Sara Fish

Jonathan Stray, Ian Baker, George Beknazar-Yuzbashev et al. · uw

We report the first direct comparisons of multiple alternative social media algorithms on multiple platforms on outcomes of societal interest. We used a browser extension to modify which posts were shown to desktop social media users, randomly assigning 9,386 users to a control group or one of five alternative ranking algorithms which simultaneously altered content across three platforms for six months during the US 2024 presidential election. This reduced our preregistered index of affective polarization by an average of 0.03 standard deviations (p < 0.05), including a 1.5 degree decrease in differences between the 100 point inparty and outparty feeling thermometers. We saw reductions in active use time for Facebook (-0.37 min/day) and Reddit (-0.2 min/day), but an increase of 0.32 min/day (p < 0.01) for X/Twitter. We saw an increase in reports of negative social media experiences but found no effects on well-being, news knowledge, outgroup empathy, perceptions of and support for partisan violence. This implies that bridging content can improve some societal outcomes without necessarily conflicting with the engagement-driven business model of social media.

Sara Fish, Yannai A. Gonczarowski, Jason Z. Tang et al.

The differentially private (DP) facility location problem seeks to determine a socially optimal placement for a public facility while ensuring that each participating agent's location remains private. To privatize its input data, a DP mechanism must inject noise into its output distribution, producing a placement that will have lower expected social welfare than the optimal spot for the facility. The privacy-induced welfare loss can be viewed as the "cost of privacy," illustrating a tradeoff between social welfare and privacy that has been the focus of prior work. Yet, the imposition of privacy also induces a third consideration that has not been similarly studied: fairness in how the "cost of privacy" is distributed across individuals. For instance, a mechanism may satisfy DP with minimal social welfare loss, yet still be undesirable if that loss falls entirely on one individual. In this paper, we quantify this new notion of unfairness and design mechanisms for facility location that attempt to simultaneously optimize across privacy, social welfare, and fairness. We first derive an impossibility result, showing that privacy and fairness cannot be simultaneously guaranteed over all possible datasets that could represent the locations of individuals in a population. We then consider a relaxation that still requires worst-case DP, but only seeks fairness and social welfare over smaller, more "realistic-looking" families of datasets. For this relaxation, we construct a DP mechanism and demonstrate that it is simultaneously optimal (or, for a harder family of datasets, near-optimal up to small factors) on fairness and social welfare. This suggests that while there is a tradeoff between privacy and each of social welfare and fairness, there is no additional tradeoff when we consider all three objectives simultaneously, provided that the population data is sufficiently natural.

Long Phan, Alice Gatti, Ziwen Han et al. · amazon-science, apple-ml

Benchmarks are important tools for tracking the rapid advancements in large language model (LLM) capabilities. However, benchmarks are not keeping pace in difficulty: LLMs now achieve over 90\% accuracy on popular benchmarks like MMLU, limiting informed measurement of state-of-the-art LLM capabilities. In response, we introduce Humanity's Last Exam (HLE), a multi-modal benchmark at the frontier of human knowledge, designed to be the final closed-ended academic benchmark of its kind with broad subject coverage. HLE consists of 2,500 questions across dozens of subjects, including mathematics, humanities, and the natural sciences. HLE is developed globally by subject-matter experts and consists of multiple-choice and short-answer questions suitable for automated grading. Each question has a known solution that is unambiguous and easily verifiable, but cannot be quickly answered via internet retrieval. State-of-the-art LLMs demonstrate low accuracy and calibration on HLE, highlighting a significant gap between current LLM capabilities and the expert human frontier on closed-ended academic questions. To inform research and policymaking upon a clear understanding of model capabilities, we publicly release HLE at https://lastexam.ai.

Sara Fish, Yannai A. Gonczarowski, Ran I. Shorrer

The rise of algorithmic pricing raises concerns of algorithmic collusion. We conduct experiments with algorithmic pricing agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs). We find that LLM-based pricing agents quickly and autonomously reach supracompetitive prices and profits in oligopoly settings and that variation in seemingly innocuous phrases in LLM instructions ("prompts") may substantially influence the degree of supracompetitive pricing. Off-path analysis using novel techniques uncovers price-war concerns as contributing to these phenomena. Our results extend to auction settings. Our findings uncover unique challenges to any future regulation of LLM-based pricing agents, and AI-based pricing agents more broadly.

Sara Fish, Julia Shephard, Minkai Li et al.

We develop benchmarks for LLM agents that act in, learn from, and strategize in unknown environments, the specifications of which the LLM agent must learn over time from deliberate exploration. Our benchmarks consist of decision-making tasks derived from key problems in economics. To forestall saturation, the benchmark tasks are synthetically generated with scalable difficulty levels. Additionally, we propose litmus tests, a new kind of quantitative measure for LLMs and LLM agents. Unlike benchmarks, litmus tests quantify differences in character, values, and tendencies of LLMs and LLM agents, by considering their behavior when faced with tradeoffs (e.g., efficiency versus equality) where there is no objectively right or wrong behavior. Overall, our benchmarks and litmus tests assess the abilities and tendencies of LLM agents in tackling complex economic problems in diverse settings spanning procurement, scheduling, task allocation, and pricing -- applications that should grow in importance as such agents are further integrated into the economy.

Niclas Boehmer, Sara Fish, Ariel D. Procaccia

A key task in certain democratic processes is to produce a concise slate of statements that proportionally represents the full spectrum of user opinions. This task is similar to committee elections, but unlike traditional settings, the candidate set comprises all possible statements of varying lengths, and so it can only be accessed through specific queries. Combining social choice and large language models, prior work has approached this challenge through a framework of generative social choice. We extend the framework in two fundamental ways, providing theoretical guarantees even in the face of approximately optimal queries and a budget limit on the overall length of the slate. Using GPT-4o to implement queries, we showcase our approach on datasets related to city improvement measures and drug reviews, demonstrating its effectiveness in generating representative slates from unstructured user opinions.

Sara Fish, Paul Gölz, David C. Parkes et al.

The mathematical study of voting, social choice theory, has traditionally only been applicable to choices among a few predetermined alternatives, but not to open-ended decisions such as collectively selecting a textual statement. We introduce generative social choice, a design methodology for open-ended democratic processes that combines the rigor of social choice theory with the capability of large language models to generate text and extrapolate preferences. Our framework divides the design of AI-augmented democratic processes into two components: first, proving that the process satisfies representation guarantees when given access to oracle queries; second, empirically validating that these queries can be approximately implemented using a large language model. We apply this framework to the problem of summarizing free-form opinions into a proportionally representative slate of opinion statements; specifically, we develop a democratic process with representation guarantees and use this process to portray the opinions of participants in a survey about abortion policy. In a trial with 100 representative US residents, we find that 84 out of 100 participants feel "excellently" or "exceptionally" represented by the slate of five statements we extracted.