More stories

  • in

    A data-driven approach to making better choices

    Imagine a world in which some important decision — a judge’s sentencing recommendation, a child’s treatment protocol, which person or business should receive a loan — was made more reliable because a well-designed algorithm helped a key decision-maker arrive at a better choice. A new MIT economics course is investigating these interesting possibilities.Class 14.163 (Algorithms and Behavioral Science) is a new cross-disciplinary course focused on behavioral economics, which studies the cognitive capacities and limitations of human beings. The course was co-taught this past spring by assistant professor of economics Ashesh Rambachan and visiting lecturer Sendhil Mullainathan.Rambachan studies the economic applications of machine learning, focusing on algorithmic tools that drive decision-making in the criminal justice system and consumer lending markets. He also develops methods for determining causation using cross-sectional and dynamic data.Mullainathan will soon join the MIT departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and Economics as a professor. His research uses machine learning to understand complex problems in human behavior, social policy, and medicine. Mullainathan co-founded the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) in 2003.The new course’s goals are both scientific (to understand people) and policy-driven (to improve society by improving decisions). Rambachan believes that machine-learning algorithms provide new tools for both the scientific and applied goals of behavioral economics.“The course investigates the deployment of computer science, artificial intelligence (AI), economics, and machine learning in service of improved outcomes and reduced instances of bias in decision-making,” Rambachan says.There are opportunities, Rambachan believes, for constantly evolving digital tools like AI, machine learning, and large language models (LLMs) to help reshape everything from discriminatory practices in criminal sentencing to health-care outcomes among underserved populations.Students learn how to use machine learning tools with three main objectives: to understand what they do and how they do it, to formalize behavioral economics insights so they compose well within machine learning tools, and to understand areas and topics where the integration of behavioral economics and algorithmic tools might be most fruitful.Students also produce ideas, develop associated research, and see the bigger picture. They’re led to understand where an insight fits and see where the broader research agenda is leading. Participants can think critically about what supervised LLMs can (and cannot) do, to understand how to integrate those capacities with the models and insights of behavioral economics, and to recognize the most fruitful areas for the application of what investigations uncover.The dangers of subjectivity and biasAccording to Rambachan, behavioral economics acknowledges that biases and mistakes exist throughout our choices, even absent algorithms. “The data used by our algorithms exist outside computer science and machine learning, and instead are often produced by people,” he continues. “Understanding behavioral economics is therefore essential to understanding the effects of algorithms and how to better build them.”Rambachan sought to make the course accessible regardless of attendees’ academic backgrounds. The class included advanced degree students from a variety of disciplines.By offering students a cross-disciplinary, data-driven approach to investigating and discovering ways in which algorithms might improve problem-solving and decision-making, Rambachan hopes to build a foundation on which to redesign existing systems of jurisprudence, health care, consumer lending, and industry, to name a few areas.“Understanding how data are generated can help us understand bias,” Rambachan says. “We can ask questions about producing a better outcome than what currently exists.”Useful tools for re-imagining social operationsEconomics doctoral student Jimmy Lin was skeptical about the claims Rambachan and Mullainathan made when the class began, but changed his mind as the course continued.“Ashesh and Sendhil started with two provocative claims: The future of behavioral science research will not exist without AI, and the future of AI research will not exist without behavioral science,” Lin says. “Over the course of the semester, they deepened my understanding of both fields and walked us through numerous examples of how economics informed AI research and vice versa.”Lin, who’d previously done research in computational biology, praised the instructors’ emphasis on the importance of a “producer mindset,” thinking about the next decade of research rather than the previous decade. “That’s especially important in an area as interdisciplinary and fast-moving as the intersection of AI and economics — there isn’t an old established literature, so you’re forced to ask new questions, invent new methods, and create new bridges,” he says.The speed of change to which Lin alludes is a draw for him, too. “We’re seeing black-box AI methods facilitate breakthroughs in math, biology, physics, and other scientific disciplines,” Lin  says. “AI can change the way we approach intellectual discovery as researchers.”An interdisciplinary future for economics and social systemsStudying traditional economic tools and enhancing their value with AI may yield game-changing shifts in how institutions and organizations teach and empower leaders to make choices.“We’re learning to track shifts, to adjust frameworks and better understand how to deploy tools in service of a common language,” Rambachan says. “We must continually interrogate the intersection of human judgment, algorithms, AI, machine learning, and LLMs.”Lin enthusiastically recommended the course regardless of students’ backgrounds. “Anyone broadly interested in algorithms in society, applications of AI across academic disciplines, or AI as a paradigm for scientific discovery should take this class,” he says. “Every lecture felt like a goldmine of perspectives on research, novel application areas, and inspiration on how to produce new, exciting ideas.”The course, Rambachan says, argues that better-built algorithms can improve decision-making across disciplines. “By building connections between economics, computer science, and machine learning, perhaps we can automate the best of human choices to improve outcomes while minimizing or eliminating the worst,” he says.Lin remains excited about the course’s as-yet unexplored possibilities. “It’s a class that makes you excited about the future of research and your own role in it,” he says. More

