跳到正文
arXiv cs.AI· Nicholas Teh, Paul W. Goldberg·· 3 小时前AI 评分26

通过成员查询学习最小化利益相关方拒绝的混合部署抽签策略

Learning Lotteries with Minimal Stakeholder Violations from Membership Queries

AI 导读

一篇 NeurIPS 2026 论文研究 AI 开发者如何在 m 个候选版本中选抽签(随机分配请求)以满足 n 个利益相关方的未知半空间偏好,各方可通过二元成员查询表达接受与否。该问题在半空间已知时即 APX-hard,但作者给出 m 为常数时的多项式时间精确算法及准多项式时间算法,并证明仅查询 K 个主体时对未询问者无任何保证。

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