arXiv subjects

Grant Schoenebeck

Publications and source records attributed to Grant Schoenebeck.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Agentic AI: User Empowerment or Foreclosure?

Agentic AI promises systems that can act on users' behalf, from filtering content to negotiating prices to selecting services. Whether it will empower users is an open question, and one that depends on more than the technology. We conduct a comparative case analysis of four earlier, more mature domains in which similar forms of agency emerged: browser-based ad blockers, platform recommender systems, financial robo-advisors, and email spam filtering. Across the cases, questions about whose interests agents would serve were resolved through technical arrangements: API choices, protocol governance, industry standards, and default configurations. Beyond their technical form, these were political decisions. We identify this settling of contestable questions in a technical form as depoliticization, a concept from political theory, here at work in technological systems. Its most consequential effect is that individual outcomes and collective contestation capacity can move in opposite directions: spam inbox quality improved substantially while the organized capacity to contest spam governance collapsed. Where intermediary institutions sustained formal channels for challenge, user-aligned agency proved more durable; where proprietary infrastructure and closed standard-setting absorbed contestation, the material basis for user-aligned alternatives was dismantled, and the loss proved hard to reverse. Applying this lens to agentic AI, we find a similar pattern forming: governance is consolidating around the Model Context Protocol and the Agentic AI Foundation, an industry-governed venue already deciding what agents will be able to do. Unlike in the completed trajectories, these decisions have not yet hardened, and remain open to challenge by users and the public.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Scoring Rules! Statistical and Strategic Alignment for Text Evaluation Metrics

Reference-based text evaluation metrics, which are widely used to assess natural language generation systems, score a candidate response by comparing it with a reference response. The reliability of an evaluation metric is usually judged by its statistical correlation with human ratings. However, as these metrics are increasingly used as optimization objectives, correlation alone is no longer sufficient: agents may strategically game the evaluation metric. We study this issue through two complementary notions of alignment. A metric is statistically aligned if it correlates with human ratings and strategically aligned if it resists perturbations that do not add task-relevant information. We make two contributions. First, we propose test principles for reference-based metrics consisting of human-rating correlation, degradation sensitivity, and manipulation robustness. These principles evaluate whether a metric agrees with human judgments, penalizes low-effort information loss, and resists strategic score inflation. Second, we develop a unified design framework for mutual-information-based metrics that decomposes existing and new metrics into four choices: information measure, estimation method, text representation, and prediction mechanism. Across peer review, summarization, and question answering, we find that strong human-rating correlation does not imply strategic alignment: LLM-as-a-Judge achieves high correlation but is susceptible to manipulation. In contrast, mutual-information-based metrics substantially improve manipulation robustness. Our framework also uncovers a new metric that achieves the strongest overall robustness in our experiments while remaining competitive on human-rating correlation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

AnnotateThis: Analyzing a human-LLM system for annotating social media data with the concept of climate change mitigation pessimism

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being integrated into research workflows. However, LLMs have been shown to struggle with difficult and nuanced concepts such as those found in computational social science (CSS) research. Within the CSS community, there has been a call for new systems to be developed which center humans in LLM-supported scientific workflows. We develop AnnotateThis, a human-centered system for inspecting and improving LLM annotations, a process we refer to as LLM grounding for a target concept. AnnotateThis is developed with both computational and social scientists to reflect existing workflows for data annotation. It includes a range of information features for users to interrogate the quality and reliability of LLM annotations. We evaluate our system in two settings. In the first, we assume a researcher may not have access to ground truth data and that users of AnnotateThis have limited prior knowledge of the concept they would like an LLM to annotate. That is, they may be conducting concept specification and LLM grounding simultaneously. In the second setting, we assume access to ground truth labels and that the concept is specified for a given annotation task; here, the task of LLM grounding is more straightforward. We find that in both settings users can improve the quality of LLM annotations with AnnotateThis and that their final annotations far surpass those created without human intervention. For example, when we evaluate with ground truth labels, we see an absolute improvement of 0.15 in F-Measure and 0.23 in accuracy over a fully automated state-of-the-art method for prompt refinement.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Ad Insertion in LLM-Generated Responses