  • in

    Characterizing social networks

    People tend to connect with others who are like them. Alumni from the same alma mater are more likely to collaborate over a research project together, or individuals with the same political beliefs are more likely to join the same political parties, attend rallies, and engage in online discussions. This sociology concept, called homophily, has been observed in many network science studies. But if like-minded individuals cluster in online and offline spaces to reinforce each other’s ideas and form synergies, what does that mean for society?

    Researchers at MIT wanted to investigate homophily further to understand how groups of three or more interact in complex societal settings. Prior research on understanding homophily has studied relationships between pairs of people. For example, when two members of Congress co-sponsor a bill, they are likely to be from the same political party.

    However, less is known about whether group interactions between three or more people are likely to occur between similar individuals. If three members of Congress co-sponsor a bill together, are all three likely to be members of the same party, or would we expect more bipartisanship? When the researchers tried to extend traditional methods to measure homophily in these larger group interactions, they found the results can be misleading.

    “We found that homophily observed in pairs, or one-to-one interactions, can make it seem like there’s more homophily in larger groups than there really is,” says Arnab Sarker, graduate student in the Institute for Data, Systems and Society (IDSS) and lead author of the study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “The previous measure didn’t account for the way in which two people already know each other in friendship settings,” he adds.

    To address this issue, Sarker, along with co-authors Natalie Northrup ’22 and Ali Jadbabaie, the JR East Professor of Engineering, head of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and core faculty member of IDSS, developed a new way of measuring homophily. Borrowing tools from algebraic topology, a subfield in mathematics typically applied in physics, they developed a new measure to understand whether homophily occurred in group interactions.

    The new measure, called simplicial homophily, separates the homophily seen in one-on-one interactions from those in larger group interactions and is based on the mathematical concept of a simplicial complex. The researchers tested this new measure with real-world data from 16 different datasets and found that simplicial homophily provides more accurate insights into how similar things interact in larger groups. Interestingly, the new measure can better identify instances where there is a lack of similarity in larger group interactions, thus rectifying a weakness observed in the previous measure.

    One such example of this instance was demonstrated in the dataset from the global hotel booking website, Trivago. They found that when travelers are looking at two hotels in one session, they often pick hotels that are close to one another geographically. But when they look at more than two hotels in one session, they are more likely to be searching for hotels that are farther apart from one another (for example, if they are taking a vacation with multiple stops). The new method showed “anti-homophily” — instead of similar hotels being chosen together, different hotels were chosen together.

    “Our measure controls for pairwise connections and is suggesting that there’s more diversity in the hotels that people are looking for as group size increases, which is an interesting economic result,” says Sarker.

    Additionally, they discovered that simplicial homophily can help identify when certain characteristics are important for predicting if groups will interact in the future. They found that when there’s a lot of similarity or a lot of difference between individuals who already interact in groups, then knowing individual characteristics can help predict their connection to each other in the future.

    Northrup was an undergraduate researcher on the project and worked with Sarker and Jadbabaie over three semesters before she graduated. The project gave her an opportunity to take some of the concepts she learned in the classroom and apply them.

    “Working on this project, I really dove into building out the higher-order network model, and understanding the network, the math, and being able to implement it at a large scale,” says Northrup, who was in the civil and environmental engineering systems track with a double major in economics.

    The new measure opens up opportunities to study complex group interactions in a broad range of network applications, from ecology to traffic and socioeconomics. One of the areas Sarker has interest in exploring is the group dynamics of people finding jobs through social networks. “Does higher-order homophily affect how people get information about jobs?” he asks.    

    Northrup adds that it could also be used to evaluate interventions or specific policies to connect people with job opportunities outside of their network. “You can even use it as a measurement to evaluate how effective that might be.”

    The research was supported through funding from a Vannevar Bush Fellowship from the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense and from the U.S. Army Research Office Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative. More

  • in

    Blueprint Labs launches a charter school research collaborative

    Over the past 30 years, charter schools have emerged as a prominent yet debated public school option. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 7 percent of U.S. public school students were enrolled in charter schools in 2021, up from 4 percent in 2010. Amid this expansion, families and policymakers want to know more about charter school performance and its systemic impacts. While researchers have evaluated charter schools’ short-term effects on student outcomes, significant knowledge gaps still exist. 

