BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Avijit Ghosh

Avijit Ghosh contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
cs.CYMachine LearningArtificial Intelligence

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

What if AI systems weren't chatbots?

The rapid convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) toward conversational chatbot interfaces marks a critical moment for the industry. This paper argues that the chatbot paradigm is not a neutral interface choice, but a dominant sociotechnical configuration whose widespread adoption reshapes social, economic, legal, and environmental systems. We examine how treating AI primarily as conversational assistants has extensive structural downsides. We show how chatbot-based systems often fail to adequately meet user needs, particularly in complex or high-stakes contexts, while projecting confidence and authority. We further analyze how the normalization of chatbot-mediated interaction alters patterns of work, learning, and decision-making, contributing to deskilling, homogenization of knowledge, and shifting expectations of expertise. Finally, we examine broader societal effects, including labor displacement, concentration of economic power, and increased environmental costs driven by sustained investment in large-scale chatbot infrastructures. While acknowledging legitimate benefits, we argue that the current trajectory of AI development reflects specific value choices that prioritize conversational generality over domain specificity, accountability, and long-term social sustainability. We conclude by outlining alternative directions for AI development and governance that move beyond one-size-fits-all chatbots, emphasizing pluralistic system design, task-specific tools, and institutional safeguards to mitigate social and economic harm.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Algorithms that "Don't See Color": Comparing Biases in Lookalike and Special Ad Audiences

Researchers and journalists have repeatedly shown that algorithms commonly used in domains such as credit, employment, healthcare, or criminal justice can have discriminatory effects. Some organizations have tried to mitigate these effects by simply removing sensitive features from an algorithm's inputs. In this paper, we explore the limits of this approach using a unique opportunity. In 2019, Facebook agreed to settle a lawsuit by removing certain sensitive features from inputs of an algorithm that identifies users similar to those provided by an advertiser for ad targeting, making both the modified and unmodified versions of the algorithm available to advertisers. We develop methodologies to measure biases along the lines of gender, age, and race in the audiences created by this modified algorithm, relative to the unmodified one. Our results provide experimental proof that merely removing demographic features from a real-world algorithmic system's inputs can fail to prevent biased outputs. As a result, organizations using algorithms to help mediate access to important life opportunities should consider other approaches to mitigating discriminatory effects.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Characterizing Intersectional Group Fairness with Worst-Case Comparisons

Machine Learning or Artificial Intelligence algorithms have gained considerable scrutiny in recent times owing to their propensity towards imitating and amplifying existing prejudices in society. This has led to a niche but growing body of work that identifies and attempts to fix these biases. A first step towards making these algorithms more fair is designing metrics that measure unfairness. Most existing work in this field deals with either a binary view of fairness (protected vs. unprotected groups) or politically defined categories (race or gender). Such categorization misses the important nuance of intersectionality - biases can often be amplified in subgroups that combine membership from different categories, especially if such a subgroup is particularly underrepresented in historical platforms of opportunity. In this paper, we discuss why fairness metrics need to be looked at under the lens of intersectionality, identify existing work in intersectional fairness, suggest a simple worst case comparison method to expand the definitions of existing group fairness metrics to incorporate intersectionality, and finally conclude with the social, legal and political framework to handle intersectional fairness in the modern context.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Subverting Fair Image Search with Generative Adversarial Perturbations

In this work we explore the intersection fairness and robustness in the context of ranking: when a ranking model has been calibrated to achieve some definition of fairness, is it possible for an external adversary to make the ranking model behave unfairly without having access to the model or training data? To investigate this question, we present a case study in which we develop and then attack a state-of-the-art, fairness-aware image search engine using images that have been maliciously modified using a Generative Adversarial Perturbation (GAP) model. These perturbations attempt to cause the fair re-ranking algorithm to unfairly boost the rank of images containing people from an adversary-selected subpopulation. We present results from extensive experiments demonstrating that our attacks can successfully confer significant unfair advantage to people from the majority class relative to fairly-ranked baseline search results. We demonstrate that our attacks are robust across a number of variables, that they have close to zero impact on the relevance of search results, and that they succeed under a strict threat model. Our findings highlight the danger of deploying fair machine learning algorithms in-the-wild when (1) the data necessary to achieve fairness may be adversarially manipulated, and (2) the models themselves are not robust against attacks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Unified Shapley Framework to Explain Prediction Drift

Predictions are the currency of a machine learning model, and to understand the model's behavior over segments of a dataset, or over time, is an important problem in machine learning research and practice. There currently is no systematic framework to understand this drift in prediction distributions over time or between two semantically meaningful slices of data, in terms of the input features and points. We propose GroupShapley and GroupIG (Integrated Gradients), as axiomatically justified methods to tackle this problem. In doing so, we re-frame all current feature/data importance measures based on the Shapley value as essentially problems of distributional comparisons, and unify them under a common umbrella. We axiomatize certain desirable properties of distributional difference, and study the implications of choosing them empirically.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access