Adaptive maximization of social welfare

Overview

• The paper explores the problem of repeatedly choosing policies to maximize social welfare, which is a weighted sum of private utility and public revenue.
• Earlier outcomes inform later policy decisions, and utility is not directly observed but inferred indirectly.
• The authors derive a lower bound on regret and a matching adversarial upper bound for a variant of the Exp3 algorithm.
• They show that welfare maximization is harder than the multi-armed bandit problem, and their algorithm achieves the optimal rate of regret growth.
• For the stochastic setting, the authors can achieve a better regret rate using a dyadic search algorithm if social welfare is concave.
• The paper also analyzes an extension to nonlinear income taxation and sketches an extension to commodity taxation, and compares the setting to monopoly pricing and price setting for bilateral trade.

Plain English Explanation

The paper looks at the problem of repeatedly choosing policies (like tax rates or government spending) to try to maximize the overall well-being of society, which is a combination of individual people's happiness and the government's revenue. The challenge is that the happiness (or "utility") of individuals is not directly observed, but has to be inferred based on people's responses to the policies.

The researchers derive a mathematical lower bound on how much the overall well-being can be improved over time, and show that their algorithm can match this lower bound. This means their approach is as good as possible at improving social welfare over time. They also show that this problem is actually harder than the classic "multi-armed bandit" problem, where you're trying to maximize rewards from a fixed set of options.

For a special case where the overall well-being has a particular mathematical property (called "concavity"), the researchers can do even better and get faster improvement in well-being over time. They also look at how their approach relates to other economic problems like monopoly pricing and trade negotiations.

The key ideas are finding the best way to learn about people's happiness and use that to make policies that improve overall societal well-being as quickly as possible, even when that happiness is not directly observed.

Technical Explanation

The paper studies the problem of <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/learning-social-welfare-functions">repeatedly choosing policies to maximize social welfare</a>, where welfare is defined as a weighted sum of private utility and public revenue. The key challenge is that utility is not directly observed, but must be <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/maximizing-utility-multi-agent-environments-by-anticipating">indirectly inferred</a> from the policy responses.

The authors derive a lower bound on the regret (difference from optimal welfare) and match it with an adversarial upper bound using a variant of the Exp3 algorithm. They show that <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/non-linear-welfare-aware-strategic-learning">welfare maximization is harder than the multi-armed bandit problem</a>, with a regret growth rate of T^(2/3) compared to T^(1/2) for bandits. This implies their algorithm achieves the optimal rate.

For the stochastic setting, if social welfare is <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/adaptive-combinatorial-maximization-beyond-approximate-greedy-policies">concave</a>, the authors can achieve a better T^(1/2) regret rate using a dyadic search algorithm, for continuous policy sets.

The paper also analyzes an extension to nonlinear income taxation, and sketches an extension to commodity taxation. They <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/no-regret-learning-fair-multi-agent-social">compare their setting to monopoly pricing</a> (which is easier) and price setting for bilateral trade (which is harder).

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a strong theoretical analysis of the welfare maximization problem, deriving tight regret bounds and showing the optimal achievable performance. However, the authors acknowledge that the assumptions, such as the linear form of the welfare function and the specific way utility is inferred, may not always hold in practice.

Additionally, the paper focuses on the asymptotic regret behavior, but does not provide finite-time guarantees or practical guidance on how to implement the algorithms in real-world settings. The extensions to nonlinear taxation and commodity taxation are also limited in scope and would need further development to be applicable.

An interesting avenue for future research would be to relax some of the assumptions, such as allowing for more general welfare functions or considering different utility inference techniques. Empirical validation of the algorithms on realistic policy datasets would also help bridge the gap between the theoretical results and practical applicability.

Conclusion

This paper makes important theoretical contributions to the problem of repeatedly choosing policies to maximize social welfare. It provides a rigorous analysis of the fundamental limits of this problem and presents algorithms that achieve the optimal regret rates.

The insights from this work have potentially significant implications for the design of effective economic and social policies. By understanding the inherent difficulty of the welfare maximization problem and developing principled approaches to address it, policymakers may be better equipped to make informed decisions that improve the overall well-being of the population.

While the theoretical results are compelling, further research is needed to address the practical challenges and limitations identified in the critical analysis. Ongoing efforts to bridge the gap between theory and practice in this domain could lead to transformative advancements in the field of policy optimization and have far-reaching impacts on society.