arXiv subjects

Aaron Roth

Publications and source records attributed to Aaron Roth.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Narrowing the Collaboration Gap, Probably

Large language models are increasingly deployed as teams of agents that hold different private information about a shared task. How should such agents concisely communicate in a way that promotes aggregation of decision-relevant information? Communicating only proposed actions can discard decision-relevant uncertainty: two agents may prefer the same action for different reasons. We study an alternative interface in which agents communicate calibrated beliefs over actions. We first analyze a simple synthetic setting that captures the structure of multi-round reasoning under partial information. In this setting, we show theoretically and empirically that communicating unbiased probabilities can be strictly more powerful than communicating actions. We then test the same principle in a collaborative maze-solving task with trained transformers and pretrained LLM agents. Our results demonstrate that probability communication outperforms action communication when the exchanged predictions preserve calibrated uncertainty. When communicated probabilities are biased, we show that the benefits of probability communication can disappear. We give a post-hoc conversational calibration intervention that consistently improves decision-making by correcting these biases both in a toy transformer setting and when pretrained LLMs use the corrections in context. These results suggest that probabilistic communication is useful for multi-agent collaboration not merely because it transmits more information, but because calibrated uncertainty gives other agents a reliable object to update on.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Instance-Adaptive Online Multiclass Multicalibration

We study online multiclass multicalibration over $T$ rounds, and give an algorithm with beyond-worst-case guarantees. With $n$ possible outcomes, forecasts lie in a simplex of dimension $d=n-1$. In the worst case, cumulative $\ell_1$ multicalibration error scales with $\widetildeΘ(T^{(d+1)/(d+2)})$, which becomes untenable once $d$ exceeds a small constant. Our algorithm adapts to the geometry of the realized sequence: if the sequence of adversarially selected outcome means lies in an affine subspace of dimension $s$, it obtains error $\widetilde O(n^{1/(s+2)}T^{(s+1)/(s+2)})$ with high probability. The algorithm adapts to this structure without knowing the subspace or its dimension. For $T\ge n\ge2$, this rate is minimax optimal up to polylogarithmic factors. For a stochastic instance with a fixed conditional mean, the bound specializes to $\widetilde O(\sqrt{nT})$, giving a square-root dependence on the horizon.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Groupwise Distortion Guarantees for Preference-Based Alignment

Preference-based alignment methods such as reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and Nash learning from human feedback (NLHF) aggregate pairwise preferences to learn an LLM policy, but a natural goal is maximizing social welfare (average cardinal utility), which comparisons alone need not identify. Gölz, Haghtalab, and Yang (GHY) measure the gap by distortion: the worst-case ratio between the welfare of the best fixed lottery (distribution over responses) and of the learned lottery. They show NLHF is optimal when every user receives the same lottery. Account-based LLMs, however, have information about their users and can serve different lotteries to different people. We give an efficient algorithm, GLHF, that learns a single group-conditioned policy from one comparison per user. Under individual Bradley--Terry comparisons, GLHF asymptotically matches GHY's optimal population distortion bound simultaneously on every group in a prespecified, possibly overlapping collection, with sample complexity growing logarithmically in the number of groups and inversely with the smallest group mass. A sharper guarantee for groups with similar preferences approaches distortion of one when members share a feasible favorite response. In experiments using human coffee ratings and synthetic LLM-generated ratings, GLHF lowers distortion in every evaluated group and substantially reduces worst-group distortion relative to NLHF and other group-agnostic baselines.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Delegating Authorization to Misaligned Agents: Coalitional Alignment and Safe Control

