arXiv subjects

Kate Donahue

Publications and source records attributed to Kate Donahue.

17 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

When to Ask a Question: Understanding Communication Strategies in Generative AI Tools

Generative AI models differ from traditional machine learning tools in that they allow users to provide as much or as little information as they choose in their inputs. This flexibility often leads users to omit certain details, relying on the models to infer and fill in under-specified information based on distributional knowledge of user preferences. Such inferences may privilege majority viewpoints and disadvantage users with atypical preferences, raising concerns about fairness. Unlike more traditional recommender systems, LLMs can explicitly solicit more information from users through natural language. However, while directly eliciting user preferences could increase personalization and mitigate inequality, excessive querying places a burden on users who value efficiency. We develop a stylized model of user-LLM interaction and develop an objective that captures tradeoff between user burden and preference representation. Building on the observation that individual preferences are often correlated, we analyze how AI systems should balance inference and elicitation, characterizing the optimal amount of information to solicit before content generation. Ultimately, we show that information elicitation can mitigate the systematic biases of preference inference, enabling the design of generative tools that better incorporate diverse user perspectives while maintaining efficiency. We complement this theoretical analysis with an empirical evaluation illustrating the model's predictions and exploring their practical implications.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Impacts of Aggregation on Model Diversity and Consumer Utility

Consider a marketplace of AI tools, each with slightly different strengths and weaknesses. By picking the right model for the task at hand, a user can do better than simply using the same model for everything. Routers operate under a similar principle, where sophisticated model selection can increase overall performance. However, aggregation is often noisy, reflecting imperfect user choices or routing decisions. This leads to two main questions: first, what does a "healthy marketplace" of models look like for maximizing consumer utility? Secondly, how can we incentivize producers to create such models? We show that winrate, a standard benchmark in LLM evaluation, can incentivize model creators to homogenize for both types of model changes, reducing consumer welfare. We propose a new mechanism, weighted winrate, which rewards models for answers that are higher quality, and show that it provably improves incentives for producers to specialize and increases consumer welfare. We conclude by exploring the impact of our theoretical results in empirical benchmark datasets and discussing implications for benchmark design.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Data Sharing with Endogenous Choices over Differential Privacy Levels

Motivated by the rapid push to decentralize sharing of data, we study whether large-scale data sharing coalitions can form in a decentralized manner under differential privacy when players have heterogeneous privacy preferences. We first consider a fully decentralized data-sharing mechanism in which each player decides whether to participate and how much privacy noise to add locally to their sensitive data before sharing. Privacy choices induce a fundamental trade-off: higher privacy lowers individual privacy costs but reduces data utility and statistical accuracy for the coalition. These choices generate externalities across players, making both participation and privacy levels strategic. Our goal is to understand which coalitions are stable, how privacy choices shape equilibrium outcomes, and how fully decentralized data-sharing compares to a centralized, socially optimal benchmark when the number of players is large. We provide a comprehensive analysis across multiple privacy-cost regimes corresponding to different attack/observation models in differential privacy, showing that full decentralization is highly inefficient in terms of both social welfare and estimator accuracy. Surprisingly, we find that a simple partially decentralized mechanism (where players still retain participation agency, but a central designer chooses a fixed privacy noise level for everyone) closes this efficiency gap down to constant factors across all privacy-cost regimes.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Optimal Selection Using Algorithmic Rankings with Side Information

Motivated by online platforms such as job markets, we study an agent choosing from a list of candidates, each with a hidden quality that determines match value. The agent observes only a noisy ranking of the candidates plus a binary signal that indicates whether each candidate is "free" or "busy". Being busy is positively correlated with higher quality, but can also reduce value due to decreased availability. We study the agent's optimal selection problem in the presence of ranking noise and free-busy signals and ask how the accuracy of the ranking tool impacts outcomes. In a setting with one high-valued candidate and an arbitrary number of low-valued candidates, we show that increased accuracy of the ranking tool can result in suboptimal social outcomes. For example, increased accuracy may mean that agents may be more likely to make offers to busy candidates, and (counter-intuitively) may be more likely to select lower-ranked candidates. We further discuss conditions under which these results extend to more general settings.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Human-AI Collaboration with Misaligned Preferences

In many real-life settings, algorithms play the role of assistants, while humans ultimately make the final decision. Often, algorithms specifically act as curators, narrowing down a wide range of options into a smaller subset that the human picks between: consider content recommendation or chatbot responses to questions with multiple valid answers. Crucially, humans may not know their own preferences perfectly either, but instead may only have access to a noisy sampling over preferences. Algorithms can assist humans by curating a smaller subset of items, but must also face the challenge of misalignment: humans may have different preferences from each other (and from the algorithm), and the algorithm may not know the exact preferences of the human they are facing at any point in time. In this paper, we model and theoretically study such a setting. Specifically, we show instances where humans benefit by collaborating with a misaligned algorithm. Surprisingly, we show that humans gain more utility from a misaligned algorithm (which makes different mistakes) than from an aligned algorithm. Next, we build on this result by studying what properties of algorithms maximize human welfare when the goals could be either utilitarian welfare or ensuring all humans benefit. We conclude by discussing implications for designers of algorithmic tools and policymakers.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

