跳到正文
arXiv cs.AI· Nicholas Teh, Paul W. Goldberg·· 14 小时前AI 评分18

从成员查询中学习 Stakeholder 违规最少的抽签方案

Learning Lotteries with Minimal Stakeholder Violations from Membership Queries

AI 导读

研究将请求随机分配给 m 个候选系统版本的抽签问题:每个 stakeholder 只在期望性能满足其未知半空间标准时接受该抽签,目标是最小化拒绝的 stakeholder 数量。

正文 · 原文

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:An AI developer often has several candidate versions of a system and can deploy a mixture of them, sending each request to a randomly chosen version, as in A/B testing. Each stakeholder (e.g., a safety team, a regulator, or a customer with private test data) accepts a mixture exactly when its expected performance (e.g., its rate of harmful replies) meets the stakeholder's own standard, which the developer can learn only by asking whether a proposed mixture is acceptable. We model this as choosing a lottery over $m$ alternatives for $n$ agents, each of whom accepts exactly the lotteries in an unknown halfspace and answers such binary membership queries. While Choo et al. (ICML 2026) sought a lottery that every agent accepts, none may exist when, say, safety and helpfulness requirements conflict, so we minimize the number of rejecting agents. We show that this problem is APX-hard even when all halfspaces are known and all utilities are $0$ or $1$. We then give exact algorithms that run in polynomial time when $m$ is constant, and in quasi-polynomial time when, for a constant $\eta$, some optimal lottery has no accepting agent within $\eta$ of its threshold. When only some agents can be queried, optimizing over a uniform sample of agents gives additive and relative guarantees for the whole population, with a sample size that does not depend on $n$, and a linear program gives a polynomial-time method for any $m$. On the other hand, for $m\ge 3$, a deterministic algorithm that queries only $K$ distinct agents cannot guarantee fewer than $n-K$ extra rejections, and this is achievable; in other words, it can guarantee nothing for the agents it does not ask. Small synthetic experiments indicate that our worst-case bounds are conservative on random instances.
Comments: 31 pages, full version of paper at NeurIPS 2026
Subjects: Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2610.37828 [cs.LG]
  (or arXiv:2610.37828v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.37828

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Paul Goldberg [view email]
[v1] Tue, 27 Oct 2026 18:40:50 UTC (52 KB)

来源:arXiv cs.AI · arxiv.org