Long-running AI agents create a control problem: each action they take changes the state, which in turn affects the trajectory of future actions. If the agent is not fully aligned, then guaranteeing safety requires approving consequential actions before allowing them to be executed. But requiring human approval at every step makes attention a bottleneck. Delegating review to other AI agents raises the same alignment problem: the reviewers may themselves be misaligned. We identify a condition on a reviewing panel that is weaker than individual alignment yet necessary and sufficient for a guarantee that the principal fares at least as well in expectation as under a designated baseline policy. Each reviewer agent reports whether an action proposal made by a proposer agent improves its own utility relative to the baseline. We show that a threshold rule tolerating $k$ disapprovals is safe exactly when, after any $k$ reviewers are removed, the principal's utility can be written as a nonnegative combination of the remaining reviewers' utilities, plus a term that is nonnegative on every feasible proposal. We call this property $k$-robust coalitional alignment. The characterization lifts to sequential control: in a discounted MDP with an arbitrary proposer agent, safety at every state is both necessary and sufficient for the induced policy to match or improve on the baseline. When reviewers vote strategically, full-panel coverage in reward-function space guarantees that every Nash equilibrium is safe under the unanimous approval rule; in contrast, more permissive thresholds can admit unsafe equilibria even when reviewers are individually aligned. Experiments with existing reviewer models show that collective review can remain sound without an aligned individual, even when some disapprovals are tolerated.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Defensive Boosting for Online Probabilistic Forecasting

We study online probabilistic forecasting of binary outcomes chosen by an adaptive adversary. Given an online learning algorithm for a weak hypothesis class $H$, we would like to efficiently obtain two incomparable guarantees that existing online boosting techniques provide separately. Online gradient boosting competes in Brier score with the best predictor induced by the span of $H$ on every sequence, but promises nothing when the span does not contain an accurate predictor. Online weak-to-strong boosting drives classification error to zero under a weak-learning condition, but promises little when that condition fails. We give a simple defensive forecasting algorithm, the Defensive Booster, that obtains both guarantees. On every adaptive sequence, its Brier score is competitive with the best prediction induced by the span of $H$ at the same rate as online gradient boosting; simultaneously, whenever the realized transcript satisfies the smooth weak-learning condition, its Brier score and randomized classification error satisfy the same rate guarantee as online classification boosting. This is achieved by operationalizing the "dual view" of boosting: When the algorithm's randomized classification error is persistently high, its mistake weights form a smooth reweighting on which every weak hypothesis has low edge, yielding an ex-post hard-core certificate that the weak-learning condition fails. We also develop a strongly adaptive variant, which satisfies both guarantees on every time interval. The Defensive Booster is very efficient: it accesses just one weak-class learner, whereas the prior online boosting methods we compare against maintain large weak-learner ensembles. Experiments on synthetic and real data streams demonstrate its strong predictive performance (sometimes substantially improving over all prior baselines) coupled with orders-of-magnitude faster runtime.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Instance-Adaptive Online Multicalibration

We study online multicalibration beyond the worst-case. We give a single, efficient algorithm which dynamically interpolates between benign and worst-case sequences by adaptively refining a dyadic grid of prediction values. Its error is controlled by the number of leaves in the refinement tree. Our analysis recovers the known $\widetilde O(T^{2/3})$ worst-case-optimal rate for online multicalibration, while simultaneously automatically adapting to easier instances: in the marginal stochastic setting it obtains a rate of $\widetilde O(\sqrt T)$, and for piecewise-stationary means with $J$ segments its rate is $\widetilde O(\sqrt{JT})$. More generally, the rate depends on a threshold-complexity measure of the predictable mean process relative to the group family. We show that this dependence is tight up to logarithmic factors.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Optimal Deterministic Multicalibration and Omniprediction

A model is multicalibrated on a collection of group weights $G$ if it is calibrated -- i.e. unbiased even conditional on its prediction -- not just overall, but also after reweighting contexts by each $g \in G$. It is a useful property for many downstream applications and is a basic desideratum of trustworthy machine learning. Before this work, all predictors known to attain the minimax-optimal $\widetilde O(\varepsilon^{-3})$ sample complexity rate for $\varepsilon$-multicalibration were randomized, while deterministic predictors were known only with substantially worse sample complexity. Whether randomization is necessary for optimal sample complexity in multicalibration was explicitly asked by [CLNR26] and implicitly in several prior works. We resolve this open problem by giving a minimax-optimal multicalibration algorithm that outputs a deterministic predictor. We then generalize the algorithm to produce optimal deterministic predictors that satisfy outcome indistinguishability (OI) with respect to finite or finitely covered collections of tests. As an application, this also gives deterministic omnipredictors and panpredictors with optimal sample complexity, resolving open problems posed by [OKK25] and [BHHLZ25].

