Robust Decision Aggregation with Adversarial Experts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08222v1
• Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 03:47:08 GMT
• Title: Robust Decision Aggregation with Adversarial Experts
• Authors: Yongkang Guo, Yuqing Kong
• Abstract summary: We consider a binary decision aggregation problem in the presence of both truthful and adversarial experts. We find the optimal aggregator minimizing regret under the worst information structure.
• Score: 4.751372843411884
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We consider a binary decision aggregation problem in the presence of both truthful and adversarial experts. The truthful experts will report their private signals truthfully with proper incentive, while the adversarial experts can report arbitrarily. The decision maker needs to design a robust aggregator to forecast the true state of the world based on the reports of experts. The decision maker does not know the specific information structure, which is a joint distribution of signals, states, and strategies of adversarial experts. We want to find the optimal aggregator minimizing regret under the worst information structure. The regret is defined by the difference in expected loss between the aggregator and a benchmark who makes the optimal decision given the joint distribution and reports of truthful experts. We prove that when the truthful experts are symmetric and adversarial experts are not too numerous, the truncated mean is optimal, which means that we remove some lowest reports and highest reports and take averaging among the left reports. Moreover, for many settings, the optimal aggregators are in the family of piecewise linear functions. The regret is independent of the total number of experts but only depends on the ratio of adversaries. We evaluate our aggregators by numerical experiment in an ensemble learning task. We also obtain some negative results for the aggregation problem with adversarial experts under some more general information structures and experts' report space.

Related papers

• Geometric Median Matching for Robust k-Subset Selection from Noisy Data [75.86423267723728]
  We propose a novel k-subset selection strategy that leverages Geometric Median -- a robust estimator with an optimal breakdown point of 1/2. Our method iteratively selects a k-subset such that the mean of the subset approximates the GM of the (potentially) noisy dataset, ensuring robustness even under arbitrary corruption.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T09:22:05Z)
• Mitigating the Participation Bias by Balancing Extreme Ratings [3.5785450878667597]
  We consider a robust rating aggregation task under the participation bias. Our goal is to minimize the expected squared loss between the aggregated ratings and the average of all underlying ratings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T02:58:46Z)
• Heavy-tailed Contamination is Easier than Adversarial Contamination [8.607294463464523]
  A body of work in the statistics and computer science communities dating back to Huber (Huber, 1960) has led to statistically and computationally efficient outlier-robust estimators. Two particular outlier models have received significant attention: the adversarial and heavy-tailed models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-22T19:00:33Z)
• The Surprising Benefits of Base Rate Neglect in Robust Aggregation [14.286448842405678]
  Our work considers experts who tend to ignore the base rate. We find that a certain degree of base rate neglect helps with robust forecast aggregation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T12:20:29Z)
• Generalization Error Analysis for Sparse Mixture-of-Experts: A Preliminary Study [65.11303133775857]
  Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) computation amalgamates predictions from several specialized sub-models (referred to as experts) Sparse MoE selectively engages only a limited number, or even just one expert, significantly reducing overhead while empirically preserving, and sometimes even enhancing, performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-26T05:48:02Z)
• Inverse Reinforcement Learning with Sub-optimal Experts [56.553106680769474]
  We study the theoretical properties of the class of reward functions that are compatible with a given set of experts. Our results show that the presence of multiple sub-optimal experts can significantly shrink the set of compatible rewards. We analyze a uniform sampling algorithm that results in being minimax optimal whenever the sub-optimal experts' performance level is sufficiently close to the one of the optimal agent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-08T12:39:25Z)
• Robust Decision Aggregation with Second-order Information [4.021926055330022]
  We consider a decision aggregation problem with two experts who each make a binary recommendation after observing a private signal. An agent, who does not know the joint information structure between signals and states, sees the experts' recommendations and aims to match the action with the true state. Under the scenario, we study whether supplemented additionally with second-order information could enable a better aggregation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-23T16:39:55Z)
• Online Decision Mediation [72.80902932543474]
  Consider learning a decision support assistant to serve as an intermediary between (oracle) expert behavior and (imperfect) human behavior. In clinical diagnosis, fully-autonomous machine behavior is often beyond ethical affordances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T05:59:43Z)