    MIT Blueprint Labs aims to fill those gaps through its Charter School Research Collaborative, an initiative that brings together practitioners, policymakers, researchers, and funders to make research on charter schools more actionable, rigorous, and efficient. The collaborative will create infrastructure to streamline and fund high-quality, policy-relevant charter research. 

    Joshua Angrist, MIT Ford Professor of Economics and a Blueprint Labs co-founder and director, says that Blueprint Labs hopes “to increase [its] impact by working with a larger group of academic and practitioner partners.” A nonpartisan research lab, Blueprint’s mission is to produce the most rigorous evidence possible to inform policy and practice. Angrist notes, “The debate over charter schools is not always fact-driven. Our goal at the lab is to bring convincing evidence into these discussions.”

    Collaborative kickoff

    The collaborative launched with a two-day kickoff in November. Blueprint Labs welcomed researchers, practitioners, funders, and policymakers to MIT to lay the groundwork for the collaborative. Over 80 participants joined the event, including leaders of charter school organizations, researchers at top universities and institutes, and policymakers and advocates from a variety of organizations and education agencies. 

    Through a series of panels, presentations, and conversations, participants including Rhode Island Department of Education Commissioner Angélica Infante-Green, CEO of Noble Schools Constance Jones, former Knowledge is Power Program CEO Richard Barth, president and CEO of National Association of Charter School Authorizers Karega Rausch, and many others discussed critical topics in the charter school space. These conversations influenced the collaborative’s research agenda. 

    Several sessions also highlighted how to ensure that the research process includes diverse voices to generate actionable evidence. Panelists noted that researchers should be aware of the demands placed on practitioners and should carefully consider community contexts. In addition, collaborators should treat each other as equal partners. 

    Parag Pathak, the Class of 1922 Professor of Economics at MIT and a Blueprint Labs co-founder and director, explained the kickoff’s aims. “One of our goals today is to begin to forge connections between [attendees]. We hope that [their] conversations are the launching point for future collaborations,” he stated. Pathak also shared the next steps for the collaborative: “Beginning next year, we’ll start investing in new research using the agenda [developed at this event] as our guide. We will also support new partnerships between researchers and practitioners.”

    Research agenda

    The discussions at the kickoff informed the collaborative’s research agenda. A recent paper summarizing existing lottery-based research on charter school effectiveness by Sarah Cohodes, an associate professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, and Susha Roy, an associate policy researcher at the RAND Corp., also guides the agenda. Their review finds that in randomized evaluations, many charter schools increase students’ academic achievement. However, researchers have not yet studied charter schools’ impacts on long-term, behavioral, or health outcomes in depth, and rigorous, lottery-based research is currently limited to a handful of urban centers. 

    The current research agenda focuses on seven topics:

    the long-term effects of charter schools;
    the effect of charters on non-test score outcomes;
    which charter school practices have the largest effect on performance;
    how charter performance varies across different contexts;
    how charter school effects vary with demographic characteristics and student background;
    how charter schools impact non-student outcomes, like teacher retention; and
    how system-level factors, such as authorizing practices, impact charter school performance.
    As diverse stakeholders’ priorities continue to shift and the collaborative progresses, the research agenda will continue to evolve.

    Information for interested partners

    Opportunities exist for charter leaders, policymakers, researchers, and funders to engage with the collaborative. Stakeholders can apply for funding, help shape the research agenda, and develop new research partnerships. A competitive funding process will open this month.

    Those interested in receiving updates on the collaborative can fill out this form. Please direct questions to chartercollab@mitblueprintlabs.org. More

  • in

    Bridging the gap between preschool policy, practice, and research

    Preschool in the United States has grown dramatically in the past several decades. From 1970 to 2018, preschool enrollment increased from 38 percent to 64 percent of eligible students. Fourteen states are currently discussing preschool expansion, with seven likely to pass some form of universal eligibility within the next calendar year. Amid this expansion, families, policymakers, and practitioners want to better understand preschools’ impacts and the factors driving preschool quality. 

    To address these and other questions, MIT Blueprint Labs recently held a Preschool Research Convening that brought researchers, funders, practitioners, and policymakers to Nashville, Tennessee, to discuss the future of preschool research. Parag Pathak, the Class of 1922 Professor of Economics at MIT and a Blueprint Labs co-founder and director, opened by sharing the goals of the convening: “Our goals for the next two days are to identify pressing, unanswered research questions and connect researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and funders. We also hope to craft a compelling research agenda.”

    Pathak added, “Given preschool expansion nationwide, we believe now is the moment to centralize our efforts and create knowledge to inform pressing decisions. We aim to generate rigorous preschool research that will lead to higher-quality and more equitable preschool.”

