Crystal Qian

Jerry Luo, Cosmin Paduraru, Octavian Voicu et al. · deepmind

This paper is a technical overview of DeepMind and Google's recent work on reinforcement learning for controlling commercial cooling systems. Building on expertise that began with cooling Google's data centers more efficiently, we recently conducted live experiments on two real-world facilities in partnership with Trane Technologies, a building management system provider. These live experiments had a variety of challenges in areas such as evaluation, learning from offline data, and constraint satisfaction. Our paper describes these challenges in the hope that awareness of them will benefit future applied RL work. We also describe the way we adapted our RL system to deal with these challenges, resulting in energy savings of approximately 9% and 13% respectively at the two live experiment sites.

Yuri Chervonyi, Praneet Dutta, Piotr Trochim et al. · deepmind

We present a hybrid industrial cooling system model that embeds analytical solutions within a multi-physics simulation. This model is designed for reinforcement learning (RL) applications and balances simplicity with simulation fidelity and interpretability. The model's fidelity is evaluated against real world data from a large scale cooling system. This is followed by a case study illustrating how the model can be used for RL research. For this, we develop an industrial task suite that allows specifying different problem settings and levels of complexity, and use it to evaluate the performance of different RL algorithms.

Kehang Zhu, Nithum Thain, Vivian Tsai et al.

As AI usage becomes more prevalent in social contexts, understanding agent-user interaction is critical to designing systems that improve both individual and group outcomes. We present an online behavioral experiment (N = 243) in which participants play three multi-turn bargaining games in groups of three. Each game, presented in randomized order, grants access to a single LLM assistance modality: proactive recommendations from an Advisor, reactive feedback from a Coach, or autonomous execution by a Delegate; all modalities are powered by an underlying LLM that achieves superhuman performance in an all-agent environment. On each turn, participants privately decide whether to act manually or use the AI modality available in that game. Despite preferring the Advisor modality, participants achieve the highest mean individual gains with the Delegate, demonstrating a preference-performance misalignment. Moreover, delegation generates positive externalities; even non-adopting users in access-to-delegate treatment groups benefit by receiving higher-quality offers. Mechanism analysis reveals that the Delegate agent acts as a market maker, injecting rational, Pareto-improving proposals that restructure the trading environment. Our research reveals a gap between agent capabilities and realized group welfare. While autonomous agents can exhibit super-human strategic performance, their impact on realized welfare gains can be constrained by interfaces, user perceptions, and adoption barriers. Assistance modalities should be designed as mechanisms with endogenous participation; adoption-compatible interaction rules are a prerequisite to improving human welfare with automated assistance.

Aaron Parisi, Nithum Thain, Alden Hallak et al.

As large language models (LLMs) evolve from single-user assistants to active participants in civic and workplace deliberation, evaluating their effects on collective decision making becomes a governance challenge. We present two empirical studies (N=879) of real-time, text-based group deliberation in an incentive-compatible charity allocation task with real financial stakes ($7,200 USD). Groups of three allocate a donation budget under varying LLM facilitation conditions: Study 1 (N=204) compares three frontier models; Study 2 (N=675) compares facilitator strategies against a no-facilitation baseline. Across both studies, LLM facilitation did not significantly improve group consensus in either study, yet participants consistently preferred facilitated discussion. We additionally identify two governance-relevant risks. First, algorithmic steering: facilitators shifted select charity-level allocations by up to 5.5 percentage points -- directly affecting the final charitable payout -- even when aggregate agreement metrics remained unchanged. Second, an illusion of inclusion: participants cited inclusivity as their primary reason for preferring LLM facilitators, yet neither survey nor transcript-based measures of participation equity improved. Notably, participants reported greater trust in the process under the same conditions where facilitators exerted directional influence on outcomes. Together, these findings show that in AI-mediated group deliberation, perceived procedural improvement can coexist with measurable steering and unchanged participation inequality, motivating evaluation practices that treat collective outcomes, interaction dynamics, and participant perceptions as distinct governance targets.

Crystal Qian, Vivian Tsai, Michael Behr et al.

Social and behavioral scientists increasingly aim to study how humans interact, collaborate, and make decisions alongside artificial intelligence. However, the experimental infrastructure for such work remains underdeveloped: (1) few platforms support real-time, multi-party studies at scale; (2) most deployments require bespoke engineering, limiting replicability and accessibility, and (3) existing tools do not treat AI agents as first-class participants. We present Deliberate Lab, an open-source platform for large-scale, real-time behavioral experiments that supports both human participants and large language model (LLM)-based agents. We report on a 12-month public deployment of the platform (N=88 experimenters, N=9195 experiment participants), analyzing usage patterns and workflows. Case studies and usage scenarios are aggregated from platform users, complemented by in-depth interviews with select experimenters. By lowering technical barriers and standardizing support for hybrid human-AI experimentation, Deliberate Lab expands the methodological repertoire for studying collective decision-making and human-centered AI.

Ian Gemp, Crystal Qian, Marc Lanctot et al.

Nash equilibrium serves as a fundamental mathematical tool in economics and game theory. However, it classically assumes knowledge of player utilities, whereas economics generally regards preferences as more fundamental. To leverage equilibrium analysis in strategic scenarios, one must first elicit numerical utilities consistent with player preferences, a delicate and time-consuming process. In this work, we forgo precise utilities and generalize the Nash equilibrium to a setting where we only assume a player is capable of providing an ordinal ranking of their actions within the context of other players' joint actions. The key technical challenge is to rethink the definition of a best-response. While the classical definition identifies actions maximizing expected payoff, we naturally look towards social choice theory for how to aggregate preferences to identify the most preferred actions. We define this generalized notion of a context-ordinal Nash equilibrium, establish its existence under mild conditions on aggregation methods, introduce notions of regularization, approximation, and regret, explore complexity for simple settings, and develop learning rules for computing such equilibria. In doing so, we provide a generalization of Nash equilibrium and demonstrate its direct applicability to elicited preferences in human experiments.

