Street scene datasets, collected from Street View or dashboard cameras, offer a promising means of detecting urban objects and incidents like street flooding. However, a major challenge in using these datasets is their lack of reliable labels: there are myriad types of incidents, many types occur rarely, and ground-truth measures of where incidents occur are lacking. Here, we propose BayFlood, a two-stage approach which circumvents this difficulty. First, we perform zero-shot classification of where incidents occur using a pretrained vision-language model (VLM). Second, we fit a spatial Bayesian model on the VLM classifications. The zero-shot approach avoids the need to annotate large training sets, and the Bayesian model provides frequent desiderata in urban settings - principled measures of uncertainty, smoothing across locations, and incorporation of external data like stormwater accumulation zones. We comprehensively validate this two-stage approach, showing that VLMs provide strong zero-shot signal for floods across multiple cities and time periods, the Bayesian model improves out-of-sample prediction relative to baseline methods, and our inferred flood risk correlates with known external predictors of risk. Having validated our approach, we show it can be used to improve urban flood detection: our analysis reveals 113,738 people who are at high risk of flooding overlooked by current methods, identifies demographic biases in existing methods, and suggests locations for new flood sensors. More broadly, our results showcase how Bayesian modeling of zero-shot LM annotations represents a promising paradigm because it avoids the need to collect large labeled datasets and leverages the power of foundation models while providing the expressiveness and uncertainty quantification of Bayesian models.

We describe HypotheSAEs, a general method to hypothesize interpretable relationships between text data (e.g., headlines) and a target variable (e.g., clicks). HypotheSAEs has three steps: (1) train a sparse autoencoder on text embeddings to produce interpretable features describing the data distribution, (2) select features that predict the target variable, and (3) generate a natural language interpretation of each feature (e.g., "mentions being surprised or shocked") using an LLM. Each interpretation serves as a hypothesis about what predicts the target variable. Compared to baselines, our method better identifies reference hypotheses on synthetic datasets (at least +0.06 in F1) and produces more predictive hypotheses on real datasets (~twice as many significant findings), despite requiring 1-2 orders of magnitude less compute than recent LLM-based methods. HypotheSAEs also produces novel discoveries on two well-studied tasks: explaining partisan differences in Congressional speeches and identifying drivers of engagement with online headlines.

Disease progression models are widely used to inform the diagnosis and treatment of many progressive diseases. However, a significant limitation of existing models is that they do not account for health disparities that can bias the observed data. To address this, we develop an interpretable Bayesian disease progression model that captures three key health disparities: certain patient populations may (1) start receiving care only when their disease is more severe, (2) experience faster disease progression even while receiving care, or (3) receive follow-up care less frequently conditional on disease severity. We show theoretically and empirically that failing to account for disparities produces biased estimates of severity (underestimating severity for disadvantaged groups, for example). On a dataset of heart failure patients, we show that our model can identify groups that face each type of health disparity, and that accounting for these disparities meaningfully shifts which patients are considered high-risk.

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.

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.

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.

Algorithmic recommender systems such as Spotify and Netflix affect not only consumer behavior but also producer incentives. Producers seek to create content that will be shown by the recommendation algorithm, which can impact both the diversity and quality of their content. In this work, we investigate the resulting supply-side equilibria in personalized content recommender systems. We model users and content as $D$-dimensional vectors, the recommendation algorithm as showing each user the content with highest dot product, and producers as maximizing the number of users who are recommended their content minus the cost of production. Two key features of our model are that the producer decision space is multi-dimensional and the user base is heterogeneous, which contrasts with classical low-dimensional models. Multi-dimensionality and heterogeneity create the potential for specialization, where different producers create different types of content at equilibrium. Using a duality argument, we derive necessary and sufficient conditions for whether specialization occurs: these conditions depend on the extent to which users are heterogeneous and to which producers can perform well on all dimensions at once without incurring a high cost. Then, we characterize the distribution of content at equilibrium in concrete settings with two populations of users. Lastly, we show that specialization can enable producers to achieve positive profit at equilibrium, which means that specialization can reduce the competitiveness of the marketplace. At a conceptual level, our analysis of supply-side competition takes a step towards elucidating how personalized recommendations shape the marketplace of digital goods, and towards understanding what new phenomena arise in multi-dimensional competitive settings.

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.

Modern city governance relies heavily on crowdsourcing to identify problems such as downed trees and power lines. A major concern is that residents do not report problems at the same rates, with heterogeneous reporting delays directly translating to downstream disparities in how quickly incidents can be addressed. Here we develop a method to identify reporting delays without using external ground-truth data. Our insight is that the rates at which duplicate reports are made about the same incident can be leveraged to disambiguate whether an incident has occurred by investigating its reporting rate once it has occurred. We apply our method to over 100,000 resident reports made in New York City and to over 900,000 reports made in Chicago, finding that there are substantial spatial and socioeconomic disparities in how quickly incidents are reported. We further validate our methods using external data and demonstrate how estimating reporting delays leads to practical insights and interventions for a more equitable, efficient government service.

Large language model (LLM) research is dramatically impacting society, making it essential to understand the topics and values it prioritizes, the authors and institutions driving it, and its networks of collaboration. Due to the recent growth of the field, many of these fundamental attributes lack systematic description. We gather, annotate, and analyze a new dataset of 16,979 LLM-related arXiv papers, focusing on changes in 2023 vs. 2018-2022. We show that LLM research increasingly focuses on societal impacts: the Computers and Society sub-arXiv has seen 20x growth in its proportion of LLM-related papers in 2023. This change is driven in part by an influx of new authors: a majority of 2023 papers are first-authored by researchers who have not previously written an LLM-related paper, and these papers focus particularly on applications and societal considerations. While a handful of companies hold outsize influence, academia publishes a much larger fraction of papers than industry overall, and this gap widens in 2023. LLM research is also being shaped by social dynamics: there are gender and academic/industry differences in the topics authors prioritize, and a stark U.S./China schism in the collaboration network. Overall, our analysis documents how LLM research both shapes and is shaped by society, attesting to the necessity of sociotechnical lenses; we discuss implications for researchers and policymakers.