    Over 75 participants hailing from universities, early childhood education organizations, school districts, state education departments, and national policy organizations attended the convening, held Nov. 13-14. Through panels, presentations, and conversations, participants discussed essential subjects in the preschool space, built the foundations for valuable partnerships, and formed an actionable and inclusive research agenda.

    Research presented

    Among research works presented was a recent paper by Blueprint Labs affiliate Jesse Bruhn, an assistant professor of economics at Brown University and co-author Emily Emick, also of Brown, reviewing the state of lottery-based preschool research. They found that random evaluations from the past 60 years demonstrate that preschool improves children’s short-run academic outcomes, but those effects fade over time. However, positive impacts re-emerge in the long term through improved outcomes like high school graduation and college enrollment. Limited rigorous research studies children’s behavioral outcomes or the factors that lead to high-quality preschool, though trends from preliminary research suggest that full-day programs, language immersion programs, and specific curricula may benefit children.  

    An earlier Blueprint Labs study that was also presented at the convening is the only recent lottery-based study to provide insight on preschool’s long-term impacts. The work, conducted by Pathak and two others, reveals that enrolling in Boston Public Schools’ universal preschool program boosts children’s likelihood of graduating high school and enrolling in college. Yet, the preschool program had little detectable impact on elementary, middle, and high school state standardized test scores. Students who attended Boston preschool were less likely to be suspended or incarcerated in high school. However, research on preschool’s impacts on behavioral outcomes is limited; it remains an important area for further study. Future work could also fill in other gaps in research, such as access, alternative measures of student success, and variation across geographic contexts and student populations.

    More data sought

    State policy leaders also spoke at the event, including Lisa Roy, executive director of the Colorado Department of Early Childhood, and Sarah Neville-Morgan, deputy superintendent in the Opportunities for All Branch at the California Department of Education. Local practitioners, such as Elsa Holguín, president and CEO of the Denver Preschool Program, and Kristin Spanos, CEO of First 5 Alameda County, as well as national policy leaders including Lauren Hogan, managing director of policy and professional advancement at the National Association for the Education of Young Children, also shared their perspectives. 

    In panel discussions held throughout the kickoff, practitioners, policymakers, and researchers shared their perspectives on pressing questions for future research, including: What practices define high-quality preschool? How does preschool affect family systems and the workforce? How can we expand measures of effectiveness to move beyond traditional assessments? What can we learn from preschool’s differential impacts across time, settings, models, and geographies?

    Panelists also discussed the need for reliable data, sharing that “the absence of data allows the status quo to persist.” Several sessions focused on involving diverse stakeholders in the research process, highlighting the need for transparency, sensitivity to community contexts, and accessible communication about research findings.

    On the second day of the Preschool Research Convening, Pathak shared with attendees, “One of our goals… is to forge connections between all of you in this room and support new partnerships between researchers and practitioners. We hope your conversations are the launching pad for future collaborations.” Jason Sachs, the deputy director of early learning at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and former director of early childhood at Boston Public Schools, provided closing remarks.

    The convening laid the groundwork for a research agenda and new research partnerships that can help answer questions about what works, in what context, for which kids, and under which conditions. Answers to these questions will be fundamental to ensure preschool expands in the most evidence-informed and equitable way possible.

    With this goal in mind, Blueprint Labs aims to create a new Preschool Research Collaborative to equip practitioners, policymakers, funders, and researchers with rigorous, actionable evidence on preschool performance. Pathak states, “We hope this collaborative will foster evidence-based decision-making that improves children’s short- and long-term outcomes.” The connections and research agenda formed at the Preschool Research Convening are the first steps toward achieving that goal. More

  • in

    J-PAL North America and Results for America announce 18 collaborations with state and local governments

    J-PAL North America and Results for America have announced 18 new partnerships with state and local governments across the country through their Leveraging Evidence and Evaluation for Equitable Recovery (LEVER) programming, which launched in April of this year. 

    As state and local leaders leverage federal relief funding to invest in their communities, J-PAL North America and Results for America are providing in-depth support to agencies in using data, evaluation, and evidence to advance effective and equitable government programming for generations to come. The 18 new collaborators span the contiguous United States and represent a wide range of pressing and innovative uses of federal Covid-19 recovery funding.

    These partnerships are a key component of the LEVER program, run by J-PAL North America — a regional office of MIT’s Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) — and Results for America — a nonprofit organization that helps government agencies harness the power of evidence and data. Through 2024, LEVER will continue to provide a suite of resources, training, and evaluation design services to prepare state and local government agencies to rigorously evaluate their own programs and to harness existing evidence in developing programs and policies using federal recovery dollars.

