In strategic classification, the standard supervised learning setting is extended to support the notion of strategic user behavior in the form of costly feature manipulations made in response to a classifier. While standard learning supports a broad range of model classes, the study of strategic classification has, so far, been dedicated mostly to linear classifiers. This work aims to expand the horizon by exploring how strategic behavior manifests under non-linear classifiers and what this implies for learning. We take a bottom-up approach showing how non-linearity affects decision boundary points, classifier expressivity, and model class complexity. Our results show how, unlike the linear case, strategic behavior may either increase or decrease effective class complexity, and that the complexity decrease may be arbitrarily large. Another key finding is that universal approximators (e.g., neural nets) are no longer universal once the environment is strategic. We demonstrate empirically how this can create performance gaps even on an unrestricted model class.

In strategic classification, the standard supervised learning setting is extended to support the notion of strategic user behavior in the form of costly feature manipulations made in response to a classifier. While standard learning supports a broad range of model classes, the study of strategic classification has, so far, been dedicated mostly to linear classifiers. This work aims to expand the horizon by exploring how strategic behavior manifests under non-linear classifiers and what this implies for learning. We take a bottom-up approach showing how non-linearity affects decision boundary points, classifier expressivity, and model class complexity. Our results show how, unlike the linear case, strategic behavior may either increase or decrease effective class complexity, and that the complexity decrease may be arbitrarily large. Another key finding is that universal approximators (e.g., neural nets) are no longer universal once the environment is strategic. We demonstrate empirically how this can create performance gaps even on an unrestricted model class.

The deployment of ever-larger machine learning models reflects a growing consensus that the more expressive the model class one optimizes over--and the more data one has access to--the more one can improve performance. As models get deployed in a variety of real-world scenarios, they inevitably face strategic environments. In this work, we consider the natural question of how the interplay of models and strategic interactions affects the relationship between performance at equilibrium and the expressivity of model classes. We find that strategic interactions can break the conventional view--meaning that performance does not necessarily monotonically improve as model classes get larger or more expressive (even with infinite data). We show the implications of this result in several contexts including strategic regression, strategic classification, and multi-agent reinforcement learning. In particular, we show that each of these settings admits a Braess' paradox-like phenomenon in which optimizing over less expressive model classes allows one to achieve strictly better equilibrium outcomes. Motivated by these examples, we then propose a new paradigm for model selection in games wherein an agent seeks to choose amongst different model classes to use as their action set in a game.

Techniques for concept extraction, such as sparse autoencoders and transcoders, aim to extract high-level symbolic concepts from low-level nonsymbolic representations. When these extracted concepts are used for downstream tasks such as model steering and unlearning, it is essential to understand their guarantees, or lack thereof. In this work, we present a unified theoretical framework for unsupervised concept extraction, in which we frame the task of concept extraction as identifying a generative model. We present a general meta-theorem for identifiability, which reduces the problem of establishing identifiability guarantees to the problem of characterizing the intersection of two sets. As we demonstrate on a range of widely-used approaches, this meta-theorem substantially simplifies the task of proving such guarantees, thus paving the way for the development of new, principled approaches for concept extraction.

A central problem in online learning and decision making--from bandits to reinforcement learning--is to understand what modeling assumptions lead to sampleefficient learning guarantees. We consider a general adversarial decision making framework that encompasses (structured) bandit problems with adversarial rewards and reinforcement learning problems with adversarial dynamics. Our main result is to show--via new upper and lower bounds--that the Decision-Estimation Coefficient, a complexity measure introduced by Foster et al. [17] in the stochastic counterpart to our setting, is necessary and sufficient to obtain low regret for adversarial decision making. However, compared to the stochastic setting, one must apply the Decision-Estimation Coefficient to the convex hull of the class of models (or, hypotheses) under consideration. This establishes that the price of accommodating adversarial rewards or dynamics is governed by the behavior of the model class under convexification, and recovers a number of existing results--both positive and negative. En route to obtaining these guarantees, we provide new structural results that connect the Decision-Estimation Coefficient to variants of other well-known complexity measures, including the Information Ratio of Russo and Van Roy [47] and the Exploration-by-Optimization objective of Lattimore and György [32].

The proof has the following steps.

Simulation-based inference (SBI) with neural networks has accelerated and transformed cognitive modeling workflows. SBI enables modelers to fit complex models that were previously difficult or impossible to estimate, while also allowing rapid estimation across large numbers of datasets. However, the utility of SBI for iterating over varying modeling assumptions remains limited: changing parameterizations, generative functions, priors, and design variables all necessitate model retraining and hence diminish the benefits of amortization. To address these issues, we pilot a meta-amortized framework for cognitive modeling which we nickname the CogFormer. Our framework trains a transformer-based architecture that remains valid across a combinatorial number of structurally similar models, allowing for changing data types, parameters, design matrices, and sample sizes. We present promising quantitative results across families of decision-making models for binary, multi-alternative, and continuous responses. Our evaluation suggests that CogFormer can accurately estimate parameters across model families with a minimal amortization offset, making it a potentially powerful engine that catalyzes cognitive modeling workflows.