Recommendation algorithms that select the most relevant item for sequentially arriving users or queries have become vital for navigating the internet and its many online platforms.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Recommendation algorithms that select the most relevant item for sequentially arriving users or queries have become vital for navigating the internet and its many online platforms.

The agents' valuations for the item in each round are

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Modern data marketplaces and data sharing consortia increasingly rely on incentive mechanisms to encourage agents to contribute data. However, schemes that reward agents based on the quantity of submitted data are vulnerable to manipulation, as agents may submit fabricated or low-quality data to inflate their rewards. Prior work has proposed comparing each agent's data against others' to promote honesty: when others contribute genuine data, the best way to minimize discrepancy is to do the same. Yet prior implementations of this idea rely on very strong assumptions about the data distribution (e.g. Gaussian), limiting their applicability. In this work, we develop reward mechanisms based on a novel, two-sample test inspired by the Cramér-von Mises statistic. Our methods strictly incentivize agents to submit more genuine data, while disincentivizing data fabrication and other types of untruthful reporting. We establish that truthful reporting constitutes a (possibly approximate) Nash equilibrium in both Bayesian and prior-agnostic settings. We theoretically instantiate our method in three canonical data sharing problems and show that it relaxes key assumptions made by prior work. Empirically, we demonstrate that our mechanism incentivizes truthful data sharing via simulations and on real-world language and image data.

We study a setting where agents use no-regret learning algorithms to participate in repeated auctions. \citet{kolumbus2022auctions} showed, rather surprisingly, that when bidders participate in second-price auctions using no-regret bidding algorithms, no matter how large the number of interactions $T$ is, the runner-up bidder may not converge to bidding truthfully. Our first result shows that this holds for \emph{general deterministic} truthful auctions. We also show that the ratio of the learning rates of the bidders can \emph{qualitatively} affect the convergence of the bidders. Next, we consider the problem of revenue maximization in this environment. In the setting with fully rational bidders, \citet{myerson1981optimal} showed that revenue can be maximized by using a second-price auction with reserves.We show that, in stark contrast, in our setting with learning bidders, \emph{randomized} auctions can have strictly better revenue guarantees than second-price auctions with reserves, when $T$ is large enough. Finally, we study revenue maximization in the non-asymptotic regime. We define a notion of {\em auctioneer regret} comparing the revenue generated to the revenue of a second price auction with truthful bids. When the auctioneer has to use the same auction throughout the interaction, we show an (almost) tight regret bound of $\smash{\widetilde \Theta(T^{3/4})}.$ If the auctioneer can change auctions during the interaction, but in a way that is oblivious to the bids, we show an (almost) tight bound of $\smash{\widetilde \Theta(\sqrt{T})}.$

We study a collaborative learning problem where $m$ agents estimate a vector $\mu\in\mathbb{R}^d$ by collecting samples from normal distributions, with each agent $i$ incurring a cost $c_{i,k} \in (0, \infty]$ to sample from the $k^{\text{th}}$ distribution $\mathcal{N}(\mu_k, \sigma^2)$. Instead of working on their own, agents can collect data that is cheap to them, and share it with others in exchange for data that is expensive or even inaccessible to them, thereby simultaneously reducing data collection costs and estimation error. However, when agents have different collection costs, we need to first decide how to fairly divide the work of data collection so as to benefit all agents. Moreover, in naive sharing protocols, strategic agents may under-collect and/or fabricate data, leading to socially undesirable outcomes. Our mechanism addresses these challenges by combining ideas from cooperative and non-cooperative game theory. We use ideas from axiomatic bargaining to divide the cost of data collection. Given such a solution, we develop a Nash incentive-compatible (NIC) mechanism to enforce truthful reporting. We achieve a $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{m})$ approximation to the minimum social penalty (sum of agent estimation errors and data collection costs) in the worst case, and a $\mathcal{O}(1)$ approximation under favorable conditions. We complement this with a hardness result, showing that $\Omega(\sqrt{m})$ is unavoidable in any NIC mechanism.