Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.5555/3666122.3667685guideproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnipsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Strategic behavior in two-sided matching markets with recommendation-enhanced preference-formation

Published: 10 December 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Two-sided matching markets have long existed to pair agents in the absence of regulated exchanges. A common example is school choice, where a matching mechanism uses student and school preferences to assign students to schools. In such settings, forming preferences is both difficult and critical. Prior work has suggested various prediction mechanisms that help agents make decisions about their preferences. Although often deployed together, these matching and prediction mechanisms are almost always analyzed separately. The present work shows that at the intersection of the two lies a previously unexplored type of strategic behavior: agents returning to the market (e.g., schools) can attack future predictions by interacting short-term non-optimally with their matches. Here, we first introduce this type of strategic behavior, which we call an adversarial interaction attack. Next, we construct a formal economic model that captures the feedback loop between prediction mechanisms designed to assist agents and the matching mechanism used to pair them. Finally, in a simplified setting, we prove that returning agents can benefit from using adversarial interaction attacks and gain progressively more as the trust in and accuracy of predictions increases. We also show that this attack increases inequality in the student population.

Supplementary Material

Additional material (3666122.3667685_supp.pdf)
Supplemental material.

References

[1]
Atila Abdulkadiroglu, Parag A Pathak, Alvin E Roth, and Tayfun Sönmez. 2006. Changing the Boston school choice mechanism: Strategy-proofness as equal access. Mimeographed. Harvard University (2006).
[2]
Atila Abdulkadiroglu and Tayfun Sönmez. 2003. School choice: A mechanism design approach. American economic review 93, 3 (2003), 729-747.
[3]
Avidit Acharya, Kirk Bansak, and Jens Hainmueller. 2019. Combining Outcome-Based and Preference-Based Matching: The g-Constrained Priority Mechanism. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.07355 (2019).
[4]
Raheela Asif, Agathe Merceron, and Mahmood K Pathan. 2014. Predicting student academic performance at degree level: a case study. International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications 7, 1 (2014), 49.
[5]
Kirk Bansak, Jeremy Ferwerda, Jens Hainmueller, Andrea Dillon, Dominik Hangartner, Duncan Lawrence, and Jeremy Weinstein. 2018. Improving refugee integration through data-driven algorithmic assignment. Science 359, 6373 (2018), 325-329.
[6]
Dimitrios Bountouridis, Jaron Harambam, Mykola Makhortykh, Mónica Marrero, Nava Tintarev, and Claudia Hauff. 2019. SIREN: A Simulation Framework for Understanding the Effects of Recommender Systems in Online News Environments. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Atlanta, GA, USA) (FAT* '19). 150-159.
[7]
Eric Budish and Estelle Cantillon. 2012. The multi-unit assignment problem: Theory and evidence from course allocation at Harvard. American Economic Review 102, 5 (2012), 2237-71.
[8]
Konstantina Christakopoulou and Arindam Banerjee. 2019. Adversarial attacks on an oblivious recommender. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 322-330.
[9]
Berkeley J Dietvorst, Joseph P Simmons, and Cade Massey. 2018. Overcoming algorithm aversion: People will use imperfect algorithms if they can (even slightly) modify them. Management Science 64, 3 (2018), 1155-1170.
[10]
Aytek Erdil and Haluk Ergin. 2008. What's the matter with tie-breaking? Improving efficiency in school choice. American Economic Review 98, 3 (2008), 669-89.
[11]
Ling Huang, Anthony D Joseph, Blaine Nelson, Benjamin IP Rubinstein, and J Doug Tygar. 2011. Adversarial machine learning. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM workshop on Security and artificial intelligence. 43-58.
[12]
Eugene Ie, Chih wei Hsu, Martin Mladenov, Vihan Jain, Sanmit Narvekar, Jing Wang, Rui Wu, and Craig Boutilier. 2019. RecSim: A Configurable Simulation Platform for Recommender Systems. (2019). arXiv:1909.04847 [cs.LG]
[13]
Stefania Ionescu, Anikó Hannák, and Kenneth Joseph. 2021. An Agent-based Model to Evaluate Interventions on Online Dating Platforms to Decrease Racial Homogamy. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 412-423.
[14]
Dorina Kabakchieva, Kamelia Stefanova, and Valentin Kisimov. 2010. Analyzing university data for determining student profiles and predicting performance. In Educational Data Mining 2011.
[15]
D Kurniadi, E Abdurachman, HLHS Warnars, and W Suparta. 2019. A proposed framework in an intelligent recommender system for the college student. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1402. IOP Publishing, 066100.
[16]
Bo Li, Yining Wang, Aarti Singh, and Yevgeniy Vorobeychik. 2016. Data poisoning attacks on factorization-based collaborative filtering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.08182 (2016).
[17]
Jennifer M Logg, Julia A Minson, and Don A Moore. 2019. Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 151 (2019), 90-103.
[18]
Onkar Malgonde, He Zhang, Balaji Padmanabhan, and Moez Limayem. 2020. TAMING COMPLEXITY IN SEARCH MATCHING: TWO-SIDED RECOMMENDER SYSTEMS ON DIGITAL PLATFORMS. Mis Quarterly 44, 1 (2020).
[19]
Masoud Mansoury, Himan Abdollahpouri, Mykola Pechenizkiy, Bamshad Mobasher, and Robin Burke. 2020. Feedback Loop and Bias Amplification in Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management (Virtual Event, Ireland) (CIKM '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2145-2148.
[20]
Sean M McNee, John Riedl, and Joseph A Konstan. 2006. Being accurate is not enough: how accuracy metrics have hurt recommender systems. In CHI'06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. 1097-1101.
[21]
Bamshad Mobasher, Robin Burke, Runa Bhaumik, and Chad Williams. 2007. Toward trustworthy recommender systems: An analysis of attack models and algorithm robustness. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT) 7, 4 (2007), 23-es.
[22]
Roger B Myerson. 2013. Game theory. Harvard university press.
[23]
Michael O'Mahony, Neil Hurley, Nicholas Kushmerick, and Guénolé Silvestre. 2004. Collaborative recommendation: A robustness analysis. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT) 4, 4 (2004), 344-377.
[24]
Ioannis Paparrizos, B Barla Cambazoglu, and Aristides Gionis. 2011. Machine learned job recommendation. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 325-328.
[25]
Alvin E Roth. 1982. The economics of matching: Stability and incentives. Mathematics of operations research 7, 4 (1982), 617-628.
[26]
Alvin E Roth and Marilda Sotomayor. 1992. Two-sided matching. Handbook of game theory with economic applications 1 (1992), 485-541.
[27]
David C Wilson, Suzanne Leland, Kenneth Godwin, Andrew Baxter, Ashley Levy, Jamie Smart, Nadia Najjar, and Jayakrishnan Andaparambil. 2009. SmartChoice: An online recommender system to support low-income families in public school choice. AI Magazine 30, 2 (2009), 46-46.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide Proceedings
NIPS '23: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems
December 2023
80772 pages

Publisher

Curran Associates Inc.

Red Hook, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 10 December 2023

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 0
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 25 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media