Understanding Iterative Combinatorial Auction Designs via Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

Iterative combinatorial auctions are widely used in high stakes settings such as spectrum auctions. Such auctions can be hard to understand analytically, making it difficult for bidders to determine how to behave and for designers to optimize auction rules to ensure desirable outcomes such as high revenue or welfare. In this paper, we investigate whether multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) algorithms can be used to understand iterative combinatorial auctions, given that these algorithms have recently shown empirical success in several other domains. We find that MARL can indeed benefit auction analysis, but that deploying it effectively is nontrivial. We begin by describing modelling decisions that keep the resulting game tractable without sacrificing important features such as imperfect information or asymmetry between bidders. We also discuss how to navigate pitfalls of various MARL algorithms, how to overcome challenges in verifying convergence, and how to generate and interpret multiple equilibria. We illustrate the promise of our resulting approach by using it to evaluate a specific rule change to a clock auction, finding substantially different auction outcomes due to complex changes in bidders' behavior.

Rationality Report Cards: Assessing the Economic Rationality of Large Language Models

There is increasing interest in using LLMs as decision-making "agents." Doing so includes many degrees of freedom: which model should be used; how should it be prompted; should it be asked to introspect, conduct chain-of-thought reasoning, etc? Settling these questions -- and more broadly, determining whether an LLM agent is reliable enough to be trusted -- requires a methodology for assessing such an agent's economic rationality. In this paper, we provide one. We begin by surveying the economic literature on rational decision making, taxonomizing a large set of fine-grained "elements" that an agent should exhibit, along with dependencies between them. We then propose a benchmark distribution that quantitatively scores an LLMs performance on these elements and, combined with a user-provided rubric, produces a "rationality report card." Finally, we describe the results of a large-scale empirical experiment with 14 different LLMs, characterizing the both current state of the art and the impact of different model sizes on models' ability to exhibit rational behavior.

Utilitarian Algorithm Configuration

We present the first nontrivial procedure for configuring heuristic algorithms to maximize the utility provided to their end users while also offering theoretical guarantees about performance. Existing procedures seek configurations that minimize expected runtime. However, very recent theoretical work argues that expected runtime minimization fails to capture algorithm designers' preferences. Here we show that the utilitarian objective also confers significant algorithmic benefits. Intuitively, this is because mean runtime is dominated by extremely long runs even when they are incredibly rare; indeed, even when an algorithm never gives rise to such long runs, configuration procedures that provably minimize mean runtime must perform a huge number of experiments to demonstrate this fact. In contrast, utility is bounded and monotonically decreasing in runtime, allowing for meaningful empirical bounds on a configuration's performance. This paper builds on this idea to describe effective and theoretically sound configuration procedures. We prove upper bounds on the runtime of these procedures that are similar to theoretical lower bounds, while also demonstrating their performance empirically.

Generating Benchmarks for Factuality Evaluation of Language Models

Before deploying a language model (LM) within a given domain, it is important to measure its tendency to generate factually incorrect information in that domain. Existing factual generation evaluation methods focus on facts sampled from the LM itself, and thus do not control the set of evaluated facts and might under-represent rare and unlikely facts. We propose FACTOR: Factual Assessment via Corpus TransfORmation, a scalable approach for evaluating LM factuality. FACTOR automatically transforms a factual corpus of interest into a benchmark evaluating an LM's propensity to generate true facts from the corpus vs. similar but incorrect statements. We use our framework to create two benchmarks: Wiki-FACTOR and News-FACTOR. We show that: (i) our benchmark scores increase with model size and improve when the LM is augmented with retrieval; (ii) benchmark score correlates with perplexity, but the two metrics do not always agree on model ranking; and (iii) when perplexity and benchmark score disagree, the latter better reflects factuality in open-ended generation, as measured by human annotators. We make our data and code publicly available in https://github.com/AI21Labs/factor.

Loss Functions for Behavioral Game Theory

Behavioral game theorists all use experimental data to evaluate predictive models of human behavior. However, they differ greatly in their choice of loss function for these evaluations, with error rate, negative log-likelihood, cross-entropy, Brier score, and L2 error all being common choices. We attempt to offer a principled answer to the question of which loss functions make sense for this task, formalizing desiderata that we argue loss functions should satisfy. We construct a family of loss functions, which we dub "diagonal bounded Bregman divergences", that satisfy all of these axioms and includes the squared L2 error. In fact, the squared L2 error is the only acceptable loss that is relatively commonly used in practice; we thus recommend its continued use to behavioral game theorists.