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

What Fits (Into Few Tokens) Doesn't Overfit: Compression and Generalization in ML Research Agents

Reusing a held-out benchmark adaptively should, in principle, invite overfitting. Yet benchmark-driven machine learning (ML) has produced surprisingly little overfitting in practice. An attractive hypothesis is that successful ML strategies are highly compressible. We study this in the setting of LLM-driven research agents, where the hypothesis becomes directly testable via two complementary information bottlenecks. In \emph{output compression}, an exploration agent adaptively searches for high-performance models using a validation set, and we test whether a fresh ``reproducer agent'' can reproduce its performance given only an extremely short prompt and the training data. In \emph{input compression}, the explorer receives only one-bit feedback indicating whether each submitted model improves on the running best. Across 8 datasets spanning tabular classification, vision, language modeling, diffusion modeling, and reward modeling, we find that these bottlenecks have little effect on performance: short prompts and compressible feedback are sufficient to reproduce and find high-performance models. The hypothesis is falsifiable: when we deliberately induce validation-set overfitting, the results fail to reproduce with short prompts. Taken together, our results support a description-length explanation for the lack of overfitting in benchmark-driven ML: successful strategies occupy a low-complexity region of strategy space.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Rejoinder: The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review

This article is the rejoinder to ``The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review,'' to appear in the Journal of the American Statistical Association with discussion. To address the practical and theoretical points raised by the discussants, we organize our response around four core themes: (i) formulating peer review as a statistical estimation problem; (ii) mitigating equity and strategic concerns in the deployment of the Isotonic Mechanism; (iii) incorporating complementary signals such as reviewer rankings and structured metadata; and (iv) exploring a human-centered framework for peer review in the era of generative AI.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2026

Optimal Lower Bounds for Online Multicalibration

We prove tight lower bounds for online multicalibration, establishing an information-theoretic separation from marginal calibration. In the general setting where group functions can depend on both context and the learner's predictions, we prove an $Ω(T^{2/3})$ lower bound on expected multicalibration error using just three disjoint binary groups. This matches the upper bounds of Noarov et al. (2025) up to logarithmic factors and exceeds the $O(T^{2/3-\varepsilon})$ upper bound for marginal calibration (Dagan et al., 2025), thereby separating the two problems. We then turn to lower bounds for the more difficult case of group functions that may depend on context but not on the learner's predictions. In this case, we establish an $\widetildeΩ(T^{2/3})$ lower bound for online multicalibration via an $O(\log^3 T)$-sized group family constructed from an orthonormal basis, again matching upper bounds up to logarithmic factors.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

The Sample Complexity of Multicalibration

We study the minimax sample complexity of multicalibration in the batch setting. A learner observes $n$ i.i.d. samples from an unknown distribution and must output a (possibly randomized) predictor whose population multicalibration error, measured by Expected Calibration Error (ECE), is at most $\varepsilon$ with respect to a given family of groups. For every fixed $κ> 0$, in the regime $|G|\le \varepsilon^{-κ}$, we prove that $\widetildeΘ(\varepsilon^{-3})$ samples are necessary and sufficient, up to polylogarithmic factors. The lower bound holds even for randomized predictors, and the upper bound is realized by a randomized predictor obtained via an online-to-batch reduction. This separates the sample complexity of multicalibration from that of marginal calibration, which scales as $\widetildeΘ(\varepsilon^{-2})$, and shows that mean-ECE multicalibration is as difficult in the batch setting as it is in the online setting, in contrast to marginal calibration which is strictly more difficult in the online setting. In contrast we observe that for $κ= 0$, the sample complexity of multicalibration remains $\widetildeΘ(\varepsilon^{-2})$ exhibiting a sharp threshold phenomenon. More generally, we establish matching upper and lower bounds, up to polylogarithmic factors, for a weighted $L_p$ multicalibration metric for all $1 \le p \le 2$, with optimal exponent $3/p$. We also extend the lower-bound template to a regular class of elicitable properties, and combine it with the online upper bounds of Hu et al. (2025) to obtain matching bounds for calibrating properties including expectiles and bounded-density quantiles.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Replicable Reinforcement Learning with Linear Function Approximation

