We study a game-theoretic information retrieval model in which strategic publishers aim to maximize their chances of being ranked first by the search engine while maintaining the integrity of their original documents. We show that the commonly used Probability Ranking Principle (PRP) ranking scheme results in an unstable environment where games often fail to reach pure Nash equilibrium. We propose two families of ranking functions that do not adhere to the PRP. We provide both theoretical and empirical evidence that these methods lead to a stable search ecosystem, by providing positive results on the learning dynamics convergence. We also define the publishers’ and users’ welfare, demonstrate a possible publisher-user trade-off, and provide means for a search system designer to control it. Finally, we show how instability harms long-term users’ welfare.

Human choice prediction in economic contexts is crucial for applications in marketing, finance, public policy, and more. This task, however, is often constrained by the difficulties in acquiring human choice data. With most experimental economics studies focusing on simple choice settings, the AI community has explored whether LLMs can substitute for humans in these predictions and examined more complex experimental economics settings. However, a key question remains: can LLMs generate training data for human choice prediction? We explore this in language-based persuasion games, a complex economic setting involving natural language in strategic interactions. Our experiments show that models trained on LLM-generated data can effectively predict human behavior in these games and even outperform models trained on actual human data. Beyond data generation, we investigate the dual role of LLMs as both data generators and predictors, introducing a comprehensive empirical study on the effectiveness of utilizing LLMs for data generation, human choice prediction, or both. We then utilize our choice prediction framework to analyze how strategic factors shape decision-making, showing that interaction history (rather than linguistic sentiment alone) plays a key role in predicting human decision-making in repeated interactions. Particularly, when LLMs capture history-dependent decision patterns similarly to humans, their predictive success improves substantially. Finally, we demonstrate the robustness of our findings across alternative persuasion-game settings, highlighting the broader potential of using LLM-generated data to model human decision-making.

Publishers who publish their content on the web act strategically, in a behavior that can be modeled within the online learning framework. Regret, a central concept in machine learning, serves as a canonical measure for assessing the performance of learning agents within this framework. We prove that any proportional content ranking function with a concave activation function induces games in which no-regret learning dynamics converge. Moreover, for proportional ranking functions, we prove the equivalence of the concavity of the activation function, the social concavity of the induced games and the concavity of the induced games. We also study the empirical trade-offs between publishers' and users' welfare, under different choices of the activation function, using a state-of-the-art no-regret dynamics algorithm. Furthermore, we demonstrate how the choice of the ranking function and changes in the ecosystem structure affect these welfare measures, as well as the dynamics' convergence rate.

We study a game-theoretic information retrieval model in which strategic publishers aim to maximize their chances of being ranked first by the search engine while maintaining the integrity of their original documents. We show that the commonly used Probability Ranking Principle (PRP) ranking scheme results in an unstable environment where games often fail to reach pure Nash equilibrium. We propose two families of ranking functions that do not adhere to the PRP. We provide both theoretical and empirical evidence that these methods lead to a stable search ecosystem, by providing positive results on the learning dynamics convergence. We also define the publishers’ and users’ welfare, demonstrate a possible publisher-user trade-off, and provide means for a search system designer to control it. Finally, we show how instability harms long-term users’ welfare.

Abstract Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have spurred interest in designing LLM-based agents for tasks that involve interaction with human and artificial agents. This paper addresses a key aspect in the design of such agents: predicting human decisions in off-policy evaluation (OPE). We focus on language-based persuasion games, where an expert aims to influence the decision-maker through verbal messages. In our OPE framework, the prediction model is trained on human interaction data collected from encounters with one set of expert agents, and its performance is evaluated on interactions with a different set of experts. Using a dedicated application, we collected a dataset of 87K decisions from humans playing a repeated decision-making game with artificial agents. To enhance off-policy performance, we propose a simulation technique involving interactions across the entire agent space and simulated decision-makers. Our learning strategy yields significant OPE gains, e.g., improving prediction accuracy in the top 15% challenging cases by 7.1%.1