Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
153 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Forecasting for Swap Regret for All Downstream Agents (2402.08753v2)

Published 13 Feb 2024 in cs.GT and cs.LG

Abstract: We study the problem of making predictions so that downstream agents who best respond to them will be guaranteed diminishing swap regret, no matter what their utility functions are. It has been known since Foster and Vohra (1997) that agents who best-respond to calibrated forecasts have no swap regret. Unfortunately, the best known algorithms for guaranteeing calibrated forecasts in sequential adversarial environments do so at rates that degrade exponentially with the dimension of the prediction space. In this work, we show that by making predictions that are not calibrated, but are unbiased subject to a carefully selected collection of events, we can guarantee arbitrary downstream agents diminishing swap regret at rates that substantially improve over the rates that result from calibrated forecasts -- while maintaining the appealing property that our forecasts give guarantees for any downstream agent, without our forecasting algorithm needing to know their utility function. We give separate results in the low'' (1 or 2) dimensional setting and thehigh'' ($> 2$) dimensional setting. In the low dimensional setting, we show how to make predictions such that all agents who best respond to our predictions have diminishing swap regret -- in 1 dimension, at the optimal $O(\sqrt{T})$ rate. In the high dimensional setting we show how to make forecasts that guarantee regret scaling at a rate of $O(T{2/3})$ (crucially, a dimension independent exponent), under the assumption that downstream agents smoothly best respond. Our results stand in contrast to rates that derive from agents who best respond to calibrated forecasts, which have an exponential dependence on the dimension of the prediction space.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (23)
  1. The Logit Equilibrium: A Perspective on Intuitive Behavioral Anomalies. Southern Economic Journal 69, 1 (2002), 21–47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1061555
  2. Avrim Blum and Yishay Mansour. 2007. From External to Internal Regret. Journal of Machine Learning Research 8, 47 (2007), 1307–1324. http://jmlr.org/papers/v8/blum07a.html
  3. A. P. Dawid. 1982. The Well-Calibrated Bayesian. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 77, 379 (1982), 605–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1982.10477856
  4. Dean P. Foster and Sergiu Hart. 2018. Smooth calibration, leaky forecasts, finite recall, and Nash dynamics. Games and Economic Behavior 109 (2018), 271–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2017.12.022
  5. Dean P. Foster and Rakesh V. Vohra. 1997. Calibrated Learning and Correlated Equilibrium. Games and Economic Behavior 21, 1 (1997), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1997.0595
  6. Dean P. Foster and Rakesh V. Vohra. 1998. Asymptotic Calibration. Biometrika 85, 2 (1998), 379–390. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2337364
  7. Oracle Efficient Online Multicalibration and Omniprediction. 2725–2792. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611977912.98 arXiv:https://epubs.siam.org/doi/pdf/10.1137/1.9781611977912.98
  8. Multicalibrated regression for downstream fairness. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 259–286.
  9. Quantal Response Equilibrium and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions. Journal of Economic Theory 104, 1 (2002), 247–272. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeth.2001.2914
  10. Loss Minimization Through the Lens Of Outcome Indistinguishability. In 14th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2023). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik.
  11. Omnipredictors. In 13th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2022). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik.
  12. Calibrated Stackelberg Games: Learning Optimal Commitments Against Calibrated Agents. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. https://openreview.net/forum?id=fHsBNNDroC
  13. Omnipredictors for constrained optimization. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 13497–13527.
  14. On the number of digital convex polygons inscribed into an (m,m)-grid. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 40, 5 (1994), 1681–1686. https://doi.org/10.1109/18.333894
  15. Sham M. Kakade and Dean P. Foster. 2008. Deterministic calibration and Nash equilibrium. J. Comput. System Sci. 74, 1 (2008), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2007.04.017 Learning Theory 2004.
  16. U-Calibration: Forecasting for an Unknown Agent. In Proceedings of Thirty Sixth Conference on Learning Theory (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 195), Gergely Neu and Lorenzo Rosasco (Eds.). PMLR, 5143–5145. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v195/kleinberg23a.html
  17. R. Duncan Luce. 1959. Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical analysis. Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
  18. Daniel L. McFadden. 1976. Quantal Choice Analysis: A Survey. NBER, 363–390. http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10488
  19. Richard D. McKelvey and Thomas R. Palfrey. 1995. Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games. Games and Economic Behavior 10, 1 (1995), 6–38. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1023
  20. High-Dimensional Prediction for Sequential Decision Making. arXiv:2310.17651 [cs.LG]
  21. Faster Recalibration of an Online Predictor via Approachability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17002 (2023).
  22. Mingda Qiao and Gregory Valiant. 2021. Stronger calibration lower bounds via sidestepping. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (Virtual, Italy) (STOC 2021). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 456–466. https://doi.org/10.1145/3406325.3451050
  23. Calibrating predictions to decisions: A novel approach to multi-class calibration. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021), 22313–22324.
Citations (3)

