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

Krishna P. Gummadi

Krishna P. Gummadi contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
cs.CYArtificial IntelligenceMachine LearningHuman-Computer InteractionInformation RetrievalSocial and Information NetworksComputer Science and Game Theoryphysics.data-anphysics.soc-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
16works
0followers
9topics
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

16 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

GeoX: Mastering Geospatial Reasoning Through Self-Play and Verifiable Rewards

Geospatial reasoning requires solving image-grounded problems over the complex spatial structure of a scene. However, developing this capability is hindered by the cost of annotating a vast and combinatorial question space. We propose GeoX, a self-play framework that acquires spatial logic through executable programs that yield verifiable rewards, without relying on large-scale human-curated data Given a satellite or aerial image, our framework employs a single multimodal policy that proposes spatial problems as executable programs and solves them under three reasoning modes-abduction, deduction, and induction-over spatial primitives and an image understanding tool. A verifier executes each program to covert a reward signal that jointly optimizes the two roles via reinforcement learning. GeoX consistently improves its base VLMs by up to 5.5 points on average, matching or exceeding conventional baselines trained on millions of curated data. Along-side the proposed method, we release a benchmark for geospatial understanding accumulated through self-play.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2026arXiv

To Call or Not to Call: A Framework to Assess and Optimize LLM Tool Calling

Agentic AI architectures augment LLMs with external tools, unlocking strong capabilities. However, tool use is not always beneficial; some calls may be redundant or even harmful. Effective tool use, therefore, hinges on a core LLM decision: whether to call or not call a tool, when performing a task. This decision is particularly challenging for web search tools, where the benefits of external information depend on the model's internal knowledge and its ability to integrate potentially noisy tool responses. We introduce a principled framework inspired by decision-making theory to evaluate web search tool-use decisions along three key factors: necessity, utility, and affordability. Our analysis combines two complementary lenses: a normative perspective that infers true need and utility from an optimal allocation of tool calls, and a descriptive perspective that infers the model's self-perceived need and utility from their observed behaviors. We find that models' perceived need and utility of tool calls are often misaligned with their true need and utility. Building on this framework, we train lightweight estimators of need and utility based on models' hidden states. Our estimators enable simple controllers that can improve decision quality and lead to stronger task performance than the self-perceived set up across three tasks and six models.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

"Learn the Facts About COVID-19": Analyzing the Use of Warning Labels on TikTok Videos

During the COVID-19 pandemic, health-related misinformation and harmful content shared online had a significant adverse effect on society. To mitigate this adverse effect, mainstream social media platforms employed soft moderation interventions (i.e., warning labels) on potentially harmful posts. Despite the recent popularity of these moderation interventions, we lack empirical analyses aiming to uncover how these warning labels are used in the wild, particularly during challenging times like the COVID-19 pandemic. In this work, we analyze the use of warning labels on TikTok, focusing on COVID-19 videos. First, we construct a set of 26 COVID-19 related hashtags, then we collect 41K videos that include those hashtags in their description. Second, we perform a quantitative analysis on the entire dataset to understand the use of warning labels on TikTok. Then, we perform an in-depth qualitative study, using thematic analysis, on 222 COVID-19 related videos to assess the content and the connection between the content and the warning labels. Our analysis shows that TikTok broadly applies warning labels on TikTok videos, likely based on hashtags included in the description. More worrying is the addition of COVID-19 warning labels on videos where their actual content is not related to COVID-19 (23% of the cases in a sample of 143 English videos that are not related to COVID-19). Finally, our qualitative analysis on a sample of 222 videos shows that 7.7% of the videos share misinformation/harmful content and do not include warning labels, 37.3% share benign information and include warning labels, and that 35% of the videos that share misinformation/harmful content (and need a warning label) are made for fun. Our study demonstrates the need to develop more accurate and precise soft moderation systems, especially on a platform like TikTok that is extremely popular among people of younger age.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Alexa, in you, I trust! Fairness and Interpretability Issues in E-commerce Search through Smart Speakers

