Daniel G. Goldstein

Brendan Lucier, Nicole Immorlica, Markus Mobius et al.

Motivated by agentic markets -- two-sided markets in which consumers and businesses are assisted by AI tools that facilitate consumers' search -- we study the impact of improved search technology on learning and welfare in markets. We put forth a model where consumers engage in costly search to acquire signals of product fit prior to purchase. The market tracks indications of fit for searched products and indications of quality for chosen products, thereby guiding searches. We characterize the long-run steady-state of the resulting dynamics as well as the impact of improving search technology. We find cheaper search improves learning and consumer surplus, whereas more informative search can degrade both unless the market learns as much as consumers about the products by, for example, ``reading the transcripts'' of agentic conversations. Finally, we consider the impact of search improvements on how businesses set prices. At equilibrium prices in symmetric markets, consumer surplus is improved by cheaper search but may be decreased by more informative search, due to weakened inter-business competition.

Hancheng Cao, Sofia Eleni Spatharioti, Daniel G. Goldstein et al.

Numerical perspectives help people understand extreme and unfamiliar numbers (e.g., \$330 billion is about \$1,000 per person in the United States). While research shows perspectives to be helpful, generating them at scale is challenging both because it is difficult to identify what makes some analogies more helpful than others, and because what is most helpful can vary based on the context in which a given number appears. Here we present and compare three policies for large-scale perspective generation: a rule-based approach, a crowdsourced system, and a model that uses Wikipedia data and semantic similarity (via BERT embeddings) to generate context-specific perspectives. We find that the combination of these three approaches dominates any single method, with different approaches excelling in different settings and users displaying heterogeneous preferences across approaches. We conclude by discussing our deployment of perspectives in a widely-used online word processor.

Gabriel Kaptchuk, Daniel G. Goldstein, Eszter Hargittai et al.

A growing number of contact tracing apps are being developed to complement manual contact tracing. A key question is whether users will be willing to adopt these contact tracing apps. In this work, we survey over 4,500 Americans to evaluate (1) the effect of both accuracy and privacy concerns on reported willingness to install COVID19 contact tracing apps and (2) how different groups of users weight accuracy vs. privacy. Drawing on our findings from these first two research questions, we (3) quantitatively model how the amount of public health benefit (reduction in infection rate), amount of individual benefit (true-positive detection of exposures to COVID), and degree of privacy risk in a hypothetical contact tracing app may influence American's willingness to install. Our work takes a descriptive ethics approach toward offering implications for the development of policy and app designs related to COVID19.

Forough Poursabzi-Sangdeh, Daniel G. Goldstein, Jake M. Hofman et al.

With machine learning models being increasingly used to aid decision making even in high-stakes domains, there has been a growing interest in developing interpretable models. Although many supposedly interpretable models have been proposed, there have been relatively few experimental studies investigating whether these models achieve their intended effects, such as making people more closely follow a model's predictions when it is beneficial for them to do so or enabling them to detect when a model has made a mistake. We present a sequence of pre-registered experiments (N=3,800) in which we showed participants functionally identical models that varied only in two factors commonly thought to make machine learning models more or less interpretable: the number of features and the transparency of the model (i.e., whether the model internals are clear or black box). Predictably, participants who saw a clear model with few features could better simulate the model's predictions. However, we did not find that participants more closely followed its predictions. Furthermore, showing participants a clear model meant that they were less able to detect and correct for the model's sizable mistakes, seemingly due to information overload. These counterintuitive findings emphasize the importance of testing over intuition when developing interpretable models.