Common sense suggests that when individuals explain why they believe something, we can arrive at more accurate conclusions than when they simply state what they believe. Yet, there is no known mechanism that provides incentives to elicit explanations for beliefs from agents. This likely stems from the fact that standard Bayesian models make assumptions (like conditional independence of signals) that preempt the need for explanations, in order to show efficient information aggregation. A natural justification for the value of explanations is that agents' beliefs tend to be drawn from overlapping sources of information, so agents' belief reports do not reveal all that needs to be known. Indeed, this work argues that rationales-explanations of an agent's private information-lead to more efficient aggregation by allowing agents to efficiently identify what information they share and what information is new. Building on this model of rationales, we present a novel 'deliberation mechanism' to elicit rationales from agents in which truthful reporting of beliefs and rationales is a perfect Bayesian equilibrium.

We propose a new variant of the strategic classification problem: a principal reveals a classifier, and $n$ agents report their (possibly manipulated) features to be classified. Motivated by real-world applications, our model crucially allows the manipulation of one agent to affect another; that is, it explicitly captures inter-agent externalities. The principal-agent interactions are formally modeled as a Stackelberg game, with the resulting agent manipulation dynamics captured as a simultaneous game. We show that under certain assumptions, the pure Nash Equilibrium of this agent manipulation game is unique and can be efficiently computed. Leveraging this result, PAC learning guarantees are established for the learner: informally, we show that it is possible to learn classifiers that minimize loss on the distribution, even when a random number of agents are manipulating their way to a pure Nash Equilibrium. We also comment on the optimization of such classifiers through gradient-based approaches. This work sets the theoretical foundations for a more realistic analysis of classifiers that are robust against multiple strategic actors interacting in a common environment.

Prognosis and Health Management (PHM), critical for ensuring task completion by complex systems and preventing unexpected failures, is widely adopted in aerospace, manufacturing, maritime, rail, energy, etc. However, PHM's development is constrained by bottlenecks like generalization, interpretation and verification abilities. Presently, generative artificial intelligence (AI), represented by Large Model, heralds a technological revolution with the potential to fundamentally reshape traditional technological fields and human production methods. Its capabilities, including strong generalization, reasoning, and generative attributes, present opportunities to address PHM's bottlenecks. To this end, based on a systematic analysis of the current challenges and bottlenecks in PHM, as well as the research status and advantages of Large Model, we propose a novel concept and three progressive paradigms of Prognosis and Health Management Large Model (PHM-LM) through the integration of the Large Model with PHM. Subsequently, we provide feasible technical approaches for PHM-LM to bolster PHM's core capabilities within the framework of the three paradigms. Moreover, to address core issues confronting PHM, we discuss a series of technical challenges of PHM-LM throughout the entire process of construction and application. This comprehensive effort offers a holistic PHM-LM technical framework, and provides avenues for new PHM technologies, methodologies, tools, platforms and applications, which also potentially innovates design, research & development, verification and application mode of PHM. And furthermore, a new generation of PHM with AI will also capably be realized, i.e., from custom to generalized, from discriminative to generative, and from theoretical conditions to practical applications.

Generalized principal-agent problems, including Stackelberg games, contract design, and Bayesian persuasion, are a class of economic problems where an agent best responds to a principal's committed strategy. We study repeated generalized principal-agent problems under the assumption that the principal does not have commitment power and the agent uses algorithms to learn to respond to the principal. We reduce this problem to a one-shot generalized principal-agent problem with an approximately-best-responding agent. Using this reduction, we show that: (1) if the agent uses contextual no-regret learning algorithms, then the principal can guarantee a utility that is at least the principal's optimal utility in the classic non-learning model minus the square root of the agent's regret; (2) if the agent uses contextual no-swap-regret learning algorithms, then the principal cannot obtain any utility more than the optimal utility in the non-learning model plus the agent's swap regret. But (3) if the agent uses mean-based learning algorithms (which can be no-regret but not no-swap-regret), then the principal can do significantly better than the non-learning model. These general results not only refine previous results in Stackelberg games and contract design with learning agents but also lead to new results for Bayesian persuasion with a learning agent.