In-Context Retrieval-Augmented Language Models

Retrieval-Augmented Language Modeling (RALM) methods, that condition a language model (LM) on relevant documents from a grounding corpus during generation, have been shown to significantly improve language modeling while also providing a natural source attribution mechanism. Existing RALM approaches focus on modifying the LM architecture in order to facilitate the incorporation of external information, significantly complicating deployment. This paper proposes an under-explored alternative, which we dub In-Context RALM: leaving the LM architecture unchanged and prepending grounding documents to the input. We show that in-context RALM which uses off-the-shelf general purpose retrievers provides surprisingly large LM gains across model sizes and diverse corpora. We also demonstrate that the document retrieval and ranking mechanism can be specialized to the RALM setting to further boost performance. We conclude that in-context RALM has considerable potential to increase the prevalence of LM grounding, particularly in settings where a pretrained LM must be used without modification or even via API access. To that end, we make our code publicly available.

Parallel Context Windows Improve In-Context Learning of Large Language Models

For applications that require processing large amounts of text at inference time, Large Language Models (LLMs) are handicapped by their limited context windows, which are typically 2048 tokens. In-context learning, an emergent phenomenon in LLMs in sizes above a certain parameter threshold, constitutes one significant example because it can only leverage training examples that fit into the context window. Existing efforts to address the context window limitation involve training specialized architectures, which tend to be smaller than the sizes in which in-context learning manifests due to the memory footprint of processing long texts. We present Parallel Context Windows (PCW), a method that alleviates the context window restriction for any off-the-shelf LLM without further training. The key to the approach is to carve a long context into chunks (``windows'') that fit within the architecture, restrict the attention mechanism to apply only within each window, and re-use the positional embeddings among the windows. We test the PCW approach on in-context learning with models that range in size between 750 million and 178 billion parameters, and show substantial improvements for tasks with diverse input and output spaces. Our results motivate further investigation of Parallel Context Windows as a method for applying off-the-shelf LLMs in other settings that require long text sequences.

Monte Carlo Forest Search: UNSAT Solver Synthesis via Reinforcement learning

We introduce Monte Carlo Forest Search (MCFS), an offline algorithm for automatically synthesizing strong tree-search solvers for proving \emph{unsatisfiability} on given distributions, leveraging ideas from the Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) algorithm that led to breakthroughs in AlphaGo. The crucial difference between proving unsatisfiability and existing applications of MCTS, is that policies produce trees rather than paths. Rather than finding a good path (solution) within a tree, the search problem becomes searching for a small proof tree within a forest of candidate proof trees. We introduce two key ideas to adapt to this setting. First, we estimate tree size with paths, via the unbiased approximation from Knuth (1975). Second, we query a strong solver at a user-defined depth rather than learning a policy across the whole tree, in order to focus our policy search on early decisions, which offer the greatest potential for reducing tree size. We then present MCFS-SAT, an implementation of MCFS for learning branching policies for solving the Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problem that required many modifications from AlphaGo. We matched or improved performance over a strong baseline on two well-known SAT distributions (\texttt{sgen}, \texttt{random}). Notably, we improved running time by 9\% on \texttt{sgen} over the \texttt{kcnfs} solver and even further over the strongest UNSAT solver from the 2021 SAT competition.

Artificial Intelligence and Life in 2030: The One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence

In September 2016, Stanford's "One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence" project (AI100) issued the first report of its planned long-term periodic assessment of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on society. It was written by a panel of 17 study authors, each of whom is deeply rooted in AI research, chaired by Peter Stone of the University of Texas at Austin. The report, entitled "Artificial Intelligence and Life in 2030," examines eight domains of typical urban settings on which AI is likely to have impact over the coming years: transportation, home and service robots, healthcare, education, public safety and security, low-resource communities, employment and workplace, and entertainment. It aims to provide the general public with a scientifically and technologically accurate portrayal of the current state of AI and its potential and to help guide decisions in industry and governments, as well as to inform research and development in the field. The charge for this report was given to the panel by the AI100 Standing Committee, chaired by Barbara Grosz of Harvard University.

Better Peer Grading through Bayesian Inference

Peer grading systems aggregate noisy reports from multiple students to approximate a true grade as closely as possible. Most current systems either take the mean or median of reported grades; others aim to estimate students' grading accuracy under a probabilistic model. This paper extends the state of the art in the latter approach in three key ways: (1) recognizing that students can behave strategically (e.g., reporting grades close to the class average without doing the work); (2) appropriately handling censored data that arises from discrete-valued grading rubrics; and (3) using mixed integer programming to improve the interpretability of the grades assigned to students. We show how to make Bayesian inference practical in this model and evaluate our approach on both synthetic and real-world data obtained by using our implemented system in four large classes. These extensive experiments show that grade aggregation using our model accurately estimates true grades, students' likelihood of submitting uninformative grades, and the variation in their inherent grading error; we also characterize our models' robustness.