    J-PAL North America is working with four leading government agencies following a call for proposals to the LEVER Evaluation Incubator in June. These agencies will work with J-PAL staff to design randomized evaluations to understand the causal impact of important programs that contribute to their jurisdictions’ recovery from Covid-19.

    Connecticut’s Medicaid office, operating out of the state’s Department of Social Services, is working to improve vaccine access and awareness among youth. “Connecticut Medicaid is thrilled to work with J-PAL North America. The technical expertise and training that we receive will expand our knowledge during ‘testing and learning’ interventions that improve the health of our members,” says Gui Woolston, the director of Medicaid and Division of Health Services. 

    Athens-Clarke County Unified Government is invested in evaluating programming for youth development and violence prevention implemented by the Boys and Girls Club of Athens. Their goal is “to measure and transparently communicate program impact,” explains Paige Seago, the data and outcomes coordinator for the American Rescue Plan Act. “The ability to continually iterate and tailor programs to better meet community goals is crucial to long-term success.”

    The County of San Diego’s newly formed Office of Evaluation, Performance, and Analytics is evaluating a pilot program providing rental subsidies for older adults. “Randomized evaluation can help us understand if rent subsidies will help prevent seniors from becoming homeless and will give us useful information about how to move forward,” says Chief Evaluation Officer Ricardo Basurto-Dávila. 

    In King County, Washington, the Executive Climate Office is planning to evaluate efforts to increase equitable access to household energy efficiency programs. “Because of J-PAL’s support, we have confidence that we can reduce climate impacts and extend home electrification benefits to lower-income homeowners in King County — homeowners who otherwise may not have the ability to participate in the clean energy transition,” says King County Climate Director Marissa Aho.

    Fourteen additional state and local agencies are working with Results for America as part of the LEVER Training Sprint. Together, they will develop policies that catalyze sustainable evidence building within government. 

    Jurisdictions selected for the Training Sprint represent government leaders at the city, county, and state levels — all of whom are committed to creating an evaluation framework for policy that will prioritize evidence-based decision-making across the country. Over the course of 10 weeks, with access to tools and coaching, each team will develop an internal implementation policy by embedding key evaluation and evidence practices into their jurisdiction’s decision-making processes. Participants will finish the Training Sprint with a robust decision-making framework that translates their LEVER implementation policies into actionable planning guidance. 

    Government leaders will utilize the LEVER Training Sprint to build a culture of data and evidence focused on leveraging evaluation policies to invest in delivering tangible results for their residents. About their participation in the LEVER Training Sprint, Dana Williams from Denver, Colorado says, “Impact evaluation is such an integral piece to understanding the past, present, and future. I’m excited to participate in the LEVER Training Sprint to better inform and drive evidence-based programming in Denver.”

    The Training Sprint is a part of a growing movement to ground government innovation in data and evidence. Kermina Hanna from the State of New Jersey notes, “It’s vital that we cement a data-driven commitment to equity in government operations, and I’m really excited for this opportunity to develop a national network of colleagues in government who share this passion and dedication to responsive public service.”

    Jurisdictions selected for the Training Sprint are: 

    Boston, Massachusetts;
    Carlsbad, California;
    Connecticut;
    Dallas, Texas;
    Denver City/County, Colorado;
    Fort Collins, Colorado;
    Guilford County, North Carolina;
    King County, Washington;
    Long Beach, California;
    Los Angeles, California;
    New Jersey;
    New Mexico;
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and
    Washington County, Oregon.
    Those interested in learning more can fill out the LEVER intake form. Please direct any questions about the Evaluation Incubator to Louise Geraghty and questions about the Training Sprint to Chelsea Powell. More

  • in

    New clean air and water labs to bring together researchers, policymakers to find climate solutions

    MIT’s Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) is launching the Clean Air and Water Labs, with support from Community Jameel, to generate evidence-based solutions aimed at increasing access to clean air and water.

    Led by J-PAL’s Africa, Middle East and North Africa (MENA), and South Asia regional offices, the labs will partner with government agencies to bring together researchers and policymakers in areas where impactful clean air and water solutions are most urgently needed.

    Together, the labs aim to improve clean air and water access by informing the scaling of evidence-based policies and decisions of city, state, and national governments that serve nearly 260 million people combined.

    The Clean Air and Water Labs expand the work of J-PAL’s King Climate Action Initiative, building on the foundational support of King Philanthropies, which significantly expanded J-PAL’s work at the nexus of climate change and poverty alleviation worldwide. 

    Air pollution, water scarcity and the need for evidence 

    Africa, MENA, and South Asia are on the front lines of global air and water crises. 

    “There is no time to waste investing in solutions that do not achieve their desired effects,” says Iqbal Dhaliwal, global executive director of J-PAL. “By co-generating rigorous real-world evidence with researchers, policymakers can have the information they need to dedicate resources to scaling up solutions that have been shown to be effective.”