Sustainable monetization of large language models (LLMs) remains a critical open challenge. Traditional search advertising, which relies on static keywords, fails to capture the fleeting, context-dependent user intent---the specific information, goods, or services a user seeks---embedded in conversational flows. Beyond the standard goal of social welfare maximization effective LLM advertising requires contextual coherence (aligning ads semantically with transient user intent), computational efficiency (avoiding user-facing latency), and adherence to ethical and regulatory standards, including privacy preservation and explicit ad disclosure. Although recent solutions have explored bidding at the token and query levels, neither category holistically satisfies these constraints. We propose a framework that resolves these tensions through two decoupling strategies. First, we decouple ad insertion from response generation to facilitate pre-screening and explicit disclosure. Second, we decouple bidding from specific user queries by using ``genres'' (high-level semantic clusters) as a proxy. This allows advertisers to bid on stable categories rather than sensitive real-time responses, reducing computational burden and privacy risks. Applying the VCG auction mechanism to this genre-based framework provides approximate guarantees for dominant-strategy incentive compatibility (DSIC), individual rationality (IR), and social welfare. In synthetic experiments with $10^5$ advertisers and 100 candidate slots, VCG clears in approximately 1.25 seconds on a consumer-grade laptop. Finally, we introduce an ``LLM-as-a-Judge'' metric for estimating contextual coherence. Its predictions correlate with mean human ratings at Spearman's $\rho\approx 0.66$ and have a higher correlation with the leave-one-out group mean than 29 of 36 individual raters (80.6\%).

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

The Ideological Turing Test for Moderation of Outgroup Affective Animosity

Rising animosity toward ideological opponents poses critical societal challenges. We introduce and test the Ideological Turing Test, a gamified framework requiring participants to adopt and defend opposing viewpoints, to reduce affective animosity and affective polarization. We conducted a mixed-design experiment ($N = 203$) with four conditions: modality (debate/writing) x perspective-taking (Own/Opposite side). Participants engaged in structured interactions defending assigned positions, with outcomes judged by peers. We measured changes in affective animosity and ideological position immediately post-intervention and at 2-6 week follow-up. Perspective-taking reduced out-group animosity and ideological polarization. However, effects differed by modality (writing vs. debate) and over time. For affective animosity, writing from the opposite perspective yielded the largest immediate reduction ($\Delta=+0.45$ SD), but the effect was not detectable at the 4-6 week follow-up. In contrast, the debate modality maintained a statistically significant reduction in animosity immediately after and at follow-up ($\Delta=+0.37$ SD). For ideological position, adopting the opposite perspective led to significant immediate movement across modalities (writing: $\Delta=+0.91$ SD; debate: $\Delta=+0.51$ SD), and these changes persisted at follow-up. Judged performance (winning) did not moderate these effects, and willingness to re-participate was similar across conditions (~20-36%). These findings challenge assumptions about adversarial methods, revealing distinct temporal patterns: non-adversarial engagement fosters short-term empathy gains, while cognitive engagement through debate sustains affective benefits. The Ideological Turing Test demonstrates potential as a scalable tool for reducing polarization, particularly when combining perspective-taking with reflective adversarial interactions.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Stochastically Dominant Peer Prediction

Eliciting reliable human feedback is essential for many machine learning tasks, such as learning from noisy labels and aligning AI systems with human preferences. Peer prediction mechanisms incentivize truthful reporting without ground truth verification by scoring agents based on correlations with peers. Traditional mechanisms, which ensure that truth-telling maximizes the expected scores in equilibrium, can elicit honest information while assuming agents' utilities are linear functions of their scores. However, in practice, non-linear payment rules are usually preferred, or agents' utilities are inherently non-linear. We propose stochastically dominant truthfulness (SD-truthfulness) as a stronger guarantee: the score distribution of truth-telling stochastically dominates all other strategies, incentivizing truthful reporting for a wide range of monotone utility functions. Our first observation is that no existing peer prediction mechanism naturally satisfies this criterion without strong assumptions. A simple solution -- rounding scores into binary lotteries -- can enforce SD-truthfulness, but often degrades sensitivity, a key property related to fairness and statistical efficiency. We demonstrate how a more careful application of rounding can better preserve sensitivity. Furthermore, we introduce a new enforced agreement (EA) mechanism that is theoretically guaranteed to be SD-truthful in binary-signal settings under mild assumptions, and empirically achieves the highest sensitivity among all known SD-truthful mechanisms.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