In traditional (desktop) e-commerce search, a customer issues a specific query and the system returns a ranked list of products in order of relevance to the query. An increasingly popular alternative in e-commerce search is to issue a voice-query to a smart speaker (e.g., Amazon Echo) powered by a voice assistant (VA, e.g., Alexa). In this situation, the VA usually spells out the details of only one product, an explanation citing the reason for its selection, and a default action of adding the product to the customer's cart. This reduced autonomy of the customer in the choice of a product during voice-search makes it necessary for a VA to be far more responsible and trustworthy in its explanation and default action. In this paper, we ask whether the explanation presented for a product selection by the Alexa VA installed on an Amazon Echo device is consistent with human understanding as well as with the observations on other traditional mediums (e.g., desktop ecommerce search). Through a user survey, we find that in 81% cases the interpretation of 'a top result' by the users is different from that of Alexa. While investigating for the fairness of the default action, we observe that over a set of as many as 1000 queries, in nearly 68% cases, there exist one or more products which are more relevant (as per Amazon's own desktop search results) than the product chosen by Alexa. Finally, we conducted a survey over 30 queries for which the Alexa-selected product was different from the top desktop search result, and observed that in nearly 73% cases, the participants preferred the top desktop search result as opposed to the product chosen by Alexa. Our results raise several concerns and necessitates more discussions around the related fairness and interpretability issues of VAs for e-commerce search.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

CrossWalk: Fairness-enhanced Node Representation Learning

The potential for machine learning systems to amplify social inequities and unfairness is receiving increasing popular and academic attention. Much recent work has focused on developing algorithmic tools to assess and mitigate such unfairness. However, there is little work on enhancing fairness in graph algorithms. Here, we develop a simple, effective and general method, CrossWalk, that enhances fairness of various graph algorithms, including influence maximization, link prediction and node classification, applied to node embeddings. CrossWalk is applicable to any random walk based node representation learning algorithm, such as DeepWalk and Node2Vec. The key idea is to bias random walks to cross group boundaries, by upweighting edges which (1) are closer to the groups' peripheries or (2) connect different groups in the network. CrossWalk pulls nodes that are near groups' peripheries towards their neighbors from other groups in the embedding space, while preserving the necessary structural properties of the graph. Extensive experiments show the effectiveness of our algorithm to enhance fairness in various graph algorithms, including influence maximization, link prediction and node classification in synthetic and real networks, with only a very small decrease in performance.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Don't Throw it Away! The Utility of Unlabeled Data in Fair Decision Making

Decision making algorithms, in practice, are often trained on data that exhibits a variety of biases. Decision-makers often aim to take decisions based on some ground-truth target that is assumed or expected to be unbiased, i.e., equally distributed across socially salient groups. In many practical settings, the ground-truth cannot be directly observed, and instead, we have to rely on a biased proxy measure of the ground-truth, i.e., biased labels, in the data. In addition, data is often selectively labeled, i.e., even the biased labels are only observed for a small fraction of the data that received a positive decision. To overcome label and selection biases, recent work proposes to learn stochastic, exploring decision policies via i) online training of new policies at each time-step and ii) enforcing fairness as a constraint on performance. However, the existing approach uses only labeled data, disregarding a large amount of unlabeled data, and thereby suffers from high instability and variance in the learned decision policies at different times. In this paper, we propose a novel method based on a variational autoencoder for practical fair decision-making. Our method learns an unbiased data representation leveraging both labeled and unlabeled data and uses the representations to learn a policy in an online process. Using synthetic data, we empirically validate that our method converges to the optimal (fair) policy according to the ground-truth with low variance. In real-world experiments, we further show that our training approach not only offers a more stable learning process but also yields policies with higher fairness as well as utility than previous approaches.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

FaiRIR: Mitigating Exposure Bias from Related Item Recommendations in Two-Sided Platforms

Related Item Recommendations (RIRs) are ubiquitous in most online platforms today, including e-commerce and content streaming sites. These recommendations not only help users compare items related to a given item, but also play a major role in bringing traffic to individual items, thus deciding the exposure that different items receive. With a growing number of people depending on such platforms to earn their livelihood, it is important to understand whether different items are receiving their desired exposure. To this end, our experiments on multiple real-world RIR datasets reveal that the existing RIR algorithms often result in very skewed exposure distribution of items, and the quality of items is not a plausible explanation for such skew in exposure. To mitigate this exposure bias, we introduce multiple flexible interventions (FaiRIR) in the RIR pipeline. We instantiate these mechanisms with two well-known algorithms for constructing related item recommendations -- rating-SVD and item2vec -- and show on real-world data that our mechanisms allow for a fine-grained control on the exposure distribution, often at a small or no cost in terms of recommendation quality, measured in terms of relatedness and user satisfaction.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Measuring Representational Robustness of Neural Networks Through Shared Invariances

