Content creators compete for user attention. Their reach crucially depends on algorithmic choices made by developers on online platforms. To maximize exposure, many creators adapt strategically, as evidenced by examples like the sprawling search engine optimization industry. This begets competition for the finite user attention pool. We formalize these dynamics in what we call an exposure game, a model of incentives induced by algorithms, including modern factorization and (deep) two-tower architectures. We prove that seemingly innocuous algorithmic choices, e.g., non-negative vs. unconstrained factorization, significantly affect the existence and character of (Nash) equilibria in exposure games. We proffer use of creator behavior models, like exposure games, for an (ex-ante) pre-deployment audit. Such an audit can identify misalignment between desirable and incentivized content, and thus complement post-hoc measures like content filtering and moderation. To this end, we propose tools for numerically finding equilibria in exposure games, and illustrate results of an audit on the MovieLens and LastFM datasets. Among else, we find that the strategically produced content exhibits strong dependence between algorithmic exploration and content diversity, and between model expressivity and bias towards gender-based user and creator groups.

Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 450 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI's GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit "breakthrough" behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting.

Recommender systems play a key role in shaping modern web ecosystems. These systems alternate between (1) making recommendations (2) collecting user responses to these recommendations, and (3) retraining the recommendation algorithm based on this feedback. During this process the recommender system influences the user behavioral data that is subsequently used to update it, thus creating a feedback loop. Recent work has shown that feedback loops may compromise recommendation quality and homogenize user behavior, raising ethical and performance concerns when deploying recommender systems. To address these issues, we propose the Causal Adjustment for Feedback Loops (CAFL), an algorithm that provably breaks feedback loops using causal inference and can be applied to any recommendation algorithm that optimizes a training loss. Our main observation is that a recommender system does not suffer from feedback loops if it reasons about causal quantities, namely the intervention distributions of recommendations on user ratings. Moreover, we can calculate this intervention distribution from observational data by adjusting for the recommender system's predictions of user preferences. Using simulated environments, we demonstrate that CAFL improves recommendation quality when compared to prior correction methods.

The digitization of all manner of services has introduced recommendation systems into many aspects of our day-to-day lives. In particular, recommendation systems are now being applied to safety-critical domains such as making lifestyle recommendations to patients in healthcare [Hammer et al., 2015, Tran et al., 2021]. It is therefore increasingly important that deployed recommender systems do not output recommendations devoid of uncertainty annotations. Meaningful recommendations should come with transparent and reliable statistical assessments. To date, the majority of deployed systems have fallen far short of this desideratum [Covington et al., 2016, Liu et al., 2017, Geyik et al., 2018]. Augmenting recommendation systems with internal tracking of statistical error rates would unlock new capabilities and applications. One such capability is the ability to enforce auxiliary constraints while still guaranteeing a baseline number of high-quality items in each slate of recommendations. For example, we could diversify slates whose quality we are confident in, while leaving lower-confidence slates untouched. Furthermore, the strong guarantees provided by uncertainty quantification are a prerequisite for applying recommendation systems to safety-critical tasks such as medical diagnosis, where a misdiagnosis due to uncertain predictions can be fatal.

Thanks to their scalability, two-stage recommenders are used by many of today's largest online platforms, including YouTube, LinkedIn, and Pinterest. These systems produce recommendations in two steps: (i) multiple nominators -- tuned for low prediction latency -- preselect a small subset of candidates from the whole item pool; (ii)~a slower but more accurate ranker further narrows down the nominated items, and serves to the user. Despite their popularity, the literature on two-stage recommenders is relatively scarce, and the algorithms are often treated as the sum of their parts. Such treatment presupposes that the two-stage performance is explained by the behavior of individual components if they were deployed independently. This is not the case: using synthetic and real-world data, we demonstrate that interactions between the ranker and the nominators substantially affect the overall performance. Motivated by these findings, we derive a generalization lower bound which shows that careful choice of each nominator's training set is sometimes the only difference between a poor and an optimal two-stage recommender. Since searching for a good choice manually is difficult, we learn one instead. In particular, using a Mixture-of-Experts approach, we train the nominators (experts) to specialize on different subsets of the item pool. This significantly improves performance.

