THApr 10, 2025
Private Private InformationKevin He, Fedor Sandomirskiy, Omer Tamuz
Private signals model noisy information about an unknown state. Although these signals are called "private," they may still carry information about each other. Our paper introduces the concept of private private signals, which contain information about the state but not about other signals. To achieve privacy, signal quality may need to be sacrificed. We study the informativeness of private private signals and characterize those that are optimal in the sense that they cannot be made more informative without violating privacy. We discuss implications for privacy in recommendation systems, information design, causal inference, and mechanism design.
6.8THApr 29
Extreme Equilibria: The Benefits of CorrelationKirill Rudov, Fedor Sandomirskiy, Leeat Yariv
Correlated equilibria arise naturally when agents communicate or rely on intermediaries such as recommendation systems. We study when a given Nash equilibrium can be improved within the set of correlated equilibria for general objectives. Our key insight is a detail-free criterion: any Nash equilibrium with three or more randomizing agents is generically improvable. We refine this insight to specific classes of games and objectives, including Pareto and utilitarian welfare, and provide constructive methods to obtain improvements. Our findings underscore the ubiquity of improvable Nash equilibria and the crucial role of correlation in enhancing strategic outcomes.
GTJun 14, 2020
Representative Committees of PeersReshef Meir, Fedor Sandomirskiy, Moshe Tennenholtz
A population of voters must elect representatives among themselves to decide on a sequence of possibly unforeseen binary issues. Voters care only about the final decision, not the elected representatives. The disutility of a voter is proportional to the fraction of issues, where his preferences disagree with the decision. While an issue-by-issue vote by all voters would maximize social welfare, we are interested in how well the preferences of the population can be approximated by a small committee. We show that a k-sortition (a random committee of k voters with the majority vote within the committee) leads to an outcome within the factor 1+O(1/k) of the optimal social cost for any number of voters n, any number of issues $m$, and any preference profile. For a small number of issues m, the social cost can be made even closer to optimal by delegation procedures that weigh committee members according to their number of followers. However, for large m, we demonstrate that the k-sortition is the worst-case optimal rule within a broad family of committee-based rules that take into account metric information about the preference profile of the whole population.
GTMay 25, 2019
Protecting the Protected Group: Circumventing Harmful FairnessOmer Ben-Porat, Fedor Sandomirskiy, Moshe Tennenholtz
Machine Learning (ML) algorithms shape our lives. Banks use them to determine if we are good borrowers; IT companies delegate them recruitment decisions; police apply ML for crime-prediction, and judges base their verdicts on ML. However, real-world examples show that such automated decisions tend to discriminate against protected groups. This potential discrimination generated a huge hype both in media and in the research community. Quite a few formal notions of fairness were proposed, which take a form of constraints a "fair" algorithm must satisfy. We focus on scenarios where fairness is imposed on a self-interested party (e.g., a bank that maximizes its revenue). We find that the disadvantaged protected group can be worse off after imposing a fairness constraint. We introduce a family of \textit{Welfare-Equalizing} fairness constraints that equalize per-capita welfare of protected groups, and include \textit{Demographic Parity} and \textit{Equal Opportunity} as particular cases. In this family, we characterize conditions under which the fairness constraint helps the disadvantaged group. We also characterize the structure of the optimal \textit{Welfare-Equalizing} classifier for the self-interested party, and provide an algorithm to compute it. Overall, our \textit{Welfare-Equalizing} fairness approach provides a unified framework for discussing fairness in classification in the presence of a self-interested party.