AI-Assisted Decision Making with Human Learning

AI systems increasingly support human decision-making. In many cases, despite the algorithm's superior performance, the final decision remains in human hands. For example, an AI may assist doctors in determining which diagnostic tests to run, but the doctor ultimately makes the diagnosis. This paper studies such AI-assisted decision-making settings, where the human learns through repeated interactions with the algorithm. In our framework, the algorithm -- designed to maximize decision accuracy according to its own model -- determines which features the human can consider. The human then makes a prediction based on their own less accurate model. We observe that the discrepancy between the algorithm's model and the human's model creates a fundamental tradeoff: Should the algorithm prioritize recommending more informative features, encouraging the human to learn their importance, even if it results in less accurate predictions in the short term until learning occurs? Or is it preferable to forgo educating the human and instead select features that align more closely with their existing understanding, minimizing the immediate cost of learning? Our analysis reveals how this trade-off is shaped by both the algorithm's patience (the time-discount rate of its objective over multiple periods) and the human's willingness and ability to learn. We show that optimal feature selection has a surprisingly clean combinatorial characterization, reducible to a stationary sequence of feature subsets that is tractable to compute. As the algorithm becomes more "patient" or the human's learning improves, the algorithm increasingly selects more informative features, enhancing both prediction accuracy and the human's understanding.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Adaptive Online Mirror Descent for Tchebycheff Scalarization in Multi-Objective Learning

Multi-objective learning (MOL) aims to learn under multiple potentially conflicting objectives and strike a proper balance. While recent preference-guided MOL methods often rely on additional optimization objectives or constraints, we consider the classic Tchebycheff scalarization (TCH) that naturally allows for locating solutions with user-specified trade-offs. Due to its minimax formulation, directly optimizing TCH often leads to training oscillation and stagnation. In light of this limitation, we propose an adaptive online mirror descent algorithm for TCH, called (Ada)OMD-TCH. One of our main ingredients is an adaptive online-to-batch conversion that significantly improves solution optimality over traditional conversion in practice while maintaining the same theoretical convergence guarantees. We show that (Ada)OMD-TCH achieves a convergence rate of $\mathcal O(\sqrt{\log m/T})$, where $m$ is the number of objectives and $T$ is the number of rounds, providing a tighter dependency on $m$ in the offline setting compared to existing work. Empirically, we demonstrate on both synthetic problems and federated learning tasks that (Ada)OMD-TCH effectively smooths the training process and yields preference-guided, specific, diverse, and fair solutions.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Private Blotto: Viewpoint Competition with Polarized Agents

Social media platforms are responsible for collecting and disseminating vast quantities of content. Recently, however, they have also begun enlisting users in helping annotate this content - for example, to provide context or label disinformation. However, users may act strategically, sometimes reflecting biases (e.g. political) about the "right" label. How can social media platforms design their systems to use human time most efficiently? Historically, competition over multiple items has been explored in the Colonel Blotto game setting (Borel, 1921). However, they were originally designed to model two centrally-controlled armies competing over zero-sum "items", a specific scenario with limited modern-day application. In this work, we propose and study the Private Blotto game, a variant with the key difference that individual agents act independently, without being coordinated by a central "Colonel". We completely characterize the Nash stability of this game and how this impacts the amount of "misallocated effort" of users on unimportant items. We show that the outcome function (aggregating multiple labels on a single item) has a critical impact, and specifically contrast a majority rule outcome (the median) as compared to a smoother outcome function (mean). In general, for median outcomes we show that instances without stable arrangements only occur for relatively few numbers of agents, but stable arrangements may have very high levels of misallocated effort. For mean outcome functions, we show that unstable arrangements can occur even for arbitrarily large numbers of agents, but when stable arrangements exist, they always have low misallocated effort. We conclude by discussing implications our results have for motivating examples in social media platforms and political competition.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

An Abundance of Katherines: The Game Theory of Baby Naming

In this paper, we study the highly competitive arena of baby naming. Through making several Extremely Reasonable Assumptions (namely, that parents are myopic, perfectly knowledgeable agents who pick a name based solely on its uniqueness), we create a model which is not only tractable and clean, but also perfectly captures the real world. We then extend our investigation with numerical experiments, as well as analysis of large language model tools. We conclude by discussing avenues for future research.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Impact of Decentralized Learning on Player Utilities in Stackelberg Games

