Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) has emerged as a powerful framework for modeling autonomous agents that independently optimize their individual objectives. However, in mixed-motive MARL environments, rational self-interested behaviors often lead to collectively suboptimal outcomes situations commonly referred to as social dilemmas. A key challenge in addressing social dilemmas lies in accurately quantifying and representing them in a numerical form that captures how self-interested agent behaviors impact social welfare. To address this challenge, \textit{externalities} in the economic concept is adopted and extended to denote the unaccounted-for impact of one agent's actions on others, as a means to rigorously quantify social dilemmas.

We consider matroid allocation problems under opportunity fairness constraints: resources need to be allocated to a set of agents under matroid constraints (which include classical problems such as bipartite matching). Agents are divided into C groups according to a sensitive attribute, and an allocation is opportunity-fair if each group receives the same share proportional to the maximum feasible allocation it could achieve in isolation. We study the Price of Fairness (PoF), i.e., the ratio between maximum size allocations and maximum size opportunity-fair allocations. We first provide a characterization of the PoF leveraging the underlying polymatroid structure of the allocation problem. Based on this characterization, we prove bounds on the PoF in various settings from fully adversarial (worst-case) to fully random. Notably, one of our main results considers an arbitrary matroid structure with agents randomly divided into groups. In this setting, we prove a PoF bound as a function of the (relative) size of the largest group. Our result implies that, as long as there is no dominant group (i.e., the largest group is not too large), opportunity fairness constraints do not induce any loss of social welfare (defined as the allocation size). Overall, our results give insights into which aspects of the problem's structure affect the trade-off between opportunity fairness and social welfare.

We study Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) in settings where multiple labelers may strategically misreport feedback to steer the learned policy toward their own preferences. We show that existing RLHF algorithms, including recent pluralistic methods, are not strategyproof, and that even a single strategic labeler can cause arbitrarily large misalignment with social welfare. Moreover, we prove that, in the worst case, any strategyproof RLHF algorithm must perform k-times worse than the optimal policy, where k is the number of labelers. This suggests a fundamental trade-off between incentive alignment (ensuring labelers report truthfully) and policy alignment (maximizing social welfare). To address this, we propose the Pessimistic Median of MLEs algorithm, which, under appropriate policy coverage assumptions, is approximately strategyproof and converges to the optimal policy as the number of labelers and samples increases. Our results apply to both contextual bandits and Markov decision processes.

A panel satisfies descriptive representation when its composition reflects the population. We examine the role of descriptive representation in collective decision making through an optimization lens, asking whether representative panels make decisions that maximize social welfare for the underlying population. Our main results suggest that, in general, representation with respect to intersections of two or more features guarantees higher social welfare than that achieved by the status quo of proportionally representing individual features. Moreover, an analysis of real data suggests that representation with respect to pairs of features is feasible in practice. These results have significant implications for the design of citizens' assemblies, which are gaining prominence in AI governance.

Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) has emerged as a powerful framework for modeling autonomous agents that independently optimize their individual objectives. However, in mixed-motive MARL environments, rational self-interested behaviors often lead to collectively suboptimal outcomes situations commonly referred to as social dilemmas. A key challenge in addressing social dilemmas lies in accurately quantifying and representing them in a numerical form that captures how self-interested agent behaviors impact social welfare. To address this challenge, externalities in the economic concept is adopted and extended to denote the unaccounted-for impact of one agent's actions on others, as a means to rigorously quantify social dilemmas. Based on this measurement, a novel method, Learning Optimal Pigovian Tax (LOPT) is proposed. Inspired by Pigovian taxes, which are designed to internalize externalities by imposing cost on negative societal impacts, LOPT employs an auxiliary tax agent that learns an optimal Pigovian tax policy to reshape individual rewards aligned with social welfare, thereby promoting agent coordination and mitigating social dilemmas. We support LOPT with theoretical analysis and validate it on standard MARL benchmarks, including Escape Room and Cleanup. Results show that by effectively internalizing externalities that quantify social dilemmas, LOPT aligns individual objectives with collective goals, significantly improving social welfare over state-of-the-art baselines.

We initiate the study of multidimensional Bayesian utility maximization, focusing on the unit-demand setting where values are i.i.d.

We consider matroid allocation problems under \textit{opportunity fairness} constraints: resources need to be allocated to a set of agents under matroid constraints (which includes classical problems such as bipartite matching). Agents are divided into $C$ groups according to a sensitive attribute, and an allocation is opportunity-fair if each group receives the same share proportional to the maximum feasible allocation it could achieve in isolation. We study the Price of Fairness (PoF), i.e., the ratio between maximum size allocations and maximum size opportunity-fair allocations. We first provide a characterization of the PoF leveraging the underlying polymatroid structure of the allocation problem. Based on this characterization, we prove bounds on the PoF in various settings from fully adversarial (worst-case) to fully random. Notably, one of our main results considers an arbitrary matroid structure with agents randomly divided into groups. In this setting, we prove a PoF bound as a function of the (relative) size of the largest group. Our result implies that, as long as there is no dominant group (i.e., the largest group is not too large), opportunity fairness constraints do not induce any loss of social welfare (defined as the allocation size). Overall, our results give insights into which aspects of the problem's structure affect the trade-off between opportunity fairness and social welfare.

We study Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) in settings where multiple labelers may strategically misreport feedback to steer the learned policy toward their own preferences. We show that existing RLHF algorithms, including recent pluralistic methods, are not strategyproof, and that even a single strategic labeler can cause arbitrarily large misalignment with social welfare. Moreover, we prove that, in the worst case, any strategyproof RLHF algorithm must perform $k$-times worse than the optimal policy, where $k$ is the number of labelers. This suggests a fundamental trade-off between incentive alignment (ensuring labelers report truthfully) and policy alignment (maximizing social welfare). To address this, we propose the Pessimistic Median of MLEs algorithm, which, under appropriate policy coverage assumptions, is approximately strategyproof and converges to the optimal policy as the number of labelers and samples increases. Our results apply to both contextual bandits and Markov decision processes.

As the scale of machine learning models increases, trends such as scaling laws anticipate consistent downstream improvements in predictive accuracy. However, these trends take the perspective of a single model-provider in isolation, while in reality providers often compete with each other for users. In this work, we demonstrate that competition can fundamentally alter the behavior of these scaling trends, even causing overall predictive accuracy across users to be non-monotonic or decreasing with scale. We define a model of competition for classification tasks, and use data representations as a lens for studying the impact of increases in scale. We find many settings where improving data representation quality (as measured by Bayes risk) decreases the overall predictive accuracy across users (i.e., social welfare) for a marketplace of competing model-providers. Our examples range from closed-form formulas in simple settings to simulations with pretrained representations on CIFAR-10. At a conceptual level, our work suggests that favorable scaling trends for individual model-providers need not translate to downstream improvements in social welfare in marketplaces with multiple model providers.

A.1 Background on graph neural networks Many GNN architectures iteratively update node features following a neighborhood aggregation scheme.