Replication of experimental results has been a challenge faced by many scientific disciplines, including the field of machine learning. Recent work on the theory of machine learning has formalized replicability as the demand that an algorithm produce identical outcomes when executed twice on different samples from the same distribution. Provably replicable algorithms are especially interesting for reinforcement learning (RL), where algorithms are known to be unstable in practice. While replicable algorithms exist for tabular RL settings, extending these guarantees to more practical function approximation settings has remained an open problem. In this work, we make progress by developing replicable methods for linear function approximation in RL. We first introduce two efficient algorithms for replicable random design regression and uncentered covariance estimation, each of independent interest. We then leverage these tools to provide the first provably efficient replicable RL algorithms for linear Markov decision processes in both the generative model and episodic settings. Finally, we evaluate our algorithms experimentally and show how they can inspire more consistent neural policies.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning for Large-Scale Tote Allocation in Human-Robot Collaborative Fulfillment Centers

Optimizing the consolidation process in container-based fulfillment centers requires trading off competing objectives such as processing speed, resource usage, and space utilization while adhering to a range of real-world operational constraints. This process involves moving items between containers via a combination of human and robotic workstations to free up space for inbound inventory and increase container utilization. We formulate this problem as a large-scale Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning (MORL) task with high-dimensional state spaces and dynamic system behavior. Our method builds on recent theoretical advances in solving constrained RL problems via best-response and no-regret dynamics in zero-sum games, enabling principled minimax policy learning. Policy evaluation on realistic warehouse simulations shows that our approach effectively trades off objectives, and we empirically observe that it learns a single policy that simultaneously satisfies all constraints, even if this is not theoretically guaranteed. We further introduce a theoretical framework to handle the problem of error cancellation, where time-averaged solutions display oscillatory behavior. This method returns a single iterate whose Lagrangian value is close to the minimax value of the game. These results demonstrate the promise of MORL in solving complex, high-impact decision-making problems in large-scale industrial systems.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Model Agreement via Anchoring

Numerous lines of aim to control $\textit{model disagreement}$ -- the extent to which two machine learning models disagree in their predictions. We adopt a simple and standard notion of model disagreement in real-valued prediction problems, namely the expected squared difference in predictions between two models trained on independent samples, without any coordination of the training processes. We would like to be able to drive disagreement to zero with some natural parameter(s) of the training procedure using analyses that can be applied to existing training methodologies. We develop a simple general technique for proving bounds on independent model disagreement based on $\textit{anchoring}$ to the average of two models within the analysis. We then apply this technique to prove disagreement bounds for four commonly used machine learning algorithms: (1) stacked aggregation over an arbitrary model class (where disagreement is driven to 0 with the number of models $k$ being stacked) (2) gradient boosting (where disagreement is driven to 0 with the number of iterations $k$) (3) neural network training with architecture search (where disagreement is driven to 0 with the size $n$ of the architecture being optimized over) and (4) regression tree training over all regression trees of fixed depth (where disagreement is driven to 0 with the depth $d$ of the tree architecture). For clarity, we work out our initial bounds in the setting of one-dimensional regression with squared error loss -- but then show that all of our results generalize to multi-dimensional regression with any strongly convex loss.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Prior-Agnostic Incentive-Compatible Exploration