A major challenge in studying robustness in deep learning is defining the set of ``meaningless'' perturbations to which a given Neural Network (NN) should be invariant. Most work on robustness implicitly uses a human as the reference model to define such perturbations. Our work offers a new view on robustness by using another reference NN to define the set of perturbations a given NN should be invariant to, thus generalizing the reliance on a reference ``human NN'' to any NN. This makes measuring robustness equivalent to measuring the extent to which two NNs share invariances, for which we propose a measure called STIR. STIR re-purposes existing representation similarity measures to make them suitable for measuring shared invariances. Using our measure, we are able to gain insights into how shared invariances vary with changes in weight initialization, architecture, loss functions, and training dataset. Our implementation is available at: \url{https://github.com/nvedant07/STIR}.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Scheduling Virtual Conferences Fairly: Achieving Equitable Participant and Speaker Satisfaction

Recently, almost all conferences have moved to virtual mode due to the pandemic-induced restrictions on travel and social gathering. Contrary to in-person conferences, virtual conferences face the challenge of efficiently scheduling talks, accounting for the availability of participants from different timezones and their interests in attending different talks. A natural objective for conference organizers is to maximize efficiency, e.g., total expected audience participation across all talks. However, we show that optimizing for efficiency alone can result in an unfair virtual conference schedule, where individual utilities for participants and speakers can be highly unequal. To address this, we formally define fairness notions for participants and speakers, and derive suitable objectives to account for them. As the efficiency and fairness objectives can be in conflict with each other, we propose a joint optimization framework that allows conference organizers to design schedules that balance (i.e., allow trade-offs) among efficiency, participant fairness and speaker fairness objectives. While the optimization problem can be solved using integer programming to schedule smaller conferences, we provide two scalable techniques to cater to bigger conferences. Extensive evaluations over multiple real-world datasets show the efficacy and flexibility of our proposed approaches.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Taking Advice from (Dis)Similar Machines: The Impact of Human-Machine Similarity on Machine-Assisted Decision-Making

Machine learning algorithms are increasingly used to assist human decision-making. When the goal of machine assistance is to improve the accuracy of human decisions, it might seem appealing to design ML algorithms that complement human knowledge. While neither the algorithm nor the human are perfectly accurate, one could expect that their complementary expertise might lead to improved outcomes. In this study, we demonstrate that in practice decision aids that are not complementary, but make errors similar to human ones may have their own benefits. In a series of human-subject experiments with a total of 901 participants, we study how the similarity of human and machine errors influences human perceptions of and interactions with algorithmic decision aids. We find that (i) people perceive more similar decision aids as more useful, accurate, and predictable, and that (ii) people are more likely to take opposing advice from more similar decision aids, while (iii) decision aids that are less similar to humans have more opportunities to provide opposing advice, resulting in a higher influence on people's decisions overall.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Towards Fair Recommendation in Two-Sided Platforms

Many online platforms today (such as Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, LinkedIn, and AirBnB) can be thought of as two-sided markets with producers and customers of goods and services. Traditionally, recommendation services in these platforms have focused on maximizing customer satisfaction by tailoring the results according to the personalized preferences of individual customers. However, our investigation reinforces the fact that such customer-centric design of these services may lead to unfair distribution of exposure to the producers, which may adversely impact their well-being. On the other hand, a pure producer-centric design might become unfair to the customers. As more and more people are depending on such platforms to earn a living, it is important to ensure fairness to both producers and customers. In this work, by mapping a fair personalized recommendation problem to a constrained version of the problem of fairly allocating indivisible goods, we propose to provide fairness guarantees for both sides. Formally, our proposed {\em FairRec} algorithm guarantees Maxi-Min Share ($α$-MMS) of exposure for the producers, and Envy-Free up to One Item (EF1) fairness for the customers. Extensive evaluations over multiple real-world datasets show the effectiveness of {\em FairRec} in ensuring two-sided fairness while incurring a marginal loss in overall recommendation quality. Finally, we present a modification of FairRec (named as FairRecPlus) that at the cost of additional computation time, improves the recommendation performance for the customers, while maintaining the same fairness guarantees.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