    In India, about 75 percent of households did not have drinking water on premises in 2018. In MENA, nearly 90 percent of children live in areas facing high or extreme water stress. Across Africa, almost 400 million people lack access to safe drinking water. 

    Simultaneously, air pollution is one of the greatest threats to human health globally. In India, extraordinary levels of air pollution are shortening the average life expectancy by five years. In Africa, rising indoor and ambient air pollution contributed to 1.1 million premature deaths in 2019. 

    There is increasing urgency to find high-impact and cost-effective solutions to the worsening threats to human health and resources caused by climate change. However, data and evidence on potential solutions are limited.

    Fostering collaboration to generate policy-relevant evidence 

    The Clean Air and Water Labs will foster deep collaboration between government stakeholders, J-PAL regional offices, and researchers in the J-PAL network. 

    Through the labs, J-PAL will work with policymakers to:

    co-diagnose the most pressing air and water challenges and opportunities for policy innovation;
    expand policymakers’ access to and use of high-quality air and water data;
    co-design potential solutions informed by existing evidence;
    co-generate evidence on promising solutions through rigorous evaluation, leveraging existing and new data sources; and
    support scaling of air and water policies and programs that are found to be effective through evaluation. 
    A research and scaling fund for each lab will prioritize resources for co-generated pilot studies, randomized evaluations, and scaling projects. 

    The labs will also collaborate with C40 Cities, a global network of mayors of the world’s leading cities that are united in action to confront the climate crisis, to share policy-relevant evidence and identify opportunities for potential new connections and research opportunities within India and across Africa.

    This model aims to strengthen the use of evidence in decision-making to ensure solutions are highly effective and to guide research to answer policymakers’ most urgent questions. J-PAL Africa, MENA, and South Asia’s strong on-the-ground presence will further bridge research and policy work by anchoring activities within local contexts. 

    “Communities across the world continue to face challenges in accessing clean air and water, a threat to human safety that has only been exacerbated by the climate crisis, along with rising temperatures and other hazards,” says George Richards, director of Community Jameel. “Through our collaboration with J-PAL and C40 in creating climate policy labs embedded in city, state, and national governments in Africa and South Asia, we are committed to innovative and science-based approaches that can help hundreds of millions of people enjoy healthier lives.”

    J-PAL Africa, MENA, and South Asia will formally launch Clean Air and Water Labs with government partners over the coming months. J-PAL is housed in the MIT Department of Economics, within the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences. More

  • in

    Artificial intelligence for augmentation and productivity

    The MIT Stephen A. Schwarzman College of Computing has awarded seed grants to seven projects that are exploring how artificial intelligence and human-computer interaction can be leveraged to enhance modern work spaces to achieve better management and higher productivity.

    Funded by Andrew W. Houston ’05 and Dropbox Inc., the projects are intended to be interdisciplinary and bring together researchers from computing, social sciences, and management.

    The seed grants can enable the project teams to conduct research that leads to bigger endeavors in this rapidly evolving area, as well as build community around questions related to AI-augmented management.

    The seven selected projects and research leads include:

    “LLMex: Implementing Vannevar Bush’s Vision of the Memex Using Large Language Models,” led by Patti Maes of the Media Lab and David Karger of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL). Inspired by Vannevar Bush’s Memex, this project proposes to design, implement, and test the concept of memory prosthetics using large language models (LLMs). The AI-based system will intelligently help an individual keep track of vast amounts of information, accelerate productivity, and reduce errors by automatically recording their work actions and meetings, supporting retrieval based on metadata and vague descriptions, and suggesting relevant, personalized information proactively based on the user’s current focus and context.

    “Using AI Agents to Simulate Social Scenarios,” led by John Horton of the MIT Sloan School of Management and Jacob Andreas of EECS and CSAIL. This project imagines the ability to easily simulate policies, organizational arrangements, and communication tools with AI agents before implementation. Tapping into the capabilities of modern LLMs to serve as a computational model of humans makes this vision of social simulation more realistic, and potentially more predictive.

    “Human Expertise in the Age of AI: Can We Have Our Cake and Eat it Too?” led by Manish Raghavan of MIT Sloan and EECS, and Devavrat Shah of EECS and the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems. Progress in machine learning, AI, and in algorithmic decision aids has raised the prospect that algorithms may complement human decision-making in a wide variety of settings. Rather than replacing human professionals, this project sees a future where AI and algorithmic decision aids play a role that is complementary to human expertise.