The Art of Two-Round Voting

We study the voting problem with two alternatives where voters' preferences depend on a not-directly-observable state variable. While equilibria in the one-round voting mechanisms lead to a good decision, they are usually hard to compute and follow. We consider the two-round voting mechanism where the first round serves as a polling stage and the winning alternative only depends on the outcome of the second round. We show that the two-round voting mechanism is a powerful tool for making collective decisions. Firstly, every (approximated) equilibrium in the two-round voting mechanisms (asymptotically) leads to the decision preferred by the majority as if the state of the world were revealed to the voters. Moreover, there exist natural equilibria in the two-round game following intuitive behaviors such as informative voting, sincere voting [Austen-Smith and Banks, 1996], and the surprisingly popular strategy [Prelec et al., 2017]. This sharply contrasts with the one-round voting mechanisms in the previous literature, where no simple equilibrium is known. Finally, we show that every equilibrium in the standard one-round majority vote mechanism gives an equilibrium in the two-round mechanisms that is not more complicated than the one-round equilibrium. Therefore, the two-round voting mechanism provides a natural equilibrium in every instance, including those where one-round voting fails to have a natural solution, and it can reach an informed majority decision whenever one-round voting can. Our experiments on generative AI voters also imply that two-round voting leads to the correct outcome more often than one-round voting under some circumstances.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Aggregating Information and Preferences with Bounded-Size Deviations

We investigate a voting scenario with two groups of agents whose preferences depend on a ground truth that cannot be directly observed. The majority's preferences align with the ground truth, while the minorities disagree. Focusing on strategic behavior, we analyze situations where agents can form coalitions up to a certain capacity and adopt the concept of ex-ante Bayesian $k$-strong equilibrium, in which no group of at most $k$ agents has an incentive to deviate. Our analysis provides a complete characterization of the region where equilibria exist and yield the majority-preferred outcome when the ground truth is common knowledge. This region is defined by two key parameters: the size of the majority group and the maximum coalition capacity. When agents cannot coordinate beyond a certain threshold determined by these parameters, a stable outcome supporting the informed majority emerges. The boundary of this region exhibits several distinct segments, notably including a surprising non-linear relationship between majority size and deviation capacity. Our results reveal the complexity of the strategic behaviors in this type of voting game, which in turn demonstrate the capability of the ex-ante Bayesian $k$-strong equilibrium to provide a more detailed analysis.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Strong Equilibria in Bayesian Games with Bounded Group Size

We study the group strategic behaviors in Bayesian games. Equilibria in previous work do not consider group strategic behaviors with bounded sizes and are too ``strong'' to exist in many scenarios. We propose the ex-ante Bayesian $k$-strong equilibrium and the Bayesian $k$-strong equilibrium, where no group of at most $k$ agents can benefit from deviation. The two solution concepts differ in how agents calculate their utilities when contemplating whether a deviation is beneficial. Intuitively, agents are more conservative in the Bayesian $k$-strong equilibrium than in the ex-ante Bayesian $k$-strong equilibrium. With our solution concepts, we study collusion in the peer prediction mechanisms, as a representative of the Bayesian games with group strategic behaviors. We characterize the thresholds of the group size $k$ so that truthful reporting in the peer prediction mechanism is an equilibrium for each solution concept, respectively. Our solution concepts can serve as criteria to evaluate the robustness of a peer prediction mechanism against collusion. Besides the peer prediction problem, we also discuss two other potential applications of our new solution concepts, voting and Blotto games, where introducing bounded group sizes provides more fine-grained insights into the behavior of strategic agents.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Recommendation and Temptation

Traditional recommender systems based on revealed preferences often fail to capture the fundamental duality in user behavior, where consumption choices are driven by both inherent value (enrichment) and instant appeal (temptation). Consequently, these systems may generate recommendations that prioritize short-term engagement over long-lasting user satisfaction. We propose a novel recommender design that explicitly models the tension between enrichment and temptation. We introduce a behavioral model that accounts for how both enrichment and temptation influence user choices, while incorporating the reality of off-platform alternatives. Building on this model, we formulate a novel recommendation objective aligned with maximizing consumed enrichment and prove the optimality of a locally greedy recommendation strategy. Finally, we present an estimation framework that leverages the distinction between explicit user feedback and implicit choice data while making minimal assumptions about off-platform options. Through comprehensive evaluation using both synthetic simulations and real-world data from the MovieLens dataset, we demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms competitive baselines that ignore temptation dynamics either by assuming revealed preferences or recommending solely based on enrichment. Our work represents a paradigm shift toward more nuanced and user-centric recommender design, with significant implications for developing responsible AI systems that genuinely serve users' long-term interests rather than merely maximizing engagement.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2024

