Autonomous vehicles often have varying camera sensor setups, which is inevitable due to restricted placement options for different vehicle types. Training a perception model on one particular setup and evaluating it on a new, different sensor setup reveals the so-called cross-sensor domain gap, typically leading to a degradation in accuracy. In this paper, we investigate the impact of the cross-sensor domain gap on state-of-the-art 3D object detectors. To this end, we introduce CamShift, a dataset inspired by nuScenes and created in CARLA to specifically simulate the domain gap between subcompact vehicles and sport utility vehicles (SUVs). Using CamShift, we demonstrate significant cross-sensor performance degradation, identify robustness dependencies on model architecture, and propose a data-driven solution to mitigate the effect. On the one hand, we show that model architectures based on a dense Bird's Eye View (BEV) representation with backward projection, such as BEVFormer, are the most robust against varying sensor configurations. On the other hand, we propose a novel data-driven sensor adaptation pipeline based on neural rendering, which can transform entire datasets to match different camera sensor setups. Applying this approach improves performance across all investigated 3D object detectors, mitigating the cross-sensor domain gap by a large margin and reducing the need for new data collection by enabling efficient data reusability across vehicles with different sensor setups. The CamShift dataset and the sensor adaptation benchmark are available at https://dmholtz.github.io/camshift/.

It is increasingly common in digital environments to use A/B tests to compare the performance of recommendation algorithms. However, such experiments often violate the stable unit treatment value assumption (SUTVA), particularly SUTVA's ''no hidden treatments'' assumption, due to the shared data between algorithms being compared. This results in a novel form of bias, which we term ''symbiosis bias,'' where the performance of each algorithm is influenced by the training data generated by its competitor. In this paper, we investigate three experimental designs--cluster-randomized, data-diverted, and user-corpus co-diverted experiments--aimed at mitigating symbiosis bias. We present a theoretical model of symbiosis bias and simulate the impact of each design in dynamic recommendation environments. Our results show that while each design reduces symbiosis bias to some extent, they also introduce new challenges, such as reduced training data in data-diverted experiments. We further validate the existence of symbiosis bias using data from a large-scale A/B test conducted on a global recommender system, demonstrating that symbiosis bias affects treatment effect estimates in the field. Our findings provide actionable insights for researchers and practitioners seeking to design experiments that accurately capture algorithmic performance without bias in treatment effect estimates introduced by shared data.

Previous qualitative work has documented that platform workers place an immense importance on their reputation due to the use of algorithmic management by online labor platforms. We provide a general experimental method, which can be used across platforms and time, for numerically quantifying the intensity with which platform workers experience reputation system-based algorithmic management. Our method works via an experiment where workers choose between a monetary bonus or a positive review. We demonstrate this method by measuring the value that freelancers assigned to positive feedback on Upwork in June 2020. The median freelancer in our sample valued a single positive review at ∼ $49 USD. We also find that less experienced freelancers valued a positive review more highly than those with more experience. Qualitative data collected during the experiment indicates that many freelancers considered issues related to reputation system-based algorithmic management while choosing between the monetary reward and the positive review.

It remains unknown whether personalized recommendations increase or decrease the diversity of content people consume. We present results from a randomized field experiment on Spotify testing the effect of personalized recommendations on consumption diversity. In the experiment, both control and treatment users were given podcast recommendations, with the sole aim of increasing podcast consumption. Treatment users' recommendations were personalized based on their music listening history, whereas control users were recommended popular podcasts among users in their demographic group. We find that, on average, the treatment increased podcast streams by 28.90%. However, the treatment also decreased the average individual-level diversity of podcast streams by 11.51%, and increased the aggregate diversity of podcast streams by 5.96%, indicating that personalized recommendations have the potential to create patterns of consumption that are homogenous within and diverse across users, a pattern reflecting Balkanization. Our results provide evidence of an "engagement-diversity trade-off" when recommendations are optimized solely to drive consumption: while personalized recommendations increase user engagement, they also affect the diversity of consumed content. This shift in consumption diversity can affect user retention and lifetime value, and impact the optimal strategy for content producers. We also observe evidence that our treatment affected streams from sections of Spotify's app not directly affected by the experiment, suggesting that exposure to personalized recommendations can affect the content that users consume organically. We believe these findings highlight the need for academics and practitioners to continue investing in personalization methods that explicitly take into account the diversity of content recommended.