Following the Preference, Missing the Optimum: Compliance Without Optimization in AI Housing Recommendation

Key Findings

• — Across 9,945 model calls (three models, two vendors), the fair-housing violation rate was 1.8% against a 66.6% random floor, yet 39.0% of recommendations were strictly dominated by a listing in the same pool that was cheaper, faster to commute from and no smaller.
• — The dominating listing was a median 900 USD per month cheaper and 3.5 minutes closer.
• — A within-scenario manipulation separated preference-following from optimisation: changing one sentence moved median recommended rent by 646 USD a month in the right direction, yet recommendations still sat 606 USD a month above the five cheapest qualifying listings on the same screen, and an explicit lexicographic instruction gave no improvement under equivalence testing against a 50 USD bound.
• — The gap widened with candidate-set size and replicated across OpenAI and Anthropic models to within 3 USD.
• — The author names the failure compliance without optimization, proposes dominance-rate instrumentation as a deployable diagnostic, and releases code, prompts and per-call results.

Methodology Notes

Single-author audit with a pre-data registration (v0.1, 23 August 2026) superseded by the completed v0.2 (6 September 2026); 150 synthetic renter scenarios, 120 real NYC listings per pool, GTFS-computed commutes, 9,945 attempted calls (9,601 parsed), three models from OpenAI and Anthropic (not named in the abstract). arXiv v1 2026-09-09. The author lists a Harvard doctorate and no institutional affiliation, hence the preliminary grade; the ground truth is enumerable, which is the study's strength.

Sources