The success of data scientists in developing machine learning models is contingent on an iterative development process for detecting patterns in data, finding and extracting useful features, and maximizing their model’s performance. However, it is often the case that they struggle during model development and become stuck and unable to make significant progress. We collected qualitative and quantitative data from the workflow of data scientists that allow us to learn from and examine such moments of stuckness. We used this data to develop a model for predicting stuckness based on real-time indicators, such as code artifacts, and then used the model to develop an innovative algorithm that determines precisely when a potential stuckness intervention should occur: as close as possible to the beginning of actual stuckness. Our algorithm’s performance indicates the potential efficacy of predicting data scientist stuckness algorithmically under real-world circumstances and for real-world needs.

This article proposes a negotiation game, based on the weighted voting paradigm in cooperative game theory, where agents need to form coalitions and agree on how to share the gains. Despite the prevalence of weighted voting in the real world, there has been little work studying people’s behavior in such settings. This work addresses this gap by combining game-theoretic solution concepts with machine learning models for predicting human behavior in such domains. We present a five-player online version of a weighted voting game in which people negotiate to create coalitions. We provide an equilibrium analysis of this game and collect hundreds of instances of people’s play in the game. We show that a machine learning model with features based on solution concepts from cooperative game theory (in particular, an extension of the Deegan-Packel Index) provide a good prediction of people’s decisions to join coalitions in the game. We designed an agent that uses the prediction model to make offers to people in this game and was able to outperform other people in an extensive empirical study. These results demonstrate the benefit of incorporating concepts from cooperative game theory in the design of agents that interact with people in group decision-making settings.

What is a fair way to assign rooms to several housemates, and divide the rent between them? This is not just a theoretical question: many people have used the Spliddit website to obtain envy-free solutions to rent division instances. But envy freeness, in and of itself, is insufficient to guarantee outcomes that people view as intuitive and acceptable. We therefore focus on solutions that optimize a criterion of social justice, subject to the envy freeness constraint, in order to pinpoint the “fairest” solutions. We develop a general algorithmic framework that enables the computation of such solutions in polynomial time. We then study the relations between natural optimization objectives, and identify the maximin solution, which maximizes the minimum utility subject to envy freeness, as the most attractive. We demonstrate, in theory and using experiments on real data from Spliddit, that the maximin solution gives rise to significant gains in terms of our optimization objectives. Finally, a user study with Spliddit users as subjects demonstrates that people find the maximin solution to be significantly fairer than arbitrary envy-free solutions; this user study is unprecedented in that it asks people about their real-world rent division instances. Based on these results, the maximin solution has been deployed on Spliddit since April 2015.

Despite the prevalence of weighted voting in the real world, there has been relatively little work studying real people's behavior in such settings. This paper proposes a new negotiation game, based on the weighted voting paradigm in cooperative games, where players need to form coalitions and agree on how to share the gains. We show that solution concepts from cooperative game theory (in particular, an extension of the Deegan-Packel Index) provide a good prediction of people's decisions to join a given coalition. With this insight in mind, we design an agent that combines predictive analytics with decision theory to make offers to people in the game. We show that the agent was able to obtain higher shares from coalitions than did people playing other people, without reducing the acceptance rate of its offers. These results demonstrate the potential of incorporating concepts from cooperative game theory in the design of negotiating agents.

“Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?” The Evil Queen What is a fair way to assign rooms to several housemates and divide the rent between them? This is not just a theoretical question: many people have used the Spliddit website to obtain envy-free solutions to rent division instances. But envy freeness, in and of itself, is insufficient to guarantee outcomes that people view as intuitive and acceptable. We therefore focus on solutions that optimize a criterion of social justice, subject to the envy-freeness constraint, in order to pinpoint the “fairest” solutions. We develop a general algorithmic framework that enables the computation of such solutions in polynomial time. We then study the relations between natural optimization objectives and identify the maximin solution, which maximizes the minimum utility subject to envy freeness, as the most attractive. We demonstrate, in theory and using experiments on real data from Spliddit, that the maximin solution gives rise to significant gains in terms of our optimization objectives. Finally, a user study with Spliddit users as subjects demonstrates that people find the maximin solution to be significantly fairer than arbitrary envy-free solutions; this user study is unprecedented in that it asks people about their real-world rent division instances. Based on these results, the maximin solution has been deployed on Spliddit since April 2015.

What is a fair way to assign rooms to several housemates, and divide the rent between them? This is not just a theoretical question: many people have used the Spliddit website to obtain envy-free solutions to rent division instances. But envy freeness, in and of itself, is insufficient to guarantee outcomes that people view as intuitive and acceptable. We therefore focus on solutions that optimize a criterion of social justice, subject to the envy freeness constraint, in order to pinpoint the ``fairest'' solutions. We develop a general algorithmic framework that enables the computation of such solutions in polynomial time. We then study the relations between natural optimization objectives, and identify the maximin solution, which maximizes the minimum utility subject to envy freeness, as the most attractive. We demonstrate, in theory and using experiments on real data from Spliddit, that the maximin solution gives rise to significant gains in terms of our optimization objectives. Finally, a user study with Spliddit users as subjects demonstrates that people find the maximin solution to be significantly fairer than arbitrary envy-free solutions; this user study is unprecedented in that it asks people about their real-world rent division instances. Based on these results, the maximin solution has been deployed on Spliddit since April 2015.