Asynchronous Federated Learning (AFL) methods have emerged as promising alternatives to their synchronous counterparts bounded by the slowest agent, yet they add additional challenges in convergence guarantees, fairness with respect to compute heterogeneity, and incorporation of staleness in aggregated updates. Specifically, AFL biases model training heavily towards agents who can produce updates faster, leaving slower agents behind, who often also have differently distributed data which is not learned by the global model. Naively upweighting introduces incentive issues, where true fast updating agents may falsely report updates at a slower speed to increase their contribution to model training. We introduce FedStaleWeight, an algorithm addressing fairness in aggregating asynchronous client updates by employing average staleness to compute fair re-weightings. FedStaleWeight reframes asynchronous federated learning aggregation as a mechanism design problem, devising a weighting strategy that incentivizes truthful compute speed reporting without favoring faster update-producing agents by upweighting agent updates based on staleness. Leveraging only observed agent update staleness, FedStaleWeight results in more equitable aggregation on a per-agent basis. We both provide theoretical convergence guarantees in the smooth, non-convex setting and empirically compare FedStaleWeight against the commonly used asynchronous FedBuff with gradient averaging, demonstrating how it achieves stronger fairness, expediting convergence to a higher global model accuracy. Finally, we provide an open-source test bench to facilitate exploration of buffered AFL aggregation strategies, fostering further research in asynchronous federated learning paradigms.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds promise as a technology that can be used to improve government and economic policy-making. This paper proposes a new research agenda towards this end by introducing Social Environment Design, a general framework for the use of AI for automated policy-making that connects with the Reinforcement Learning, EconCS, and Computational Social Choice communities. The framework seeks to capture general economic environments, includes voting on policy objectives, and gives a direction for the systematic analysis of government and economic policy through AI simulation. We highlight key open problems for future research in AI-based policy-making. By solving these challenges, we hope to achieve various social welfare objectives, thereby promoting more ethical and responsible decision making.

We consider multiple senders with informational advantage signaling to convince a single self-interested actor towards certain actions. Generalizing the seminal Bayesian Persuasion framework, such settings are ubiquitous in computational economics, multi-agent learning, and machine learning with multiple objectives. The core solution concept here is the Nash equilibrium of senders' signaling policies. Theoretically, we prove that finding an equilibrium in general is PPAD-Hard; in fact, even computing a sender's best response is NP-Hard. Given these intrinsic difficulties, we turn to finding local Nash equilibria. We propose a novel differentiable neural network to approximate this game's non-linear and discontinuous utilities. Complementing this with the extra-gradient algorithm, we discover local equilibria that Pareto dominates full-revelation equilibria and those found by existing neural networks. Broadly, our theoretical and empirical contributions are of interest to a large class of economic problems.

This paper studies the design of optimal proper scoring rules when the principal has partial knowledge of an agent's signal distribution. Recent work characterizes the proper scoring rules that maximize the increase of an agent's payoff when the agent chooses to access a costly signal to refine a posterior belief from her prior prediction, under the assumption that the agent's signal distribution is fully known to the principal. In our setting, the principal only knows about a set of distributions where the agent's signal distribution belongs. We formulate the scoring rule design problem as a max-min optimization that maximizes the worst-case increase in payoff across the set of distributions. We propose an efficient algorithm to compute an optimal scoring rule when the set of distributions is finite, and devise a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme that accommodates various infinite sets of distributions. We further remark that widely used scoring rules, such as the quadratic and log rules, as well as previously identified optimal scoring rules under full knowledge, can be far from optimal in our partial knowledge settings.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to support human decision making in high-stake settings in which the human operator, rather than the AI algorithm, needs to make the final decision. For example, in the criminal justice system, algorithmic risk assessments are being used to assist judges in making pretrialrelease decisions and at sentencing and parole [20, 69, 65, 18]; in healthcare, AI algorithms are being used to assist physicians to assess patients' risk factors and to target health inspections and treatments [63, 26, 77, 49]; and in human services, AI algorithms are being used to predict which children are at risk of abuse or neglect, in order to assist decisions made by child-protection staff [79, 16]. In such systems, decisions are often based on risk assessments, and statistical machine-learning algorithms' abilities to excel at prediction tasks [60, 21, 34, 68, 62] are leveraged to provide predictions as advice to human decision makers [45]. For example, the decision that judges make on whether it is safe to release a defendant until his trial, is based on their assessment of how likely this defendant is, if released, to violate his release terms, i.e., to commit another crime until his trial or to fail to appear in court for his trial. For making such risk predictions, judges in the US are assisted by a "risk score" predicted for the defendant by a machine-learning algorithm [20, 69].

We propose modeling real-world data markets, where sellers post fixed prices and buyers are free to purchase from any set of sellers, as a simultaneous-move game between the buyers. A key component of this model is the negative externality buyers induce on one another due to purchasing data with a competitive advantage, a phenomenon exacerbated by data's easy replicability. We consider two settings. In the simpler complete-information setting, where all buyers know their valuations, we characterize both the existence and welfare properties of the pure-strategy Nash equilibrium in the presence of buyer externality. While this picture is bleak without any market intervention, reinforcing the limitations of current data markets, we prove that for a standard class of externality functions, market intervention in the form of a transaction cost can lead to a pure-strategy equilibrium with strong welfare guarantees. We next consider a more general setting where buyers start with unknown valuations and learn them over time through repeated data purchases. Our intervention is feasible in this regime as well, and we provide a learning algorithm for buyers in this online scenario that under some natural assumptions, achieves low regret with respect to both individual and cumulative utility metrics. Lastly, we analyze the promise and shortfalls of this intervention under a much richer model of externality. Our work paves the way for investigating simple interventions for existing data markets to address their shortcoming and the unique challenges put forth by data products.