Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.28754

Peer Oversight in Collective Decision Making

Sarah Mohsen·Pavel Naumov
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This article introduces peer $k$-oversight, a property of sequential collective decision mechanisms requiring at least $k$ agents to be responsible for every harmful outcome. It is shown that whenever $k$-oversight can be achieved by redistributing control over the decisions in a mechanism, it can be achieved using just $k$ agents. A polynomial-time algorithm is also presented that determines whether such a redistribution exists and, when it does, constructs one. These results establish peer oversight as a tractable design principle for multiagent decision-making systems.

Explore related subjects

cs.GTcs.AIcs.MA

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Sarah Mohsen, Pavel Naumov. 2026-08-28. Peer Oversight in Collective Decision Making. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28754

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.AI subjectcs.GT subjectcs.MA subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Fully Distributed GNE Algorithms for Multi-Robot Placement without Consensus on Multipliers

Recent machine learning research has increasingly focused on equilibrium analysis in non-cooperative games rather than solely on optimal solutions. Many such problems involve shared constraints and can be formulated as Generalized Nash Equilibrium Problems (GNEPs). For strongly monotone games, existing methods compute consensus-based variational GNEs (v-GNEs) by exchanging Lagrange multipliers. We propose a fully distributed continuous-time algorithm for shared linear equality constraints that converges without multiplier exchange and reaches any GNE, reducing communication overhead and improving privacy. Discrete-time schemes are also provided, and the method is validated on a multi-robot placement task.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

The Endogeneity of Miscalibration: Impossibility and Escape in Scored Reporting

An agent's probability report is paid for twice: by a strictly proper scoring rule, and by an approval rule for the decision it triggers. In this classical decision-coupled setting, non-affine approval is known to defeat truthful reporting. We show the conflict is endogenous: when feasible, the welfare-maximizing approval rule is never affine. The distortion, however, is predictable and can be designed around. There is a reserve report at which pretending to be the marginal type costs exactly the approval prize. Approving at or above the reserve screens types perfectly under every strictly proper score, and the reserve does not depend on the type distribution. A Lipschitz rule with a single kink attains first-best exactly; under strict feasibility no continuously differentiable rule does. The binding constraint is steepness, not smoothness. First-best is attainable within a slope budget if and only if the budget is at least the critical slope: the steepest chord of the pretending cost up to the reserve. Below it the welfare loss is cubic in the shortfall. Where the pretending cost is convex up to the reserve, as for Brier, log and power scores, the critical slope is closed-form. The instances are AI-agent oversight and marketplace operation.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Level-2 Inverse Games for Inferring Agents' Estimates of Others' Objectives

Effectively interpreting strategic interactions among multiple agents requires us to infer each agent's objective from limited information. Existing inverse game-theoretic approaches frame this challenge in terms of a "level-1" inference problem, in which we take the perspective of a third-party observer and assume that individual agents share complete knowledge of one another's objectives. However, this assumption breaks down in decentralized, real-world scenarios like urban driving and bargaining, in which agents may act based on conflicting views of one another's objectives. We demonstrate the necessity of inferring agents' different estimates of each other's objectives through empirical examples, and by theoretically characterizing the prediction error of level-1 inference on fictitious gameplay data from linear-quadratic games. To address this fundamental issue, we propose a framework for level-2 inference to address the question: "What does each agent believe about other agents' objectives?" We prove that the level-2 inference problem is non-convex even in benign settings like linear-quadratic games, and we develop an efficient gradient-based approach for identifying local solutions. Experiments on a synthetic urban driving example show that our approach uncovers nuanced misalignments that level-1 methods miss.

cs.GT↗