Power and Limitations of Aggregation in Compound AI Systems

When designing compound AI systems, a common approach is to query multiple copies of the same model and aggregate the responses to produce a synthesized output. Given the homogeneity of these models, this raises the question of whether aggregation unlocks access to a greater set of outputs than querying a single model. In this work, we investigate the power and limitations of aggregation within a stylized principal-agent framework. This framework models how the system designer can partially steer each agent's output through its reward function specification, but still faces limitations due to prompt engineering ability and model capabilities. Our analysis uncovers three natural mechanisms -- feasibility expansion, support expansion, and binding set contraction -- through which aggregation expands the set of outputs that are elicitable by the system designer. We prove that any aggregation operation must implement one of these mechanisms in order to be elicitability-expanding, and that strengthened versions of these mechanisms provide necessary and sufficient conditions that fully characterize elicitability-expansion. Finally, we provide an empirical illustration of our findings for LLMs deployed in a toy reference-generation task. Altogether, our results take a step towards characterizing when compound AI systems can overcome limitations in model capabilities and in prompt engineering.

Learning Local Stackelberg Equilibria from Repeated Interactions with a Learning Agent

Motivated by the question of how a principal can maximize its utility in repeated interactions with a learning agent, we study repeated games between an principal and an agent employing a mean-based learning algorithm. Prior work has shown that computing or even approximating the global Stackelberg value in similar settings can require an exponential number of rounds in the size of the agent's action space, making it computationally intractable. In contrast, we shift focus to the computation of local Stackelberg equilibria and introduce an algorithm that, within the smoothed analysis framework, constitutes a Polynomial Time Approximation Scheme (PTAS) for finding an epsilon-approximate local Stackelberg equilibrium. Notably, the algorithm's runtime is polynomial in the size of the agent's action space yet exponential in (1/epsilon) - a dependency we prove to be unavoidable.

Is Knowledge Power? On the (Im)possibility of Learning from Strategic Interaction

When learning in strategic environments, a key question is whether agents can overcome uncertainty about their preferences to achieve outcomes they could have achieved absent any uncertainty. Can they do this solely through interactions with each other? We focus this question on the ability of agents to attain the value of their Stackelberg optimal strategy and study the impact of information asymmetry. We study repeated interactions in fully strategic environments where players' actions are decided based on learning algorithms that take into account their observed histories and knowledge of the game. We study the pure Nash equilibria (PNE) of a meta-game where players choose these algorithms as their actions. We demonstrate that if one player has perfect knowledge about the game, then any initial informational gap persists. That is, while there is always a PNE in which the informed agent achieves her Stackelberg value, there is a game where no PNE of the meta-game allows the partially informed player to achieve her Stackelberg value. On the other hand, if both players start with some uncertainty about the game, the quality of information alone does not determine which agent can achieve her Stackelberg value. In this case, the concept of information asymmetry becomes nuanced and depends on the game's structure. Overall, our findings suggest that repeated strategic interactions alone cannot facilitate learning effectively enough to earn an uninformed player her Stackelberg value.

Delegating Data Collection in Decentralized Machine Learning

Motivated by the emergence of decentralized machine learning ecosystems, we study the delegation of data collection. Taking the field of contract theory as our starting point, we design optimal and near-optimal contracts that deal with two fundamental machine learning challenges: lack of certainty in the assessment of model quality and lack of knowledge regarding the optimal performance of any model. We show that lack of certainty can be dealt with via simple linear contracts that achieve 1-1/e fraction of the first-best utility, even if the principal has a small test set. Furthermore, we give sufficient conditions on the size of the principal's test set that achieves a vanishing additive approximation to the optimal utility. To address the lack of a priori knowledge regarding the optimal performance, we give a convex program that can adaptively and efficiently compute the optimal contract.

Impossibility results for fair representations

With the growing awareness to fairness in machine learning and the realization of the central role that data representation has in data processing tasks, there is an obvious interest in notions of fair data representations. The goal of such representations is that a model trained on data under the representation (e.g., a classifier) will be guaranteed to respect some fairness constraints. Such representations are useful when they can be fixed for training models on various different tasks and also when they serve as data filtering between the raw data (known to the representation designer) and potentially malicious agents that use the data under the representation to learn predictive models and make decisions. A long list of recent research papers strive to provide tools for achieving these goals. However, we prove that this is basically a futile effort. Roughly stated, we prove that no representation can guarantee the fairness of classifiers for different tasks trained using it; even the basic goal of achieving label-independent Demographic Parity fairness fails once the marginal data distribution shifts. More refined notions of fairness, like Odds Equality, cannot be guaranteed by a representation that does not take into account the task specific labeling rule with respect to which such fairness will be evaluated (even if the marginal data distribution is known a priory). Furthermore, except for trivial cases, no representation can guarantee Odds Equality fairness for any two different tasks, while allowing accurate label predictions for both. While some of our conclusions are intuitive, we formulate (and prove) crisp statements of such impossibilities, often contrasting impressions conveyed by many recent works on fair representations.