Large conferences such as NeurIPS and AAAI serve as crossroads of various AI fields, since they attract submissions from a vast number of communities. However, in some cases, this has resulted in a poor reviewing experience for some communities, whose submissions get assigned to less qualified reviewers outside of their communities. An often-advocated solution is to break up any such large conference into smaller conferences, but this can lead to isolation of communities and harm interdisciplinary research.

Large conferences such as NeurIPS and AAAI serve as crossroads of various AI fields, since they attract submissions from a vast number of communities. However, in some cases, this has resulted in a poor reviewing experience for some communities, whose submissions get assigned to less qualified reviewers outside of their communities. An often-advocated solution is to break up any such large conference into smaller conferences, but this can lead to isolation of communities and harm interdisciplinary research.

Characterizing the limit behavior -- that is, the attractors -- of learning dynamics is one of the most fundamental open questions in game theory. In recent work in this front, it was conjectured that the attractors of the replicator dynamic are in one-to-one correspondence with the sink equilibria of the game -- the sink strongly connected components of a game's preference graph -- , and it was established that they do stand in at least one-to-many correspondence with them. We make threefold progress on the problem of characterizing attractors. First, we show through a topological construction that the one-to-one conjecture is false. Second, we make progress on the attractor characterization problem for two-player games by establishing that the one-to-one conjecture is true in the absence of a local pattern called a weak local source -- a pattern that is absent from zero-sum games. Finally, we look -- for the first time in this context -- at fictitious play, the longest-studied learning dynamic, and examine to what extent the conjecture generalizes there. We establish that under fictitious play, sink equilibria always contain attractors (sometimes strictly), and every attractor corresponds to a strongly connected set of nodes in the preference graph.

Despite the remarkable success of Large Language Models (LLMs), evaluating their outputs' quality regarding *preference* remains a critical challenge. Existing works usually leverage a powerful LLM (e.g., GPT4) as the judge for comparing LLMs' output pairwisely, yet such model-based evaluator is vulnerable to *conflicting preference*, i.e., output A is better than B, B than C, but C than A, causing contradictory evaluation results. To improve model-based preference evaluation, we introduce GED (Preference Graph Ensemble and Denoise), a novel approach that leverages multiple model-based evaluators to construct preference graphs, and then ensemble and denoise these graphs for better, non-contradictory evaluation results. In particular, our method consists of two primary stages: aggregating evaluations into a unified graph and applying a denoising process to eliminate cyclic inconsistencies, ensuring a directed acyclic graph (DAG) structure. We provide theoretical guarantees for our framework, demonstrating its efficacy in recovering the ground truth preference structure. Extensive experiments across ten benchmark datasets show that GED outperforms baseline methods in model ranking, response selection, and model alignment tasks. Notably, GED combines weaker evaluators like Llama3-8B, Mistral-7B, and Qwen2-7B to surpass the performance of stronger evaluators like Qwen2-72B, highlighting its ability to enhance evaluation reliability and improve model performance.

Large conferences such as NeurIPS and AAAI serve as crossroads of various AI fields, since they attract submissions from a vast number of communities. However, in some cases, this has resulted in a poor reviewing experience for some communities, whose submissions get assigned to less qualified reviewers outside of their communities. An often-advocated solution is to break up any such large conference into smaller conferences, but this can lead to isolation of communities and harm interdisciplinary research. We tackle this challenge by introducing a notion of group fairness, called the core, which requires that every possible community (subset of researchers) to be treated in a way that prevents them from unilaterally benefiting by withdrawing from a large conference. We study a simple peer review model, prove that it always admits a reviewing assignment in the core, and design an efficient algorithm to find one such assignment. We use real data from CVPR and ICLR conferences to compare our algorithm to existing reviewing assignment algorithms on a number of metrics.

While substantial advancements have been made in developing large language models (LLMs), achieving control over their behavior can be difficult. Direct preference optimization (DPO) assumes the existence of a latent reward function to evaluate the responses of LLMs. This assumption indicates a strict preference ordering of different responses to the same input. However, there always exist contradictions of preference in LLMs according to our experimental observations. In this paper, we construct a graph structure of the preference relationship among different responses with self-annotation to find contradictions in the preference order. We propose ContraSolver, an algorithm that traverses all edges on the preference graph to identify those that might cause contradictions. ContraSolver initializes the graph with a maximum spanning tree and identifies contradictory edges, prioritizing the resolution of low-confidence preferences while preserving high-confidence ones. Experimental results on four different generation tasks show that the performance of different LLMs can be largely improved through our completely unsupervised self-alignment. Furthermore, by analyzing the preference graphs of LLMs with and without self-alignment by ContraSolver, we quantify the reduction in contradictions, suggesting that resolving preference contradictions is crucial for achieving better alignment performance.

