We develop a model of social learning from complementary information: short-lived agents sequentially choose from a large set of flexibly correlated information sources for prediction of an unknown state, and information is passed down across periods. Will the community collectively acquire the best kinds of information? Long-run outcomes fall into one of two cases: (i) efficient information aggregation, where the community eventually learns as fast as possible; (ii) “learning traps,” where the community gets stuck observing suboptimal sources and information aggregation is inefficient. Our main results identify a simple property of the underlying informational complementarities that determines which occurs. In both regimes, we characterize which sources are observed in the long run and how often.

We use machine learning to uncover regularities in the initial play of matrix games. We first train a prediction algorithm on data from past experiments. Examining the games where our algorithm predicts correctly, but existing economic models don’t, leads us to add a parameter to the best performing model that improves predictive accuracy. We then observe play in a collection of new “ algorithmically generated” games, and learn that we can obtain even better predictions with a hybrid model that uses a decision tree to decide game-by-game which of two economic models to use for prediction.

We propose a restrictiveness measure for economic models based on how well they fit predefined synthetic data. This measure, together with a measure for how well the model fits real data, outlines a Pareto frontier, where models that rule out more regularities, yet capture the regularities that are present in real data, are preferred. To illustrate our approach, we evaluate the restrictiveness of models in two laboratory settings—certainty equivalents and initial play—and one field setting—takeup of microfinance in Indian villages. The restrictiveness measure reveals insights about each, including that some economic models with only a few parameters are very flexible.

An agent has access to multiple information sources, each modeled as a Brownian motion whose drift provides information about a different component of an unknown Gaussian state. Information is acquired continuously—where the agent chooses both which sources to sample from, and also how to allocate attention across them—until an endogenously chosen time, at which point a decision is taken. We demonstrate conditions on the agent's prior belief under which it is possible to exactly characterize the optimal information acquisition strategy. We then apply this characterization to derive new results regarding: (1) endogenous information acquisition for binary choice, (2) the dynamic consequences of attention manipulation, and (3) strategic information provision by biased news sources.

Algorithm designers increasingly optimize not only for accuracy, but also for the fairness of the algorithm across pre-defined groups. We study the tradeoff between fairness and accuracy for any given set of inputs to the algorithm. We propose and characterize a fairness-accuracy frontier, which consists of the optimal points across a broad range of preferences over fairness and accuracy. Our results identify a simple property of the inputs, group-balance, which qualitatively determines the shape of the frontier. We further study an information-design problem where the designer flexibly regulates the inputs (e.g., by coarsening an input or banning its use) but the algorithm is chosen by another agent. Whether it is optimal to ban an input generally depends on the designer's preferences. But when inputs are group-balanced, then excluding group identity is strictly suboptimal for all designers, and when the designer has access to group identity, then it is strictly suboptimal to exclude any informative input.

Economic models are evaluated by testing the correctness of their predictions. We suggest an additional measure, “completeness”: the fraction of the predictable variation in the data that the model captures. We calculate the completeness of prominent models in three problems from experimental economics: assigning certainty equivalents to lotteries, predicting initial play in games, and predicting human generation of random sequences. The completeness measure reveals new insights about these models, including how much room there is for improving their predictions.