User-item fairness tradeoffs in recommendations

In the basic recommendation paradigm, the most (predicted) relevant item is recommended to each user. This may result in some items receiving lower exposure than they "should"; to counter this, several algorithmic approaches have been developed to ensure item fairness. These approaches necessarily degrade recommendations for some users to improve outcomes for items, leading to user fairness concerns. In turn, a recent line of work has focused on developing algorithms for multi-sided fairness, to jointly optimize user fairness, item fairness, and overall recommendation quality. This induces the question: what is the tradeoff between these objectives, and what are the characteristics of (multi-objective) optimal solutions? Theoretically, we develop a model of recommendations with user and item fairness objectives and characterize the solutions of fairness-constrained optimization. We identify two phenomena: (a) when user preferences are diverse, there is "free" item and user fairness; and (b) users whose preferences are misestimated can be especially disadvantaged by item fairness constraints. Empirically, we prototype a recommendation system for preprints on arXiv and implement our framework, measuring the phenomena in practice and showing how these phenomena inform the design of markets with recommendation systems-intermediated matching.

A No Free Lunch Theorem for Human-AI Collaboration

The gold standard in human-AI collaboration is complementarity -- when combined performance exceeds both the human and algorithm alone. We investigate this challenge in binary classification settings where the goal is to maximize 0-1 accuracy. Given two or more agents who can make calibrated probabilistic predictions, we show a "No Free Lunch"-style result. Any deterministic collaboration strategy (a function mapping calibrated probabilities into binary classifications) that does not essentially always defer to the same agent will sometimes perform worse than the least accurate agent. In other words, complementarity cannot be achieved "for free." The result does suggest one model of collaboration with guarantees, where one agent identifies "obvious" errors of the other agent. We also use the result to understand the necessary conditions enabling the success of other collaboration techniques, providing guidance to human-AI collaboration.

Addressing Discretization-Induced Bias in Demographic Prediction

Racial and other demographic imputation is necessary for many applications, especially in auditing disparities and outreach targeting in political campaigns. The canonical approach is to construct continuous predictions -- e.g., based on name and geography -- and then to $\textit{discretize}$ the predictions by selecting the most likely class (argmax). We study how this practice produces $\textit{discretization bias}$. In particular, we show that argmax labeling, as used by a prominent commercial voter file vendor to impute race/ethnicity, results in a substantial under-count of African-American voters, e.g., by 28.2% points in North Carolina. This bias can have substantial implications in downstream tasks that use such labels. We then introduce a $\textit{joint optimization}$ approach -- and a tractable $\textit{data-driven thresholding}$ heuristic -- that can eliminate this bias, with negligible individual-level accuracy loss. Finally, we theoretically analyze discretization bias, show that calibrated continuous models are insufficient to eliminate it, and that an approach such as ours is necessary. Broadly, we warn researchers and practitioners against discretizing continuous demographic predictions without considering downstream consequences.

A Bayesian Spatial Model to Correct Under-Reporting in Urban Crowdsourcing

Decision-makers often observe the occurrence of events through a reporting process. City governments, for example, rely on resident reports to find and then resolve urban infrastructural problems such as fallen street trees, flooded basements, or rat infestations. Without additional assumptions, there is no way to distinguish events that occur but are not reported from events that truly did not occur--a fundamental problem in settings with positive-unlabeled data. Because disparities in reporting rates correlate with resident demographics, addressing incidents only on the basis of reports leads to systematic neglect in neighborhoods that are less likely to report events. We show how to overcome this challenge by leveraging the fact that events are spatially correlated. Our framework uses a Bayesian spatial latent variable model to infer event occurrence probabilities and applies it to storm-induced flooding reports in New York City, further pooling results across multiple storms. We show that a model accounting for under-reporting and spatial correlation predicts future reports more accurately than other models, and further induces a more equitable set of inspections: its allocations better reflect the population and provide equitable service to non-white, less traditionally educated, and lower-income residents. This finding reflects heterogeneous reporting behavior learned by the model: reporting rates are higher in Census tracts with higher populations, proportions of white residents, and proportions of owner-occupied households. Our work lays the groundwork for more equitable proactive government services, even with disparate reporting behavior.

Domain constraints improve risk prediction when outcome data is missing

Machine learning models are often trained to predict the outcome resulting from a human decision. For example, if a doctor decides to test a patient for disease, will the patient test positive? A challenge is that the human decision censors the outcome data: we only observe test outcomes for patients doctors historically tested. Untested patients, for whom outcomes are unobserved, may differ from tested patients along observed and unobserved dimensions. We propose a Bayesian model class which captures this setting. The purpose of the model is to accurately estimate risk for both tested and untested patients. Estimating this model is challenging due to the wide range of possibilities for untested patients. To address this, we propose two domain constraints which are plausible in health settings: a prevalence constraint, where the overall disease prevalence is known, and an expertise constraint, where the human decision-maker deviates from purely risk-based decision-making only along a constrained feature set. We show theoretically and on synthetic data that domain constraints improve parameter inference. We apply our model to a case study of cancer risk prediction, showing that the model's inferred risk predicts cancer diagnoses, its inferred testing policy captures known public health policies, and it can identify suboptimalities in test allocation. Though our case study is in healthcare, our analysis reveals a general class of domain constraints which can improve model estimation in many settings.

