On the Merits of LLM-Based Corpus Enrichment

Generative AI (genAI) technologies -- specifically, large language models (LLMs) -- and search have evolving relations. We argue for a novel perspective: using genAI to enrich a document corpus so as to improve query-based retrieval effectiveness. The enrichment is based on modifying existing documents or generating new ones. As an empirical proof of concept, we use LLMs to generate documents relevant to a topic which are more retrievable than existing ones. In addition, we demonstrate the potential merits of using corpus enrichment for retrieval augmented generation (RAG) and answer attribution in question answering.

Fairness under Competition

Algorithmic fairness has emerged as a central issue in ML, and it has become standard practice to adjust ML algorithms so that they will satisfy fairness requirements such as Equal Opportunity. In this paper we consider the effects of adopting such fair classifiers on the overall level of ecosystem fairness. Specifically, we introduce the study of fairness with competing firms, and demonstrate the failure of fair classifiers in yielding fair ecosystems. Our results quantify the loss of fairness in systems, under a variety of conditions, based on classifiers' correlation and the level of their data overlap. We show that even if competing classifiers are individually fair, the ecosystem's outcome may be unfair; and that adjusting biased algorithms to improve their individual fairness may lead to an overall decline in ecosystem fairness. In addition to these theoretical results, we also provide supporting experimental evidence. Together, our model and results provide a novel and essential call for action.

Data Sharing with a Generative AI Competitor

As GenAI platforms grow, their dependence on content from competing providers, combined with access to alternative data sources, creates new challenges for data-sharing decisions. In this paper, we provide a model of data sharing between a content creation firm and a GenAI platform that can also acquire content from third-party experts. The interaction is modeled as a Stackelberg game: the firm first decides how much of its proprietary dataset to share with GenAI, and GenAI subsequently determines how much additional data to acquire from external experts. Their utilities depend on user traffic, monetary transfers, and the cost of acquiring additional data from external experts. We characterize the unique subgame perfect equilibrium of the game and uncover a surprising phenomenon: The firm may be willing to pay GenAI to share the firm's own data, leading to a costly data-sharing equilibrium. We further characterize the set of Pareto improving data prices, and show that such improvements occur only when the firm pays to share data. Finally, we study how the price can be set to optimize different design objectives, such as promoting firm data sharing, expert data acquisition, or a balance of both. Our results shed light on the economic forces shaping data-sharing partnerships in the age of GenAI, and provide guidance for platforms, regulators and policymakers seeking to design effective data exchange mechanisms.

A Multi-Agent Perspective on Modern Information Retrieval

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has introduced a new era in information retrieval (IR), where queries and documents that were once assumed to be generated exclusively by humans can now also be created by automated agents. These agents can formulate queries, generate documents, and perform ranking. This shift challenges some long-standing IR paradigms and calls for a reassessment of both theoretical frameworks and practical methodologies. We advocate for a multi-agent perspective to better capture the complex interactions between query agents, document agents, and ranker agents. Through empirical exploration of various multi-agent retrieval settings, we reveal the significant impact of these interactions on system performance. Our findings underscore the need to revisit classical IR paradigms and develop new frameworks for more effective modeling and evaluation of modern retrieval systems.

Prompt-Based Document Modifications In Ranking Competitions

We study prompting-based approaches with Large Language Models (LLMs) for modifying documents so as to promote their ranking in a competitive search setting. Our methods are inspired by prior work on leveraging LLMs as rankers. We evaluate our approach by deploying it as a bot in previous ranking competitions and in competitions we organized. Our findings demonstrate that our approach effectively improves document ranking while preserving high levels of faithfulness to the original content and maintaining overall document quality.

Search results diversification in competitive search

In Web retrieval, there are many cases of competition between authors of Web documents: their incentive is to have their documents highly ranked for queries of interest. As such, the Web is a prominent example of a competitive search setting. Past work on competitive search focused on ranking functions based solely on relevance estimation. We study ranking functions that integrate a results-diversification aspect. We show that the competitive search setting with diversity-based ranking has an equilibrium. Furthermore, we theoretically and empirically show that the phenomenon of authors mimicking content in documents highly ranked in the past, which was demonstrated in previous work, is mitigated when search results diversification is applied.

GLEE: A Unified Framework and Benchmark for Language-based Economic Environments

Large Language Models (LLMs) show significant potential in economic and strategic interactions, where communication via natural language is often prevalent. This raises key questions: Do LLMs behave rationally? Can they mimic human behavior? Do they tend to reach an efficient and fair outcome? What is the role of natural language in the strategic interaction? How do characteristics of the economic environment influence these dynamics? These questions become crucial concerning the economic and societal implications of integrating LLM-based agents into real-world data-driven systems, such as online retail platforms and recommender systems. While the ML community has been exploring the potential of LLMs in such multi-agent setups, varying assumptions, design choices and evaluation criteria across studies make it difficult to draw robust and meaningful conclusions. To address this, we introduce a benchmark for standardizing research on two-player, sequential, language-based games. Inspired by the economic literature, we define three base families of games with consistent parameterization, degrees of freedom and economic measures to evaluate agents' performance (self-gain), as well as the game outcome (efficiency and fairness). We develop an open-source framework for interaction simulation and analysis, and utilize it to collect a dataset of LLM vs. LLM interactions across numerous game configurations and an additional dataset of human vs. LLM interactions. Through extensive experimentation, we demonstrate how our framework and dataset can be used to: (i) compare the behavior of LLM-based agents to human players in various economic contexts; (ii) evaluate agents in both individual and collective performance measures; and (iii) quantify the effect of the economic characteristics of the environments on the behavior of agents.

Competitive Retrieval: Going Beyond the Single Query

Previous work on the competitive retrieval setting focused on a single-query setting: document authors manipulate their documents so as to improve their future ranking for a given query. We study a competitive setting where authors opt to improve their document's ranking for multiple queries. We use game theoretic analysis to prove that equilibrium does not necessarily exist. We then empirically show that it is more difficult for authors to improve their documents' rankings for multiple queries with a neural ranker than with a state-of-the-art feature-based ranker. We also present an effective approach for predicting the document most highly ranked in the next induced ranking.

Prediction-sharing During Training and Inference

Two firms are engaged in a competitive prediction task. Each firm has two sources of data -- labeled historical data and unlabeled inference-time data -- and uses the former to derive a prediction model, and the latter to make predictions on new instances. We study data-sharing contracts between the firms. The novelty of our study is to introduce and highlight the differences between contracts that share prediction models only, contracts to share inference-time predictions only, and contracts to share both. Our analysis proceeds on three levels. First, we develop a general Bayesian framework that facilitates our study. Second, we narrow our focus to two natural settings within this framework: (i) a setting in which the accuracy of each firm's prediction model is common knowledge, but the correlation between the respective models is unknown; and (ii) a setting in which two hypotheses exist regarding the optimal predictor, and one of the firms has a structural advantage in deducing it. Within these two settings we study optimal contract choice. More specifically, we find the individually rational and Pareto-optimal contracts for some notable cases, and describe specific settings where each of the different sharing contracts emerge as optimal. Finally, in the third level of our analysis we demonstrate the applicability of our concepts in a synthetic simulation using real loan data.

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.