Summary

  • The paper presents a novel forecasting algorithm that eliminates the need for prior utility function knowledge while ensuring diminishing swap regret in adversarial settings.
  • It achieves optimal O(√T) rates in one-dimensional spaces and near-optimal O(T^2/3) performance in multi-dimensional scenarios by leveraging unbiased event predictions.
  • The research underscores a trade-off between improved regret guarantees and computational efficiency, pointing to the need for scalable algorithms in higher dimensions.

Addressing Swap Regret in Multi-Dimensional Prediction Spaces

Overview

In an effort to address the limitations posed by calibration approaches in guaranteeing downstream swap regret rates in sequential adversarial environments, we present a paper focused on leveraging unbiased predictions based on a set of carefully chosen events. Our work is aimed at bridging the gap between the slower regret rates associated with calibrated forecasts and the optimal rates achieved through dedicated swap-regret-minimization algorithms tailored to individual agents. However, these dedicated algorithms necessitate prior knowledge of agents' utility functions, which may not always be practical in dynamic forecasting scenarios. Our research circumvents this requirement, presenting a more versatile approach that guarantees diminishing swap regret for all downstream agents, irrespective of their utility functions.

In-Depth Analysis

The Core Strategy

Our primary contribution lies in the formulation of a forecasting algorithm that operates without calibration yet guarantees diminishing swap regret rates for arbitrary downstream agents. By defining a collection of events tied to the agents’ best response correspondences and ensuring predictions are unbiased with respect to these events, we demonstrate significant improvements over traditional calibration-based forecasts.

Dimension-Specific Results

The efficacy of our approach varies with the prediction space dimensionality:

  • One-Dimensional: For the one-dimensional case, we achieve the optimal rate of O(√T), matching known swap regret rates but without the prerequisite knowledge of agents' utility functions—a substantial improvement over calibration methods.
  • Two-Dimensional and Higher: When extending the technique to dimensions beyond one, specifically for cases where agents respond based on smoothed approximations of their utility (quantal response), we present guarantees of diminishing swap regret at a rate of O(T2/3) across all dimensions. Although this does not reach the optimal O(√T) rate, it eliminates the dimension dependence that hampers calibration approaches.

Computational Considerations

While our methodology yields promising regret rates, especially in lower dimensions, it does so at the cost of computational efficiency in higher-dimensional settings. This trade-off delineates a critical area for future exploration: developing algorithms that maintain the achieved regret rates while also offering scalable computational performance across dimensions.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The research presented here marks a significant advancement in the pursuit of effective forecasting in adversarial environments, particularly for applications requiring guarantors of diminished swap regret independent of agents' specific utility functions. The delineation of our approach through dimension-specific analysis highlights its potential while also underscoring the necessity for further innovation to overcome its computational limitations in higher-dimensional spaces. Moving forward, the focal point of subsequent research should encompass the development of computationally efficient algorithms capable of sustaining the regret rates demonstrated herein, thereby broadening the applicability and accessibility of robust forecasting methodologies in diverse and dynamic prediction landscapes.