Benchmarking LLMs' Judgments with No Gold Standard

We introduce the GEM (Generative Estimator for Mutual Information), an evaluation metric for assessing language generation by Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly in generating informative judgments, without the need for a gold standard reference. GEM broadens the scenarios where we can benchmark LLM generation performance-from traditional ones, like machine translation and summarization, where gold standard references are readily available, to subjective tasks without clear gold standards, such as academic peer review. GEM uses a generative model to estimate mutual information between candidate and reference responses, without requiring the reference to be a gold standard. In experiments on a human-annotated dataset, GEM demonstrates competitive correlations with human scores compared to the state-of-the-art GPT-4o Examiner, and outperforms all other baselines. Additionally, GEM is more robust against strategic manipulations, such as rephrasing or elongation, which can artificially inflate scores under a GPT-4o Examiner. We also present GRE-bench (Generating Review Evaluation Benchmark) which evaluates LLMs based on how well they can generate high-quality peer reviews for academic research papers. Because GRE-bench is based upon GEM, it inherits its robustness properties. Additionally, GRE-bench circumvents data contamination problems (or data leakage) by using the continuous influx of new open-access research papers and peer reviews each year. We show GRE-bench results of various popular LLMs on their peer review capabilities using the ICLR2023 dataset.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Eliciting Informative Text Evaluations with Large Language Models

Peer prediction mechanisms motivate high-quality feedback with provable guarantees. However, current methods only apply to rather simple reports, like multiple-choice or scalar numbers. We aim to broaden these techniques to the larger domain of text-based reports, drawing on the recent developments in large language models. This vastly increases the applicability of peer prediction mechanisms as textual feedback is the norm in a large variety of feedback channels: peer reviews, e-commerce customer reviews, and comments on social media. We introduce two mechanisms, the Generative Peer Prediction Mechanism (GPPM) and the Generative Synopsis Peer Prediction Mechanism (GSPPM). These mechanisms utilize LLMs as predictors, mapping from one agent's report to a prediction of her peer's report. Theoretically, we show that when the LLM prediction is sufficiently accurate, our mechanisms can incentivize high effort and truth-telling as an (approximate) Bayesian Nash equilibrium. Empirically, we confirm the efficacy of our mechanisms through experiments conducted on two real datasets: the Yelp review dataset and the ICLR OpenReview dataset. We highlight the results that on the ICLR dataset, our mechanisms can differentiate three quality levels -- human-written reviews, GPT-4-generated reviews, and GPT-3.5-generated reviews in terms of expected scores. Additionally, GSPPM penalizes LLM-generated reviews more effectively than GPPM.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Exit Ripple Effects: Understanding the Disruption of Socialization Networks Following Employee Departures

Amidst growing uncertainty and frequent restructurings, the impacts of employee exits are becoming one of the central concerns for organizations. Using rich communication data from a large holding company, we examine the effects of employee departures on socialization networks among the remaining coworkers. Specifically, we investigate how network metrics change among people who historically interacted with departing employees. We find evidence of ``breakdown" in communication among the remaining coworkers, who tend to become less connected with fewer interactions after their coworkers' departure. This effect appears to be moderated by both external factors, such as periods of high organizational stress, and internal factors, such as the characteristics of the departing employee. At the external level, periods of high stress correspond to greater communication breakdown; at the internal level, however, we find patterns suggesting individuals may end up better positioned in their networks after a network neighbor's departure. Overall, our study provides critical insights into managing workforce changes and preserving communication dynamics in the face of employee exits.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2024

Filter Bubble or Homogenization? Disentangling the Long-Term Effects of Recommendations on User Consumption Patterns

Recommendation algorithms play a pivotal role in shaping our media choices, which makes it crucial to comprehend their long-term impact on user behavior. These algorithms are often linked to two critical outcomes: homogenization, wherein users consume similar content despite disparate underlying preferences, and the filter bubble effect, wherein individuals with differing preferences only consume content aligned with their preferences (without much overlap with other users). Prior research assumes a trade-off between homogenization and filter bubble effects and then shows that personalized recommendations mitigate filter bubbles by fostering homogenization. However, because of this assumption of a tradeoff between these two effects, prior work cannot develop a more nuanced view of how recommendation systems may independently impact homogenization and filter bubble effects. We develop a more refined definition of homogenization and the filter bubble effect by decomposing them into two key metrics: how different the average consumption is between users (inter-user diversity) and how varied an individual's consumption is (intra-user diversity). We then use a novel agent-based simulation framework that enables a holistic view of the impact of recommendation systems on homogenization and filter bubble effects. Our simulations show that traditional recommendation algorithms (based on past behavior) mainly reduce filter bubbles by affecting inter-user diversity without significantly impacting intra-user diversity. Building on these findings, we introduce two new recommendation algorithms that take a more nuanced approach by accounting for both types of diversity.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Spot Check Equivalence: an Interpretable Metric for Information Elicitation Mechanisms