In bandit settings, optimizing long-term regret metrics requires exploration, which corresponds to sometimes taking myopically sub-optimal actions. When a long-lived principal merely recommends actions to be executed by a sequence of different agents (as in an online recommendation platform) this provides an incentive misalignment: exploration is "worth it" for the principal but not for the agents. Prior work studies regret minimization under the constraint of Bayesian Incentive-Compatibility in a static stochastic setting with a fixed and common prior shared amongst the agents and the algorithm designer. We show that (weighted) swap regret bounds on their own suffice to cause agents to faithfully follow forecasts in an approximate Bayes Nash equilibrium, even in dynamic environments in which agents have conflicting prior beliefs and the mechanism designer has no knowledge of any agents beliefs. To obtain these bounds, it is necessary to assume that the agents have some degree of uncertainty not just about the rewards, but about their arrival time -- i.e. their relative position in the sequence of agents served by the algorithm. We instantiate our abstract bounds with concrete algorithms for guaranteeing adaptive and weighted regret in bandit settings.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Personalization Aids Pluralistic Alignment Under Competition

Can competition among misaligned AI providers yield aligned outcomes for a diverse population of users, and what role does model personalization play? We study a setting where multiple competing AI providers interact with multiple users who must make downstream decisions but differ in preferences. Providers have their own objectives over users' actions and strategically deploy AI models to advance them. We model the interaction as a Stackelberg game with multiple leaders (providers) and followers (users): providers commit to conversational policies, and users choose which model to use, how to converse, and how to act. With user-specific personalization, we show that under a Weak Market Alignment condition, every equilibrium gives each user outcomes comparable to those from a perfectly aligned common model -- so personalization can induce pluralistically aligned outcomes, even when providers are self-interested. In contrast, when providers must deploy a single anonymous policy, there exist equilibria with uninformative behavior under the same condition. We then give a stronger alignment condition that guarantees each user their optimal utility in the anonymous setting.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Emergent Alignment via Competition

Aligning AI systems with human values remains a fundamental challenge, but does our inability to create perfectly aligned models preclude obtaining the benefits of alignment? We study a strategic setting where a human user interacts with multiple differently misaligned AI agents, none of which are individually well-aligned. Our key insight is that when the users utility lies approximately within the convex hull of the agents utilities, a condition that becomes easier to satisfy as model diversity increases, strategic competition can yield outcomes comparable to interacting with a perfectly aligned model. We model this as a multi-leader Stackelberg game, extending Bayesian persuasion to multi-round conversations between differently informed parties, and prove three results: (1) when perfect alignment would allow the user to learn her Bayes-optimal action, she can also do so in all equilibria under the convex hull condition (2) under weaker assumptions requiring only approximate utility learning, a non-strategic user employing quantal response achieves near-optimal utility in all equilibria and (3) when the user selects the best single AI after an evaluation period, equilibrium guarantees remain near-optimal without further distributional assumptions. We complement the theory with two sets of experiments.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Near-Optimal Dropout-Robust Sortition

Citizens' assemblies - small panels of citizens that convene to deliberate on policy issues - often face the issue of panelists dropping out at the last-minute. Without intervention, these dropouts compromise the size and representativeness of the panel, prompting the question: Without seeing the dropouts ahead of time, can we choose panelists such that after dropouts, the panel will be representative and appropriately-sized? We model this problem as a minimax game: the minimizer aims to choose a panel that minimizes the loss, i.e., the deviation of the ultimate panel from predefined representation targets. Then, an adversary defines a distribution over dropouts from which the realized dropouts are drawn. Our main contribution is an efficient loss-minimizing algorithm, which remains optimal as we vary the maximizer's power from worst case to average case. Our algorithm - which iteratively plays a projected gradient descent subroutine against an efficient algorithm for computing the best-response dropout distribution - also addresses a key open question in the area: how to manage dropouts while ensuring that each potential panelist is chosen with relatively equal probabilities. Using real-world datasets, we compare our algorithms to existing benchmarks, and we offer the first characterizations of tradeoffs between robustness, loss, and equality in this problem.

cs.GT↗