapable of expressing strategic behavior. We show that these additional restrictions are empirically harmless, with ElementaryNet and GameNet having statistically indistinguishable performance. We then show how it is possible to derive insights about human behavior by varying ElementaryNet's features and interpreting its parameters, finding evidence of iterative reasoning, learning about the depth of this reasoning process, and showing the value of a rich level-0 specification.

Researchers building behavioral models, such as behavioral game theorists, use experimental data to evaluate predictive models of human behavior. However, there is little agreement about which loss function should be used in evaluations, with error rate, negative log-likelihood, cross-entropy, Brier score, and squared L2 error all being common choices. We attempt to offer a principled answer to the question of which loss functions should be used for this task, formalizing axioms that we argue loss functions should satisfy. We construct a family of loss functions, which we dub ``diagonal bounded Bregman divergences'', that satisfy all of these axioms. These rule out many loss functions used in practice, but notably include squared L2 error; we thus recommend its use for evaluating behavioral models.

Iterative combinatorial auctions are widely used in high stakes settings such as spectrum auctions. Such auctions can be hard to analyze, making it difficult for bidders to determine how to behave and for designers to optimize auction rules to ensure desirable outcomes such as high revenue or welfare. In this paper, we investigate whether multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) algorithms can be used to understand iterative combinatorial auctions, given that these algorithms have recently shown empirical success in several other domains. We find that MARL can indeed benefit auction analysis, but that deploying it effectively is nontrivial. We begin by describing modelling decisions that keep the resulting game tractable without sacrificing important features such as imperfect information or asymmetry between bidders. We also discuss how to navigate pitfalls of various MARL algorithms, how to overcome challenges in verifying convergence, and how to generate and interpret multiple equilibria. We illustrate the promise of our resulting approach by using it to evaluate a specific rule change to a clock auction, finding substantially different auction outcomes due to complex changes in bidders' behavior.

Peer grading systems aggregate noisy reports from multiple students to approximate a "true" grade as closely as possible. Most current systems either take the mean or median of reported grades; others aim to estimate students’ grading accuracy under a probabilistic model. This paper extends the state of the art in the latter approach in three key ways: (1) recognizing that students can behave strategically (e.g., reporting grades close to the class average without doing the work); (2) appropriately handling censored data that arises from discrete-valued grading rubrics; and (3) using mixed integer programming to improve the interpretability of the grades assigned to students. We demonstrate how to make Bayesian inference practical in this model and evaluate our approach on both synthetic and real-world data obtained by using our implemented system in four large classes. These extensive experiments show that grade aggregation using our model accurately estimates true grades, students' likelihood of submitting uninformative grades, and the variation in their inherent grading error; we also characterize our models' robustness.

We introduce a new shortcut interface called KeyMap that is designed to leverage Norman's principle of natural mapping. Rather than displaying shortcut command labels in linear menus, KeyMap displays a virtual keyboard with command labels displayed directly on its keys. A crowdsourced experiment compares KeyMap to Malacria et al.'s ExposeHK using an extension of their protocol to also test recall. Results show KeyMap users remembered 1 more shortcut than ExposeHK immediately after training, and this advantage increased to 4.5 more shortcuts when tested again after 24 hours. KeyMap users also incidentally learned more shortcuts that they had never practised. We demonstrate how KeyMap can be added to existing web-based applications using a Chrome extension.

Input amplification enables easier movement in virtual reality (VR) for users with mobility issues or in confined spaces. However, current techniques either do not focus on maintaining feelings of body ownership, or are not applicable to general VR tasks. We investigate a general purpose non-linear transfer function that keeps the user's reach within reasonable bounds to maintain body ownership. The technique amplifies smaller movements from a user-definable neutral point into the expected larger movements using a configurable Hermite curve. Two experiments evaluate the approach. The first establishes that the technique has comparable performance to the state-of-the-art, increasing physical comfort while maintaining task performance and body ownership. The second explores the characteristics of the technique over a wide range of amplification levels. Using the combined results, design and implementation recommendations are provided with potential applications to related VR transfer functions.

Collaborative crowdsourcing tasks allow crowd workers to solve problems that they could not handle alone, but worker motivation in these tasks is not well understood. In this paper, we study how to motivate groups of workers by paying them equitably. To this end, we characterize existing collaborative tasks based on the types of information available to crowd workers. Then, we apply concepts from equity theory to show how fair payments relate to worker motivation, and we propose two theoretically grounded classes of fair payments. Finally, we run two experiments using an audio transcription task on Amazon Mechanical Turk to understand how workers perceive these payments. Our results show that workers recognize fair and unfair payment divisions, but are biased toward payments that reward them more. Additionally, our data suggests that fair payments could lead to a small increase in worker effort. These results inform the design of future collaborative crowdsourcing tasks.