Because high-quality data is like oxygen for AI systems, effectively eliciting information from crowdsourcing workers has become a first-order problem for developing high-performance machine learning algorithms. Two prevalent paradigms, spot-checking and peer prediction, enable the design of mechanisms to evaluate and incentivize high-quality data from human labelers. So far, at least three metrics have been proposed to compare the performances of these techniques [33, 8, 3]. However, different metrics lead to divergent and even contradictory results in various contexts. In this paper, we harmonize these divergent stories, showing that two of these metrics are actually the same within certain contexts and explain the divergence of the third. Moreover, we unify these different contexts by introducing \textit{Spot Check Equivalence}, which offers an interpretable metric for the effectiveness of a peer prediction mechanism. Finally, we present two approaches to compute spot check equivalence in various contexts, where simulation results verify the effectiveness of our proposed metric.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Eliciting Honest Information From Authors Using Sequential Review

In the setting of conference peer review, the conference aims to accept high-quality papers and reject low-quality papers based on noisy review scores. A recent work proposes the isotonic mechanism, which can elicit the ranking of paper qualities from an author with multiple submissions to help improve the conference's decisions. However, the isotonic mechanism relies on the assumption that the author's utility is both an increasing and a convex function with respect to the review score, which is often violated in peer review settings (e.g.~when authors aim to maximize the number of accepted papers). In this paper, we propose a sequential review mechanism that can truthfully elicit the ranking information from authors while only assuming the agent's utility is increasing with respect to the true quality of her accepted papers. The key idea is to review the papers of an author in a sequence based on the provided ranking and conditioning the review of the next paper on the review scores of the previous papers. Advantages of the sequential review mechanism include 1) eliciting truthful ranking information in a more realistic setting than prior work; 2) improving the quality of accepted papers, reducing the reviewing workload and increasing the average quality of papers being reviewed; 3) incentivizing authors to write fewer papers of higher quality.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2023

The Wisdom of Strategic Voting

We study the voting game where agents' preferences are endogenously decided by the information they receive, and they can collaborate in a group. We show that strategic voting behaviors have a positive impact on leading to the ``correct'' decision, outperforming the common non-strategic behavior of informative voting and sincere voting. Our results give merit to strategic voting for making good decisions. To this end, we investigate a natural model, where voters' preferences between two alternatives depend on a discrete state variable that is not directly observable. Each voter receives a private signal that is correlated with the state variable. We reveal a surprising equilibrium between a strategy profile being a strong equilibrium and leading to the decision favored by the majority of agents conditioned on them knowing the ground truth (referred to as the informed majority decision): as the size of the vote goes to infinity, every $\varepsilon$-strong Bayes Nash Equilibrium with $\varepsilon$ converging to $0$ formed by strategic agents leads to the informed majority decision with probability converging to $1$. On the other hand, we show that informative voting leads to the informed majority decision only under unbiased instances, and sincere voting leads to the informed majority decision only when it also forms an equilibrium.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2023

A System-Level Analysis of Conference Peer Review

The conference peer review process involves three constituencies with different objectives: authors want their papers accepted at prestigious venues (and quickly), conferences want to present a program with many high-quality and few low-quality papers, and reviewers want to avoid being overburdened by reviews. These objectives are far from aligned, primarily because the evaluation of a submission is inherently noisy. Over the years, conferences have experimented with numerous policies to navigate the tradeoffs. These experiments include setting various bars for acceptance, varying the number of reviews per submission, requiring prior reviews to be included with resubmissions, and others. In this work, we investigate, both analytically and empirically, how well various policies work, and more importantly, why they do or do not work. We model the conference-author interactions as a Stackelberg game in which a prestigious conference commits to an acceptance policy; the authors best-respond by (re)submitting or not (re)submitting to the conference in each round of review, the alternative being a "sure accept" (such as a lightly refereed venue). Our main results include the following observations: 1) the conference should typically set a higher acceptance threshold than the actual desired quality; we call this the "resubmission gap". 2) the reviewing load is heavily driven by resubmissions of borderline papers - therefore, a judicious choice of acceptance threshold may lead to fewer reviews while incurring an acceptable loss in conference quality. 3) conference prestige, reviewer inaccuracy, and author patience increase the resubmission gap, and thus increase the review load for a fixed level of conference quality. For robustness, we further consider different models of paper quality and compare our theoretical results to simulations based on plausible parameters estimated from real data.

cs.GT↗