Jens Ludwig

Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan, Ashesh Rambachan

How can we use the novel capacities of large language models (LLMs) in empirical research? And how can we do so while accounting for their limitations, which are themselves only poorly understood? We develop an econometric framework to answer this question that distinguishes between two types of empirical tasks. Using LLMs for prediction problems (including hypothesis generation) is valid under one condition: no ``leakage'' between the LLM's training dataset and the researcher's sample. No leakage can be ensured by using open-source LLMs with documented training data and published weights. Using LLM outputs for estimation problems to automate the measurement of some economic concept (expressed either by some text or from human subjects) requires the researcher to collect at least some validation data: without such data, the errors of the LLM's automation cannot be assessed and accounted for. As long as these steps are taken, LLM outputs can be used in empirical research with the familiar econometric guarantees we desire. Using two illustrative applications to finance and political economy, we find that these requirements are stringent; when they are violated, the limitations of LLMs now result in unreliable empirical estimates. Our results suggest the excitement around the empirical uses of LLMs is warranted -- they allow researchers to effectively use even small amounts of language data for both prediction and estimation -- but only with these safeguards in place.

Jon Kleinberg, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan et al.

The law forbids discrimination. But the ambiguity of human decision-making often makes it extraordinarily hard for the legal system to know whether anyone has actually discriminated. To understand how algorithms affect discrimination, we must therefore also understand how they affect the problem of detecting discrimination. By one measure, algorithms are fundamentally opaque, not just cognitively but even mathematically. Yet for the task of proving discrimination, processes involving algorithms can provide crucial forms of transparency that are otherwise unavailable. These benefits do not happen automatically. But with appropriate requirements in place, the use of algorithms will make it possible to more easily examine and interrogate the entire decision process, thereby making it far easier to know whether discrimination has occurred. By forcing a new level of specificity, the use of algorithms also highlights, and makes transparent, central tradeoffs among competing values. Algorithms are not only a threat to be regulated; with the right safeguards in place, they have the potential to be a positive force for equity.

Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan, Jann Spiess

In this paper we present tools for applied researchers that re-purpose off-the-shelf methods from the computer-science field of machine learning to create a "discovery engine" for data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The applied problem we seek to solve is that economists invest vast resources into carrying out RCTs, including the collection of a rich set of candidate outcome measures. But given concerns about inference in the presence of multiple testing, economists usually wind up exploring just a small subset of the hypotheses that the available data could be used to test. This prevents us from extracting as much information as possible from each RCT, which in turn impairs our ability to develop new theories or strengthen the design of policy interventions. Our proposed solution combines the basic intuition of reverse regression, where the dependent variable of interest now becomes treatment assignment itself, with methods from machine learning that use the data themselves to flexibly identify whether there is any function of the outcomes that predicts (or has signal about) treatment group status. This leads to correctly-sized tests with appropriate $p$-values, which also have the important virtue of being easy to implement in practice. One open challenge that remains with our work is how to meaningfully interpret the signal that these methods find.