Transcript aamas11reshefslides.pptx

On the Limits of Dictatorial
Classification
Reshef Meir
School of Computer Science and
Engineering, Hebrew University
Joint work with
Shaull Almagor, Assaf Michaely and Jeffrey S. Rosenschein
Strategy-Proof Classification
• An Example
• Motivation
• Our Model and previous results
• Filling the gap: proving a lower bound
• The weighted case
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
Strategic labeling: an example
ERM
5 errors
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
There is a better
classifier!
(for me…)
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
If I just
change the
labels…
2+5 = 7 errors
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
Classification
The Supervised Classification problem:
– Input: a set of labeled data points {(xi,yi)}i=1..m
– output: a classifier c from some predefined
concept class C ( e.g., functions of the form f : X{-,+} )
– We usually want c to classify correctly not just the
sample, but to generalize well, i.e., to minimize
R(c) ≡ E(x,y)~D[ c(x)≠y ]
the expected number of errors w.r.t. the distribution D
(the 0/1 loss function)
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
Classification (cont.)
• A common approach is to return the ERM
(Empirical Risk Minimizer), i.e., the concept in C
that is the best w.r.t. the given samples (has the
lowest number of errors)
• Generalizes well under some assumptions on
the concept class C (e.g., linear classifiers tend
to generalize well)
With multiple experts, we can’t trust our ERM!
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
Where do we find “experts” with incentives?
Example 1: A firm learning purchase patterns
– Information gathered from local retailers
– The resulting policy affects them
– “the best policy, is the policy that fits my pattern”
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
Example 2: Internet polls / polls of experts
Users
Reported Dataset
Classifier
Classification
Algorithm
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
Motivation from other domains
Aggregating partitions
Judgment aggregation
Agent
A
B
A&B
A | ~B
T
F
F
T
F
T
F
F
F
F
F
T
Facility location (on the binary cube)
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
A problem instance is defined by
• Set of agents I = {1,...,n}
• A set of data points
X = {x1,...,xm}  X
• For each xkX agent i has a label yik{,}
– Each pair sik=xk,yik is a sample
– All samples of a single agent compose the labeled dataset
Si = {si1,...,si,m(i)}
• The joint dataset S= S1 , S2 ,…, Sn is our input
– m=|S|
• We denote the dataset with the reported labels by S’
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
Input: Example
–
–
+
–
-
+
+
–
+
–
–
–
-
–
+
–
–
+
-
+
+
Agent 1
Agent 2
Agent 3
X  Xm
Y1  {-,+}m
Y2  {-,+}m
Y3  {-,+}m
S = S1, S2,…, Sn = (X,Y1),…, (X,Yn)
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
Mechanisms
• A Mechanism M receives a labeled dataset S
and outputs c = M(S) C
• Private risk of i: Ri(c,S) = |{k:
% ofc(x
errors
ik)  yon
ik}|S/i mi
• Global risk: R(c,S) = |{i,k:
yik}|
% of c(x
errors
S /m
ik) on
• We allow non-deterministic mechanisms
– Measure the expected risk
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
ERM
We compare the outcome of M to the ERM:
c* = ERM(S) = argmin(R(c),S)
cC
r* = R(c*,S)
Can our mechanism
simply compute and
return the ERM?
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
Requirements
MOST
1. Good approximation:
IMPORTANT
S R(M(S),S) ≤ α∙r*
SLIDE
2. Strategy-Proofness (SP):
i,S,Si‘ Ri(M(S-i , Si‘),S) ≥ Ri(M(S),S)
(Lying)
(Truth)
• ERM(S) is 1-approximating but not SP
• ERM(S1) is SP but gives bad approximation
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
Related work
• A study of SP mechanisms in Regression learning
– O. Dekel, F. Fischer and A. D. Procaccia, SODA (2008), JCSS (2009).
[supervised learning]
• No SP mechanisms for Clustering
– J. Perote-Peña and J. Perote, Economics Bulletin (2003)
[unsupervised learning]
Introduction
Motivation
A simple case
Model
Results
Previous work
• Tiny concept class: |C|= 2
• Either “all positive” or “all negative”
Theorem:
• There is a SP 2-approximation mechanism
• There are no SP α-approximation mechanisms,
for any α<2
Meir, Procaccia and Rosenschein, AAAI 2008
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
Previous work
General concept classes
Theorem: Selecting a dictator at random is SP
and guarantees 3  n2 approximation
– True for any concept class C
– Generalizes well from sampled data when C has a
bounded VC dimension
Open question #1: are there better mechanisms?
Open question #2: what if agents are weighted?
Meir, Procaccia and Rosenschein, IJCAI 2009
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
A lower bound
Our main result:
Theorem: There is a concept class C (where |C|=3), for which any
SP mechanism has an approximation ratio of at least 3  n2
o Matching the upper bound from IJCAI-09
o Proof is by a careful reduction to a voting scenario
o We will see the proof sketch
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
Proof sketch
Gibbard [‘77] proved that every (randomized) SP voting rule
for 3 candidates, must be a lottery over dictators*.
We define X = {x,y,z}, and C as follows:
x
y
z
cx
+
-
-
cy
-
+
-
cz
-
-
+
We also restrict the agents, so that each agent can have
mixed labels on just one point
x
y
z
--------
++++ - - - -
++++++++
++++++++
--------
++ - - - - - -
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
Proof sketch (cont.)
Suppose that M is SP
x
y
z
--------
++++ - - - -
++++++++
++++++++
--------
++ - - - - - -
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
Proof sketch (cont.)
x
y
z
--------
++++ - - - -
++++++++
cz > cy > cx
++++++++
--------
++ - - - - - -
cx > cz > cy
Suppose that M is SP
1. M must be monotone on the mixed point
2. M must ignore the mixed point
3. M is a (randomized) voting rule
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
Proof sketch (cont.)
1
3
2
3
x
y
z
--------
cz >
cy >- c- x- ++++
++++++++
++++++++
cx >- -c-z->- c- y- -
++ - - - - - -
4. By Gibbard [‘77], M is a random dictator
5. We construct an instance where random
dictators perform poorly
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
Weighted agents
• We must select a dictator randomly
• However, probability may be based on weight
• Naïve approach:
o
Only gives 3-approximation
• An optimal SP algorithm:
o
pr (i)  wi
Matches the lower bound of 3 
wi
pr (i ) 
2(1  wi )
2
n
Introduction
Motivation
Model
Results
Future work
• Other concept classes
• Other loss functions (linear loss, quadratic loss,…)
• Alternative assumptions on structure of data
• Other models of strategic behavior
• …