Two-stage recommender systems are widely adopted in industry due to their scalability and maintainability. These systems produce recommendations in two steps: (i) multiple nominators preselect a small number of items from a large pool using cheap-to-compute item embeddings; (ii) with a richer set of features, a ranker rearranges the nominated items and serves them to the user. A key challenge of this setup is that optimal performance of each stage in isolation does not imply optimal global performance. In response to this issue, Ma et al. (2020) proposed a nominator training objective importance weighted by the ranker's probability of recommending each item. In this work, we focus on the complementary issue of exploration. Modeled as a contextual bandit problem, we find LinUCB (a near optimal exploration strategy for single-stage systems) may lead to linear regret when deployed in two-stage recommenders. We therefore propose a method of synchronising the exploration strategies between the ranker and the nominators. Our algorithm only relies on quantities already computed by standard LinUCB at each stage and can be implemented in three lines of additional code. We end by demonstrating the effectiveness of our algorithm experimentally.

We study the sample complexity of approximate policy iteration (PI) for the Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR), building on a recent line of work using LQR as a testbed to understand the limits of reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms on continuous control tasks. Our analysis quantifies the tension between policy improvement and policy evaluation, and suggests that policy evaluation is the dominant factor in terms of sample complexity. Specifically, we show that to obtain a controller that is within $\varepsilon$ of the optimal LQR controller, each step of policy evaluation requires at most $(n+d)^3/\varepsilon^2$ samples, where $n$ is the dimension of the state vector and $d$ is the dimension of the input vector. On the other hand, only $\log(1/\varepsilon)$ policy improvement steps suffice, resulting in an overall sample complexity of $(n+d)^3 \varepsilon^{-2} \log(1/\varepsilon)$. We furthermore build on our analysis and construct a simple adaptive procedure based on $\varepsilon$-greedy exploration which relies on approximate PI as a sub-routine and obtains $T^{2/3}$ regret, improving upon a recent result of Abbasi-Yadkori et al.

We investigate the capabilities and limitations of Gaussian process models by jointly exploring three complementary directions: (i) scalable and statistically efficient inference; (ii) flexible kernels; and (iii) objective functions for hyperparameter learning alternative to the marginal likelihood. Our approach outperforms all previously reported GP methods on the standard MNIST dataset; performs comparatively to previous kernel-based methods using the RECTANGLES-IMAGE dataset; and breaks the 1% error-rate barrier in GP models using the MNIST8M dataset, showing along the way the scalability of our method at unprecedented scale for GP models (8 million observations) in classification problems. Overall, our approach represents a significant breakthrough in kernel methods and GP models, bridging the gap between deep learning approaches and kernel machines.

We develop an automated variational method for inference in models with Gaussian process (GP) priors and general likelihoods. The method supports multiple outputs and multiple latent functions and does not require detailed knowledge of the conditional likelihood, only needing its evaluation as a black-box function. Using a mixture of Gaussians as the variational distribution, we show that the evidence lower bound and its gradients can be estimated efficiently using empirical expectations over univariate Gaussian distributions. Furthermore, the method is scalable to large datasets which is achieved by using an augmented prior via the inducing-variable approach underpinning most sparse GP approximations, along with parallel computation and stochastic optimization. We evaluate our method with experiments on small datasets, medium-scale datasets and a large dataset, showing its competitiveness under different likelihood models and sparsity levels. Moreover, we analyze learning in our model under batch and stochastic settings, and study the effect of optimizing the inducing inputs. Finally, in the large-scale experiment, we investigate the problem of predicting airline delays and show that our method is on par with the state-of-the-art hard-coded approach for scalable GP regression.