AI is increasingly making decisions, not only for us, but also about us -- from whether we are invited for an interview, to whether we are proposed as a match for someone looking for a date, to whether we are released on bail. Often, we have some control over the information that is available to the algorithm; we can self-report some information, and other information we can choose to withhold. This creates a potential circularity: the classifier used, mapping submitted information to outcomes, depends on the (training) data that people provide, but the (test) data depend on the classifier, because people will reveal their information strategically to obtain a more favorable outcome. This setting is not adversarial, but it is also not fully cooperative.

Mechanism design provides a framework for making good decisions based on strategically reported information, and it is commonly applied to the design of auctions and matching mechanisms. However, the setting above is unlike these common applications, because in it, preferences tend to be similar across agents, but agents are restricted in what they can report. This creates both new challenges and new opportunities. I will discuss both our theoretical work and our initial experiments.

(This is joint work with Hanrui Zhang, Andrew Kephart, Yu Cheng, Anilesh Krishnaswamy, Haoming Li, and David Rein. Papers on these topics can be found at: https://users.cs.duke.edu/~conitzer/bytopic.html#automated%20mechanism%20design)