When deploying a single predictor across multiple subpopulations, we propose a fundamentally different approach: interpreting group fairness as a bargaining problem among subpopulations. This game-theoretic perspective reveals that existing robust optimization methods such as minimizing worst-group loss or regret correspond to classical bargaining solutions and embody different fairness principles. We propose relative improvement, the ratio of actual risk reduction to potential reduction from a baseline predictor, which recovers the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution. Unlike absolute-scale methods that may not be comparable when groups have different potential predictability, relative improvement provides axiomatic justification including scale invariance and individual monotonicity. We establish finite-sample convergence guarantees under mild conditions.

Regulatory frameworks, such as the EU AI Act, encourage openness of general-purpose AI models by offering legal exemptions for "open-source" models. Despite this legislative attention on openness, the definition of open-source foundation models remains ambiguous. This paper models the strategic interactions among the creator of a general-purpose model (the generalist) and the entity that fine-tunes the general-purpose model to a specialized domain or task (the specialist), in response to regulatory requirements on model openness. We present a stylized model of the regulator's choice of an open-source definition to evaluate which AI openness standards will establish appropriate economic incentives for developers. Our results characterize market equilibria -- specifically, upstream model release decisions and downstream fine-tuning efforts -- under various openness regulations and present a range of effective regulatory penalties and open-source thresholds. Overall, we find the model's baseline performance determines when increasing the regulatory penalty vs. the open-source threshold will significantly alter the generalist's release strategy. Our model provides a theoretical foundation for AI governance decisions around openness and enables evaluation and refinement of practical open-source policies.

Cooperative bargaining games are widely used to model resource allocation and conflict resolution. Traditional solutions assume the mediator can access agents utility function values and gradients. However, there is an increasing number of settings, such as human AI interactions, where utility values may be inaccessible or incomparable due to unknown, nonaffine transformations. To model such settings, we consider that the mediator has access only to agents most preferred directions, i.e., normalized utility gradients in the decision space. To this end, we propose a cooperative bargaining algorithm where a mediator has access to only the direction oracle of each agent. We prove that unlike popular approaches such as the Nash and Kalai Smorodinsky bargaining solutions, our approach is invariant to monotonic nonaffine transformations, and that under strong convexity and smoothness assumptions, this approach enjoys global asymptotic convergence to Pareto stationary solutions. Moreover, we show that the bargaining solutions found by our algorithm also satisfy the axioms of symmetry and (under slightly stronger conditions) independence of irrelevant alternatives, which are popular in the literature. Finally, we conduct experiments in two domains, multi agent formation assignment and mediated stock portfolio allocation, which validate these theoretic results. All code for our experiments can be found at https://github.com/suryakmurthy/dibs_bargaining.

Major advances in Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) increasingly take the form of developing and releasing general-purpose models. These models are designed to be adapted by other businesses and agencies to perform a particular, domain-specific function. This process has become known as adaptation or fine-tuning. This paper offers a model of the fine-tuning process where a Generalist brings the technological product (here an ML model) to a certain level of performance, and one or more Domain-specialist(s) adapts it for use in a particular domain. Both entities are profit-seeking and incur costs when they invest in the technology, and they must reach a bargaining agreement on how to share the revenue for the technology to reach the market. For a relatively general class of cost and revenue functions, we characterize the conditions under which the fine-tuning game yields a profit-sharing solution. We observe that any potential domain-specialization will either contribute, free-ride, or abstain in their uptake of the technology, and we provide conditions yielding these different strategies. We show how methods based on bargaining solutions and sub-game perfect equilibria provide insights into the strategic behavior of firms in these types of interactions, and we find that profit-sharing can still arise even when one firm has significantly higher costs than another. We also provide methods for identifying Pareto-optimal bargaining arrangements for a general set of utility functions.

We study the problem of guaranteeing low regret in repeated games against an opponent with unknown membership in one of several classes. We add the constraint that our algorithm is non-exploitable, in that the opponent lacks an incentive to use an algorithm against which we cannot achieve rewards exceeding some "fair" value. Our solution is an expert algorithm (LAFF) that searches within a set of sub-algorithms that are optimal for each opponent class and uses a punishment policy upon detecting evidence of exploitation by the opponent. With benchmarks that depend on the opponent class, we show that LAFF has sublinear regret uniformly over the possible opponents, except exploitative ones, for which we guarantee that the opponent has linear regret. To our knowledge, this work is the first to provide guarantees for both regret and non-exploitability in multi-agent learning.