Emily Reif, Crystal Qian, James Wexler et al.

Making sense of unstructured text datasets is perennially difficult, yet increasingly relevant with Large Language Models. Data workers often rely on dataset summaries, especially distributions of various derived features. Some features, like toxicity or topics, are relevant to many datasets, but many interesting features are domain specific: instruments and genres for a music dataset, or diseases and symptoms for a medical dataset. Accordingly, data workers often run custom analyses for each dataset, which is cumbersome and difficult. We present AutoHistograms, a visualization tool leveragingLLMs. AutoHistograms automatically identifies relevant features, visualizes them with histograms, and allows the user to interactively query the dataset for categories of entities and create new histograms. In a user study with 10 data workers (n=10), we observe that participants can quickly identify insights and explore the data using AutoHistograms, and conceptualize a broad range of applicable use cases. Together, this tool and user study contributeto the growing field of LLM-assisted sensemaking tools.

Crystal Qian, Michael Xieyang Liu, Emily Reif et al.

As large language models (LLMs) grow increasingly adept at processing unstructured text data, they offer new opportunities to enhance data curation workflows. This paper explores the evolution of LLM adoption among practitioners at a large technology company, evaluating the impact of LLMs in data curation tasks through participants' perceptions, integration strategies, and reported usage scenarios. Through a series of surveys, interviews, and user studies, we provide a timely snapshot of how organizations are navigating a pivotal moment in LLM evolution. In Q2 2023, we conducted a survey to assess LLM adoption in industry for development tasks (N=84), and facilitated expert interviews to assess evolving data needs (N=10) in Q3 2023. In Q2 2024, we explored practitioners' current and anticipated LLM usage through a user study involving two LLM-based prototypes (N=12). While each study addressed distinct research goals, they revealed a broader narrative about evolving LLM usage in aggregate. We discovered an emerging shift in data understanding from heuristic-first, bottom-up approaches to insights-first, top-down workflows supported by LLMs. Furthermore, to respond to a more complex data landscape, data practitioners now supplement traditional subject-expert-created 'golden datasets' with LLM-generated 'silver' datasets and rigorously validated 'super golden' datasets curated by diverse experts. This research sheds light on the transformative role of LLMs in large-scale analysis of unstructured data and highlights opportunities for further tool development.

Crystal Qian, Emily Reif, Minsuk Kahng

As large language models (LLMs) become more advanced and impactful, it is increasingly important to scrutinize the data that they rely upon and produce. What is it to be a dataset practitioner doing this work? We approach this in two parts: first, we define the role of "dataset practitioners" by performing a retrospective analysis on the responsibilities of teams contributing to LLM development at a technology company, Google. Then, we conduct semi-structured interviews with a cross-section of these practitioners (N=10). We find that although data quality is a top priority, there is little consensus around what data quality is and how to evaluate it. Consequently, practitioners either rely on their own intuition or write custom code to evaluate their data. We discuss potential reasons for this phenomenon and opportunities for alignment.

Crystal Qian, Aaron Parisi, Clémentine Bouleau et al.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to model and augment collective decision-making, it is critical to examine their alignment with human social reasoning. We present an empirical framework for assessing collective alignment, in contrast to prior work on the individual level. Using the Lost at Sea social psychology task, we conduct a large-scale online experiment (N=748), randomly assigning groups to leader elections with either visible demographic attributes (e.g. name, gender) or pseudonymous aliases. We then simulate matched LLM groups conditioned on the human data, benchmarking Gemini 2.5, GPT 4.1, Claude Haiku 3.5, and Gemma 3. LLM behaviors diverge: some mirror human biases; others mask these biases and attempt to compensate for them. We empirically demonstrate that human-AI alignment in collective reasoning depends on context, cues, and model-specific inductive biases. Understanding how LLMs align with collective human behavior is critical to advancing socially-aligned AI, and demands dynamic benchmarks that capture the complexities of collective reasoning.

Crystal Qian, Kehang Zhu, John Horton et al.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in collaborative human activities such as business negotiations and group coordination, it becomes critical to evaluate both the performance gains they can achieve and how they interact in dynamic, multi-agent environments. Unlike traditional statistical agents such as Bayesian models, which may excel under well-specified conditions, large language models (LLMs) can generalize across diverse, real-world scenarios, raising new questions about how their strategies and behaviors compare to those of humans and other agent types. In this work, we compare outcomes and behavioral dynamics across humans (N = 216), LLMs (GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro), and Bayesian agents in a dynamic negotiation setting under identical conditions. Bayesian agents extract the highest surplus through aggressive optimization, at the cost of frequent trade rejections. Humans and LLMs achieve similar overall surplus, but through distinct behaviors: LLMs favor conservative, concessionary trades with few rejections, while humans employ more strategic, risk-taking, and fairness-oriented behaviors. Thus, we find that performance parity -- a common benchmark in agent evaluation -- can conceal fundamental differences in process and alignment, which are critical for practical deployment in real-world coordination tasks. By establishing foundational behavioral baselines under matched conditions, this work provides a baseline for future studies in more applied, variable-rich environments.