    “Implementing Generative AI in U.S. Hospitals,” led by Julie Shah of the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and CSAIL, Retsef Levi of MIT Sloan and the Operations Research Center, Kate Kellog of MIT Sloan, and Ben Armstrong of the Industrial Performance Center. In recent years, studies have linked a rise in burnout from doctors and nurses in the United States with increased administrative burdens associated with electronic health records and other technologies. This project aims to develop a holistic framework to study how generative AI technologies can both increase productivity for organizations and improve job quality for workers in health care settings.

    “Generative AI Augmented Software Tools to Democratize Programming,” led by Harold Abelson of EECS and CSAIL, Cynthia Breazeal of the Media Lab, and Eric Klopfer of the Comparative Media Studies/Writing. Progress in generative AI over the past year is fomenting an upheaval in assumptions about future careers in software and deprecating the role of coding. This project will stimulate a similar transformation in computing education for those who have no prior technical training by creating a software tool that could eliminate much of the need for learners to deal with code when creating applications.

    “Acquiring Expertise and Societal Productivity in a World of Artificial Intelligence,” led by David Atkin and Martin Beraja of the Department of Economics, and Danielle Li of MIT Sloan. Generative AI is thought to augment the capabilities of workers performing cognitive tasks. This project seeks to better understand how the arrival of AI technologies may impact skill acquisition and productivity, and to explore complementary policy interventions that will allow society to maximize the gains from such technologies.

    “AI Augmented Onboarding and Support,” led by Tim Kraska of EECS and CSAIL, and Christoph Paus of the Department of Physics. While LLMs have made enormous leaps forward in recent years and are poised to fundamentally change the way students and professionals learn about new tools and systems, there is often a steep learning curve which people have to climb in order to make full use of the resource. To help mitigate the issue, this project proposes the development of new LLM-powered onboarding and support systems that will positively impact the way support teams operate and improve the user experience. More

  • in

    Bringing the social and ethical responsibilities of computing to the forefront

    There has been a remarkable surge in the use of algorithms and artificial intelligence to address a wide range of problems and challenges. While their adoption, particularly with the rise of AI, is reshaping nearly every industry sector, discipline, and area of research, such innovations often expose unexpected consequences that involve new norms, new expectations, and new rules and laws.

    To facilitate deeper understanding, the Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing (SERC), a cross-cutting initiative in the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing, recently brought together social scientists and humanists with computer scientists, engineers, and other computing faculty for an exploration of the ways in which the broad applicability of algorithms and AI has presented both opportunities and challenges in many aspects of society.

    “The very nature of our reality is changing. AI has the ability to do things that until recently were solely the realm of human intelligence — things that can challenge our understanding of what it means to be human,” remarked Daniel Huttenlocher, dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing, in his opening address at the inaugural SERC Symposium. “This poses philosophical, conceptual, and practical questions on a scale not experienced since the start of the Enlightenment. In the face of such profound change, we need new conceptual maps for navigating the change.”

    The symposium offered a glimpse into the vision and activities of SERC in both research and education. “We believe our responsibility with SERC is to educate and equip our students and enable our faculty to contribute to responsible technology development and deployment,” said Georgia Perakis, the William F. Pounds Professor of Management in the MIT Sloan School of Management, co-associate dean of SERC, and the lead organizer of the symposium. “We’re drawing from the many strengths and diversity of disciplines across MIT and beyond and bringing them together to gain multiple viewpoints.”

    Through a succession of panels and sessions, the symposium delved into a variety of topics related to the societal and ethical dimensions of computing. In addition, 37 undergraduate and graduate students from a range of majors, including urban studies and planning, political science, mathematics, biology, electrical engineering and computer science, and brain and cognitive sciences, participated in a poster session to exhibit their research in this space, covering such topics as quantum ethics, AI collusion in storage markets, computing waste, and empowering users on social platforms for better content credibility.

    Showcasing a diversity of work

    In three sessions devoted to themes of beneficent and fair computing, equitable and personalized health, and algorithms and humans, the SERC Symposium showcased work by 12 faculty members across these domains.

    One such project from a multidisciplinary team of archaeologists, architects, digital artists, and computational social scientists aimed to preserve endangered heritage sites in Afghanistan with digital twins. The project team produced highly detailed interrogable 3D models of the heritage sites, in addition to extended reality and virtual reality experiences, as learning resources for audiences that cannot access these sites.

    In a project for the United Network for Organ Sharing, researchers showed how they used applied analytics to optimize various facets of an organ allocation system in the United States that is currently undergoing a major overhaul in order to make it more efficient, equitable, and inclusive for different racial, age, and gender groups, among others.

    Another talk discussed an area that has not yet received adequate public attention: the broader implications for equity that biased sensor data holds for the next generation of models in computing and health care.

    A talk on bias in algorithms considered both human bias and algorithmic bias, and the potential for improving results by taking into account differences in the nature of the two kinds of bias.