When deployed in the world, a learning agent such as a recommender system or a chatbot often repeatedly interacts with another learning agent (such as a user) over time. In many such two-agent systems, each agent learns separately and the rewards of the two agents are not perfectly aligned. To better understand such cases, we examine the learning dynamics of the two-agent system and the implications for each agent's objective. We model these systems as Stackelberg games with decentralized learning and show that standard regret benchmarks (such as Stackelberg equilibrium payoffs) result in worst-case linear regret for at least one player. To better capture these systems, we construct a relaxed regret benchmark that is tolerant to small learning errors by agents. We show that standard learning algorithms fail to provide sublinear regret, and we develop algorithms to achieve near-optimal $O(T^{2/3})$ regret for both players with respect to these benchmarks. We further design relaxed environments under which faster learning ($O(\sqrt{T})$) is possible. Altogether, our results take a step towards assessing how two-agent interactions in sequential and decentralized learning environments affect the utility of both agents.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

When Are Two Lists Better than One?: Benefits and Harms in Joint Decision-making

Historically, much of machine learning research has focused on the performance of the algorithm alone, but recently more attention has been focused on optimizing joint human-algorithm performance. Here, we analyze a specific type of human-algorithm collaboration where the algorithm has access to a set of $n$ items, and presents a subset of size $k$ to the human, who selects a final item from among those $k$. This scenario could model content recommendation, route planning, or any type of labeling task. Because both the human and algorithm have imperfect, noisy information about the true ordering of items, the key question is: which value of $k$ maximizes the probability that the best item will be ultimately selected? For $k=1$, performance is optimized by the algorithm acting alone, and for $k=n$ it is optimized by the human acting alone. Surprisingly, we show that for multiple of noise models, it is optimal to set $k \in [2, n-1]$ - that is, there are strict benefits to collaborating, even when the human and algorithm have equal accuracy separately. We demonstrate this theoretically for the Mallows model and experimentally for the Random Utilities models of noisy permutations. However, we show this pattern is reversed when the human is anchored on the algorithm's presented ordering - the joint system always has strictly worse performance. We extend these results to the case where the human and algorithm differ in their accuracy levels, showing that there always exist regimes where a more accurate agent would strictly benefit from collaborating with a less accurate one, but these regimes are asymmetric between the human and the algorithm's accuracy.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Models of fairness in federated learning

In many real-world situations, data is distributed across multiple self-interested agents. These agents can collaborate to build a machine learning model based on data from multiple agents, potentially reducing the error each experiences. However, sharing models in this way raises questions of fairness: to what extent can the error experienced by one agent be significantly lower than the error experienced by another agent in the same coalition? In this work, we consider two notions of fairness that each may be appropriate in different circumstances: "egalitarian fairness" (which aims to bound how dissimilar error rates can be) and "proportional fairness" (which aims to reward players for contributing more data). We similarly consider two common methods of model aggregation, one where a single model is created for all agents (uniform), and one where an individualized model is created for each agent. For egalitarian fairness, we obtain a tight multiplicative bound on how widely error rates can diverge between agents collaborating (which holds for both aggregation methods). For proportional fairness, we show that the individualized aggregation method always gives a small player error that is upper bounded by proportionality. For uniform aggregation, we show that this upper bound is guaranteed for any individually rational coalition (where no player wishes to leave to do local learning).

cs.CY↗

arXiv2022

Human-Algorithm Collaboration: Achieving Complementarity and Avoiding Unfairness

Much of machine learning research focuses on predictive accuracy: given a task, create a machine learning model (or algorithm) that maximizes accuracy. In many settings, however, the final prediction or decision of a system is under the control of a human, who uses an algorithm's output along with their own personal expertise in order to produce a combined prediction. One ultimate goal of such collaborative systems is "complementarity": that is, to produce lower loss (equivalently, greater payoff or utility) than either the human or algorithm alone. However, experimental results have shown that even in carefully-designed systems, complementary performance can be elusive. Our work provides three key contributions. First, we provide a theoretical framework for modeling simple human-algorithm systems and demonstrate that multiple prior analyses can be expressed within it. Next, we use this model to prove conditions where complementarity is impossible, and give constructive examples of where complementarity is achievable. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings, especially with respect to the fairness of a classifier. In sum, these results deepen our understanding of key factors influencing the combined performance of human-algorithm systems, giving insight into how algorithmic tools can best be designed for collaborative environments.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2021

Better Together? How Externalities of Size Complicate Notions of Solidarity and Actuarial Fairness