Human preferences are not always represented via complete linear orders: It is natural to employ partially-ordered preferences for expressing incomparable outcomes. In this work, we consider decision-making and probabilistic planning in stochastic systems modeled as Markov decision processes (MDPs), given a partially ordered preference over a set of temporally extended goals. Specifically, each temporally extended goal is expressed using a formula in Linear Temporal Logic on Finite Traces (LTL$_f$). To plan with the partially ordered preference, we introduce order theory to map a preference over temporal goals to a preference over policies for the MDP. Accordingly, a most preferred policy under a stochastic ordering induces a stochastic nondominated probability distribution over the finite paths in the MDP. To synthesize a most preferred policy, our technical approach includes two key steps. In the first step, we develop a procedure to transform a partially ordered preference over temporal goals into a computational model, called preference automaton, which is a semi-automaton with a partial order over acceptance conditions. In the second step, we prove that finding a most preferred policy is equivalent to computing a Pareto-optimal policy in a multi-objective MDP that is constructed from the original MDP, the preference automaton, and the chosen stochastic ordering relation. Throughout the paper, we employ running examples to illustrate the proposed preference specification and solution approaches. We demonstrate the efficacy of our algorithm using these examples, providing detailed analysis, and then discuss several potential future directions.

Many decision-making scenarios, e.g., public policy, healthcare, business, and disaster response, require accommodating the preferences of multiple stakeholders. We offer the first formal treatment of reasoning with multi-stakeholder qualitative preferences in a setting where stakeholders express their preferences in a qualitative preference language, e.g., CP-net, CI-net, TCP-net, CP-Theory. We introduce a query language for expressing queries against such preferences over sets of outcomes that satisfy specified criteria, e.g., $\mlangpref{\psi_1}{\psi_2}{A}$ (read loosely as the set of outcomes satisfying $\psi_1$ that are preferred over outcomes satisfying $\psi_2$ by a set of stakeholders $A$). Motivated by practical application scenarios, we introduce and analyze several alternative semantics for such queries, and examine their interrelationships. We provide a provably correct algorithm for answering multi-stakeholder qualitative preference queries using model checking in alternation-free $\mu$-calculus. We present experimental results that demonstrate the feasibility of our approach.

We study four NP-hard optimal seat arrangement problems [Bodlaender et al., 2020a], which each have as input a set of n agents, where each agent has cardinal preferences over other agents, and an n-vertex undirected graph (called seat graph). The task is to assign each agent to a distinct vertex in the seat graph such that either the sum of utilities or the minimum utility is maximized, or it is envy-free or exchange-stable. Aiming at identifying hard and easy cases, we extensively study the algorithmic complexity of the four problems by looking into natural graph classes for the seat graph (e.g., paths, cycles, stars, or matchings), problem-specific parameters (e.g., the number of non-isolated vertices in the seat graph or the maximum number of agents towards whom an agent has non-zero preferences), and preference structures (e.g., non-negative or symmetric preferences). For strict preferences and seat graphs with disjoint edges and isolated vertices, we correct an error by Bodlaender et al. [2020b] and show that finding an envy-free arrangement remains NP-hard in this case.

In this paper, we study planning in stochastic systems, modeled as Markov decision processes (MDPs), with preferences over temporally extended goals. Prior work on temporal planning with preferences assumes that the user preferences form a total order, meaning that every pair of outcomes are comparable with each other. In this work, we consider the case where the preferences over possible outcomes are a partial order rather than a total order. We first introduce a variant of deterministic finite automaton, referred to as a preference DFA, for specifying the user's preferences over temporally extended goals. Based on the order theory, we translate the preference DFA to a preference relation over policies for probabilistic planning in a labeled MDP. In this treatment, a most preferred policy induces a weak-stochastic nondominated probability distribution over the finite paths in the MDP. The proposed planning algorithm hinges on the construction of a multi-objective MDP. We prove that a weak-stochastic nondominated policy given the preference specification is Pareto-optimal in the constructed multi-objective MDP, and vice versa. Throughout the paper, we employ a running example to demonstrate the proposed preference specification and solution approaches. We show the efficacy of our algorithm using the example with detailed analysis, and then discuss possible future directions.