Reconciling the accuracy-diversity trade-off in recommendations

In recommendation settings, there is an apparent trade-off between the goals of accuracy (to recommend items a user is most likely to want) and diversity (to recommend items representing a range of categories). As such, real-world recommender systems often explicitly incorporate diversity separately from accuracy. This approach, however, leaves a basic question unanswered: Why is there a trade-off in the first place? We show how the trade-off can be explained via a user's consumption constraints -- users typically only consume a few of the items they are recommended. In a stylized model we introduce, objectives that account for this constraint induce diverse recommendations, while objectives that do not account for this constraint induce homogeneous recommendations. This suggests that accuracy and diversity appear misaligned because standard accuracy metrics do not consider consumption constraints. Our model yields precise and interpretable characterizations of diversity in different settings, giving practical insights into the design of diverse recommendations.

Interface Design to Mitigate Inflation in Recommender Systems

Recommendation systems rely on user-provided data to learn about item quality and provide personalized recommendations. An implicit assumption when aggregating ratings into item quality is that ratings are strong indicators of item quality. In this work, we test this assumption using data collected from a music discovery application. Our study focuses on two factors that cause rating inflation: heterogeneous user rating behavior and the dynamics of personalized recommendations. We show that user rating behavior substantially varies by user, leading to item quality estimates that reflect the users who rated an item more than the item quality itself. Additionally, items that are more likely to be shown via personalized recommendations can experience a substantial increase in their exposure and potential bias toward them. To mitigate these effects, we analyze the results of a randomized controlled trial in which the rating interface was modified. The test resulted in a substantial improvement in user rating behavior and a reduction in item quality inflation. These findings highlight the importance of carefully considering the assumptions underlying recommendation systems and designing interfaces that encourage accurate rating behavior.

Large language models shape and are shaped by society: A survey of arXiv publication patterns

There has been a steep recent increase in the number of large language model (LLM) papers, producing a dramatic shift in the scientific landscape which remains largely undocumented through bibliometric analysis. Here, we analyze 388K papers posted on the CS and Stat arXivs, focusing on changes in publication patterns in 2023 vs. 2018-2022. We analyze how the proportion of LLM papers is increasing; the LLM-related topics receiving the most attention; the authors writing LLM papers; how authors' research topics correlate with their backgrounds; the factors distinguishing highly cited LLM papers; and the patterns of international collaboration. We show that LLM research increasingly focuses on societal impacts: there has been an 18x increase in the proportion of LLM-related papers on the Computers and Society sub-arXiv, and authors newly publishing on LLMs are more likely to focus on applications and societal impacts than more experienced authors. LLM research is also shaped by social dynamics: we document gender and academic/industry disparities in the topics LLM authors focus on, and a US/China schism in the collaboration network. Overall, our analysis documents the profound ways in which LLM research both shapes and is shaped by society, attesting to the necessity of sociotechnical lenses.

Reflections from the Workshop on AI-Assisted Decision Making for Conservation

In this white paper, we synthesize key points made during presentations and discussions from the AI-Assisted Decision Making for Conservation workshop, hosted by the Center for Research on Computation and Society at Harvard University on October 20-21, 2022. We identify key open research questions in resource allocation, planning, and interventions for biodiversity conservation, highlighting conservation challenges that not only require AI solutions, but also require novel methodological advances. In addition to providing a summary of the workshop talks and discussions, we hope this document serves as a call-to-action to orient the expansion of algorithmic decision-making approaches to prioritize real-world conservation challenges, through collaborative efforts of ecologists, conservation decision-makers, and AI researchers.

Choosing the Right Weights: Balancing Value, Strategy, and Noise in Recommender Systems

Many recommender systems are based on optimizing a linear weighting of different user behaviors, such as clicks, likes, shares, etc. Though the choice of weights can have a significant impact, there is little formal study or guidance on how to choose them. We analyze the optimal choice of weights from the perspectives of both users and content producers who strategically respond to the weights. We consider three aspects of user behavior: value-faithfulness (how well a behavior indicates whether the user values the content), strategy-robustness (how hard it is for producers to manipulate the behavior), and noisiness (how much estimation error there is in predicting the behavior). Our theoretical results show that for users, upweighting more value-faithful and less noisy behaviors leads to higher utility, while for producers, upweighting more value-faithful and strategy-robust behaviors leads to higher welfare (and the impact of noise is non-monotonic). Finally, we discuss how our results can help system designers select weights in practice.