    Other highlighted research included the interaction between online platforms and human psychology; a study on whether decision-makers make systemic prediction mistakes on the available information; and an illustration of how advanced analytics and computation can be leveraged to inform supply chain management, operations, and regulatory work in the food and pharmaceutical industries.

    Improving the algorithms of tomorrow

    “Algorithms are, without question, impacting every aspect of our lives,” said Asu Ozdaglar, deputy dean of academics for the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing and head of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, in kicking off a panel she moderated on the implications of data and algorithms.

    “Whether it’s in the context of social media, online commerce, automated tasks, and now a much wider range of creative interactions with the advent of generative AI tools and large language models, there’s little doubt that much more is to come,” Ozdaglar said. “While the promise is evident to all of us, there’s a lot to be concerned as well. This is very much time for imaginative thinking and careful deliberation to improve the algorithms of tomorrow.”

    Turning to the panel, Ozdaglar asked experts from computing, social science, and data science for insights on how to understand what is to come and shape it to enrich outcomes for the majority of humanity.

    Sarah Williams, associate professor of technology and urban planning at MIT, emphasized the critical importance of comprehending the process of how datasets are assembled, as data are the foundation for all models. She also stressed the need for research to address the potential implication of biases in algorithms that often find their way in through their creators and the data used in their development. “It’s up to us to think about our own ethical solutions to these problems,” she said. “Just as it’s important to progress with the technology, we need to start the field of looking at these questions of what biases are in the algorithms? What biases are in the data, or in that data’s journey?”

    Shifting focus to generative models and whether the development and use of these technologies should be regulated, the panelists — which also included MIT’s Srini Devadas, professor of electrical engineering and computer science, John Horton, professor of information technology, and Simon Johnson, professor of entrepreneurship — all concurred that regulating open-source algorithms, which are publicly accessible, would be difficult given that regulators are still catching up and struggling to even set guardrails for technology that is now 20 years old.

    Returning to the question of how to effectively regulate the use of these technologies, Johnson proposed a progressive corporate tax system as a potential solution. He recommends basing companies’ tax payments on their profits, especially for large corporations whose massive earnings go largely untaxed due to offshore banking. By doing so, Johnson said that this approach can serve as a regulatory mechanism that discourages companies from trying to “own the entire world” by imposing disincentives.

    The role of ethics in computing education

    As computing continues to advance with no signs of slowing down, it is critical to educate students to be intentional in the social impact of the technologies they will be developing and deploying into the world. But can one actually be taught such things? If so, how?

    Caspar Hare, professor of philosophy at MIT and co-associate dean of SERC, posed this looming question to faculty on a panel he moderated on the role of ethics in computing education. All experienced in teaching ethics and thinking about the social implications of computing, each panelist shared their perspective and approach.

    A strong advocate for the importance of learning from history, Eden Medina, associate professor of science, technology, and society at MIT, said that “often the way we frame computing is that everything is new. One of the things that I do in my teaching is look at how people have confronted these issues in the past and try to draw from them as a way to think about possible ways forward.” Medina regularly uses case studies in her classes and referred to a paper written by Yale University science historian Joanna Radin on the Pima Indian Diabetes Dataset that raised ethical issues on the history of that particular collection of data that many don’t consider as an example of how decisions around technology and data can grow out of very specific contexts.

    Milo Phillips-Brown, associate professor of philosophy at Oxford University, talked about the Ethical Computing Protocol that he co-created while he was a SERC postdoc at MIT. The protocol, a four-step approach to building technology responsibly, is designed to train computer science students to think in a better and more accurate way about the social implications of technology by breaking the process down into more manageable steps. “The basic approach that we take very much draws on the fields of value-sensitive design, responsible research and innovation, participatory design as guiding insights, and then is also fundamentally interdisciplinary,” he said.

    Fields such as biomedicine and law have an ethics ecosystem that distributes the function of ethical reasoning in these areas. Oversight and regulation are provided to guide front-line stakeholders and decision-makers when issues arise, as are training programs and access to interdisciplinary expertise that they can draw from. “In this space, we have none of that,” said John Basl, associate professor of philosophy at Northeastern University. “For current generations of computer scientists and other decision-makers, we’re actually making them do the ethical reasoning on their own.” Basl commented further that teaching core ethical reasoning skills across the curriculum, not just in philosophy classes, is essential, and that the goal shouldn’t be for every computer scientist be a professional ethicist, but for them to know enough of the landscape to be able to ask the right questions and seek out the relevant expertise and resources that exists.

    After the final session, interdisciplinary groups of faculty, students, and researchers engaged in animated discussions related to the issues covered throughout the day during a reception that marked the conclusion of the symposium. More