Optimization models generally aim for efficiency by maximizing total benefit or minimizing cost. Yet a trade-off between fairness and efficiency is an important element of many practical decisions. We propose a principled and practical method for balancing these two criteria in an optimization model. Following a critical assessment of existing schemes, we define a set of social welfare functions (SWFs) that combine Rawlsian leximax fairness and utilitarianism and overcome some of the weaknesses of previous approaches. In particular, we regulate the equity/efficiency trade-off with a single parameter that has a meaningful interpretation in practical contexts. We formulate the SWFs using mixed integer constraints and sequentially maximize them subject to constraints that define the problem at hand. After providing practical step-by-step instructions for implementation, we demonstrate the method on problems of realistic size involving healthcare resource allocation and disaster preparation. The solution times are modest, ranging from a fraction of a second to 18 seconds for a given value of the trade-off parameter.

In experimental tests of human behavior in unstructured bargaining games, typically many joint utility outcomes are found to occur, not just one. This suggests we predict the outcome of such a game as a probability distribution. This is in contrast to what is conventionally done (e.g, in the Nash bargaining solution), which is predict a single outcome. We show how to translate Nash's bargaining axioms to provide a distribution over outcomes rather than a single outcome. We then prove that a subset of those axioms forces the distribution over utility outcomes to be a power-law distribution. Unlike Nash's original result, our result holds even if the feasible set is finite. When the feasible set is convex and comprehensive, the mode of the power law distribution is the Harsanyi bargaining solution, and if we require symmetry it is the Nash bargaining solution. However, in general these modes of the joint utility distribution are not the experimentalist's Bayes-optimal predictions for the joint utility. Nor are the bargains corresponding to the modes of those joint utility distributions the modes of the distribution over bargains in general, since more than one bargain may result in the same joint utility. After introducing distributional bargaining solution concepts, we show how an external regulator can use them to optimally design an unstructured bargaining scenario. Throughout we demonstrate our analysis in computational experiments involving flight rerouting negotiations in the National Airspace System. We emphasize that while our results are formulated for unstructured bargaining, they can also be used to make predictions for noncooperative games where the modeler knows the utility functions of the players over possible outcomes of the game, but does not know the move spaces the players use to determine those outcomes.

This paper presents an axiomatic analysis of negotiation problems within task-oriented domains (TOD). We start by applying three classical bargaining solutions of Nash, Kalai-Smorodinsky and Egalitarian to the domains of problems with a pre-process of randomization on possible agreements. We find out that these three solutions coincide within any TOD and can be characterized by the same set of axioms, which specify a solution of task oriented negotiation as an outcome of dual-process of maximizing cost reduction and minimizing workload imbalance. This axiomatic characterization is then used to produce an approximate solution to the domain of problems without randomization on possible agreements.

Shapley's impossibility result indicates that the two-person bargaining problem has no non-trivial ordinal solution with the traditional game-theoretic bargaining model. Although the result is no longer true for bargaining problems with more than two agents, none of the well known bargaining solutions are ordinal. Searching for meaningful ordinal solutions, especially for the bilateral bargaining problem, has been a challenging issue in bargaining theory for more than three decades. This paper proposes a logic-based ordinal solution to the bilateral bargaining problem. We argue that if a bargaining problem is modeled in terms of the logical relation of players' physical negotiation items, a meaningful bargaining solution can be constructed based on the ordinal structure of bargainers' preferences. We represent bargainers' demands in propositional logic and bargainers' preferences over their demands in total preorder. We show that the solution satisfies most desirable logical properties, such as individual rationality (logical version), consistency, collective rationality as well as a few typical game-theoretic properties, such as weak Pareto optimality and contraction invariance. In addition, if all players' demand sets are logically closed, the solution satisfies a fixed-point condition, which says that the outcome of a negotiation is the result of mutual belief revision. Finally, we define various decision problems in relation to our bargaining model and study their computational complexity.