• Merge, Then Compress: Demystify Efficient SMoE with Hints from Its Routing Policy [84.11508381847929]
  Sparsely activated Mixture-of-Experts (SMoE) has shown promise to scale up the learning capacity of neural networks. We propose M-SMoE, which leverages routing statistics to guide expert merging. Our MC-SMoE achieves up to 80% memory and a 20% FLOPs reduction, with virtually no loss in performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T16:51:32Z)
• Unsupervised Opinion Aggregation -- A Statistical Perspective [5.665646276894791]
  Complex decision-making systems rely on opinions to form an understanding of what the ground truth could be. This paper explores a statistical approach to infer the competence of each expert based on their opinions without any need for the ground truth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-20T23:14:52Z)
• Active Ranking of Experts Based on their Performances in Many Tasks [72.96112117037465]
  We consider the problem of ranking n experts based on their performances on d tasks. We make a monotonicity assumption stating that for each pair of experts, one outperforms the other on all tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-05T06:55:39Z)
• Cross Pairwise Ranking for Unbiased Item Recommendation [57.71258289870123]
  We develop a new learning paradigm named Cross Pairwise Ranking (CPR) CPR achieves unbiased recommendation without knowing the exposure mechanism. We prove in theory that this way offsets the influence of user/item propensity on the learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-26T09:20:27Z)
• Investigating User Radicalization: A Novel Dataset for Identifying Fine-Grained Temporal Shifts in Opinion [7.028604573959653]
  We introduce an innovative annotated dataset for modeling subtle opinion fluctuations and detecting fine-grained stances. The dataset includes a sufficient amount of stance polarity and intensity labels per user over time and within entire conversational threads. All posts are annotated by non-experts and a significant portion of the data is also annotated by experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-16T09:31:25Z)
• Are You Smarter Than a Random Expert? The Robust Aggregation of Substitutable Signals [14.03122229316614]
  This paper initiates the study of forecast aggregation in a context where experts' knowledge is chosen adversarially from a broad class of information structures. Under the projective substitutes condition, taking the average of the experts' forecasts improves substantially upon the strategy of trusting a random expert. We show that by averaging the experts' forecasts and then emphextremizing the average by moving it away from the prior by a constant factor, the aggregator's performance guarantee is substantially better than is possible without knowledge of the prior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-04T20:50:30Z)
• Examining and Combating Spurious Features under Distribution Shift [94.31956965507085]
  We define and analyze robust and spurious representations using the information-theoretic concept of minimal sufficient statistics. We prove that even when there is only bias of the input distribution, models can still pick up spurious features from their training data. Inspired by our analysis, we demonstrate that group DRO can fail when groups do not directly account for various spurious correlations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-14T05:39:09Z)
• Towards an Understanding of Benign Overfitting in Neural Networks [104.2956323934544]
  Modern machine learning models often employ a huge number of parameters and are typically optimized to have zero training loss. We examine how these benign overfitting phenomena occur in a two-layer neural network setting. We show that it is possible for the two-layer ReLU network interpolator to achieve a near minimax-optimal learning rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-06T19:08:53Z)
• Gaussian Experts Selection using Graphical Models [7.530615321587948]
  Local approximations reduce time complexity by dividing the original dataset into subsets and training a local expert on each subset. We leverage techniques from the literature on undirected graphical models, using sparse precision matrices that encode conditional dependencies between experts to select the most important experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-02T14:12:11Z)
• Malicious Experts versus the multiplicative weights algorithm in online prediction [85.62472761361107]
  We consider a prediction problem with two experts and a forecaster. We assume that one of the experts is honest and makes correct prediction with probability $mu$ at each round. The other one is malicious, who knows true outcomes at each round and makes predictions in order to maximize the loss of the forecaster.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-18T20:12:08Z)
• Prediction with Corrupted Expert Advice [67.67399390910381]
  We prove that a variant of the classical Multiplicative Weights algorithm with decreasing step sizes achieves constant regret in a benign environment. Our results reveal a surprising disparity between the often comparable Follow the Regularized Leader (FTRL) and Online Mirror Descent (OMD) frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-24T14:39:55Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.