Consider a cost-sharing game with players of different contribution to the total cost: an example might be an insurance company calculating premiums for a population of mixed-risk individuals. Two natural and competing notions of fairness might be to a) charge each individual the same price or b) charge each individual according to the cost that they bring to the pool. In the insurance literature, these general approaches are referred to as "solidarity" and "actuarial fairness" and are commonly viewed as opposites. However, in insurance (and many other natural settings), the cost-sharing game also exhibits "externalities of size": all else being equal, larger groups have lower average cost. In the insurance case, we analyze a model with externalities of size due to a reduction in the variability of losses. We explore how this complicates traditional understandings of fairness, drawing on literature in cooperative game theory. First, we explore solidarity: we show that it is possible for both groups (high and low risk) to strictly benefit by joining an insurance pool where costs are evenly split, as opposed to being in separate risk pools. We build on this by producing a pricing scheme that maximally subsidizes the high risk group, while maintaining an incentive for lower risk people to stay in the insurance pool. Next, we demonstrate that with this new model, the price charged to each individual has to depend on the risk of other participants, making naive actuarial fairness inefficient. Furthermore, we prove that stable pricing schemes must be ones where players have the anti-social incentive of desiring riskier partners, contradicting motivations for using actuarial fairness. Finally, we describe how these results relate to debates about fairness in machine learning and potential avenues for future research.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2021

Optimality and Stability in Federated Learning: A Game-theoretic Approach

Federated learning is a distributed learning paradigm where multiple agents, each only with access to local data, jointly learn a global model. There has recently been an explosion of research aiming not only to improve the accuracy rates of federated learning, but also provide certain guarantees around social good properties such as total error. One branch of this research has taken a game-theoretic approach, and in particular, prior work has viewed federated learning as a hedonic game, where error-minimizing players arrange themselves into federating coalitions. This past work proves the existence of stable coalition partitions, but leaves open a wide range of questions, including how far from optimal these stable solutions are. In this work, we motivate and define a notion of optimality given by the average error rates among federating agents (players). First, we provide and prove the correctness of an efficient algorithm to calculate an optimal (error minimizing) arrangement of players. Next, we analyze the relationship between the stability and optimality of an arrangement. First, we show that for some regions of parameter space, all stable arrangements are optimal (Price of Anarchy equal to 1). However, we show this is not true for all settings: there exist examples of stable arrangements with higher cost than optimal (Price of Anarchy greater than 1). Finally, we give the first constant-factor bound on the performance gap between stability and optimality, proving that the total error of the worst stable solution can be no higher than 9 times the total error of an optimal solution (Price of Anarchy bound of 9).

cs.GT↗

arXiv2020

Model-sharing Games: Analyzing Federated Learning Under Voluntary Participation

Federated learning is a setting where agents, each with access to their own data source, combine models from local data to create a global model. If agents are drawing their data from different distributions, though, federated learning might produce a biased global model that is not optimal for each agent. This means that agents face a fundamental question: should they choose the global model or their local model? We show how this situation can be naturally analyzed through the framework of coalitional game theory. We propose the following game: there are heterogeneous players with different model parameters governing their data distribution and different amounts of data they have noisily drawn from their own distribution. Each player's goal is to obtain a model with minimal expected mean squared error (MSE) on their own distribution. They have a choice of fitting a model based solely on their own data, or combining their learned parameters with those of some subset of the other players. Combining models reduces the variance component of their error through access to more data, but increases the bias because of the heterogeneity of distributions. Here, we derive exact expected MSE values for problems in linear regression and mean estimation. We then analyze the resulting game in the framework of hedonic game theory; we study how players might divide into coalitions, where each set of players within a coalition jointly construct model(s). We analyze three methods of federation, modeling differing degrees of customization. In uniform federation, the agents collectively produce a single model. In coarse-grained federation, each agent can weight the global model together with their local model. In fine-grained federation, each agent can flexibly combine models from all other agents in the federation. For each method, we analyze the stable partitions of players into coalitions.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2019

Fairness and Utilization in Allocating Resources with Uncertain Demand

Resource allocation problems are a fundamental domain in which to evaluate the fairness properties of algorithms. The trade-offs between fairness and utilization have a long history in this domain. A recent line of work has considered fairness questions for resource allocation when the demands for the resource are distributed across multiple groups and drawn from probability distributions. In such cases, a natural fairness requirement is that individuals from different groups should have (approximately) equal probabilities of receiving the resource. A largely open question in this area has been to bound the gap between the maximum possible utilization of the resource and the maximum possible utilization subject to this fairness condition. Here, we obtain some of the first provable upper bounds on this gap. We obtain an upper bound for arbitrary distributions, as well as much stronger upper bounds for specific families of distributions that are typically used to model levels of demand. In particular, we find - somewhat surprisingly - that there are natural families of distributions (including Exponential and Weibull) for which the gap is non-existent: it is possible to simultaneously achieve maximum utilization and the given notion of fairness. Finally, we show that for power-law distributions, there is a non-trivial gap between the solutions, but this gap can be bounded by a constant factor independent of the parameters of the distribution.

cs.DS↗