When the Umpire is also a Player: Bias in Private Label Product Recommendations on E-commerce Marketplaces

Algorithmic recommendations mediate interactions between millions of customers and products (in turn, their producers and sellers) on large e-commerce marketplaces like Amazon. In recent years, the producers and sellers have raised concerns about the fairness of black-box recommendation algorithms deployed on these marketplaces. Many complaints are centered around marketplaces biasing the algorithms to preferentially favor their own `private label' products over competitors. These concerns are exacerbated as marketplaces increasingly de-emphasize or replace `organic' recommendations with ad-driven `sponsored' recommendations, which include their own private labels. While these concerns have been covered in popular press and have spawned regulatory investigations, to our knowledge, there has not been any public audit of these marketplace algorithms. In this study, we bridge this gap by performing an end-to-end systematic audit of related item recommendations on Amazon. We propose a network-centric framework to quantify and compare the biases across organic and sponsored related item recommendations. Along a number of our proposed bias measures, we find that the sponsored recommendations are significantly more biased toward Amazon private label products compared to organic recommendations. While our findings are primarily interesting to producers and sellers on Amazon, our proposed bias measures are generally useful for measuring link formation bias in any social or content networks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Bayesian Social Influence in the Online Realm

Our opinions, which things we like or dislike, depend on the opinions of those around us. Nowadays, we are influenced by the opinions of online strangers, expressed in comments and ratings on online platforms. Here, we perform novel "academic A/B testing" experiments with over 2,500 participants to measure the extent of that influence. In our experiments, the participants watch and evaluate videos on mirror proxies of YouTube and Vimeo. We control the comments and ratings that are shown underneath each of these videos. Our study shows that from 5$\%$ up to 40$\%$ of subjects adopt the majority opinion of strangers expressed in the comments. Using Bayes' theorem, we derive a flexible and interpretable family of models of social influence, in which each individual forms posterior opinions stochastically following a logit model. The variants of our mixture model that maximize Akaike information criterion represent two sub-populations, i.e., non-influenceable and influenceable individuals. The prior opinions of the non-influenceable individuals are strongly correlated with the external opinions and have low standard error, whereas the prior opinions of influenceable individuals have high standard error and become correlated with the external opinions due to social influence. Our findings suggest that opinions are random variables updated via Bayes' rule whose standard deviation is correlated with opinion influenceability. Based on these findings, we discuss how to hinder opinion manipulation and misinformation diffusion in the online realm.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Fair Inputs and Fair Outputs: The Incompatibility of Fairness in Privacy and Accuracy

Fairness concerns about algorithmic decision-making systems have been mainly focused on the outputs (e.g., the accuracy of a classifier across individuals or groups). However, one may additionally be concerned with fairness in the inputs. In this paper, we propose and formulate two properties regarding the inputs of (features used by) a classifier. In particular, we claim that fair privacy (whether individuals are all asked to reveal the same information) and need-to-know (whether users are only asked for the minimal information required for the task at hand) are desirable properties of a decision system. We explore the interaction between these properties and fairness in the outputs (fair prediction accuracy). We show that for an optimal classifier these three properties are in general incompatible, and we explain what common properties of data make them incompatible. Finally we provide an algorithm to verify if the trade-off between the three properties exists in a given dataset, and use the algorithm to show that this trade-off is common in real data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On Fair Selection in the Presence of Implicit Variance

Quota-based fairness mechanisms like the so-called Rooney rule or four-fifths rule are used in selection problems such as hiring or college admission to reduce inequalities based on sensitive demographic attributes. These mechanisms are often viewed as introducing a trade-off between selection fairness and utility. In recent work, however, Kleinberg and Raghavan showed that, in the presence of implicit bias in estimating candidates' quality, the Rooney rule can increase the utility of the selection process. We argue that even in the absence of implicit bias, the estimates of candidates' quality from different groups may differ in another fundamental way, namely, in their variance. We term this phenomenon implicit variance and we ask: can fairness mechanisms be beneficial to the utility of a selection process in the presence of implicit variance (even in the absence of implicit bias)? To answer this question, we propose a simple model in which candidates have a true latent quality that is drawn from a group-independent normal distribution. To make the selection, a decision maker receives an unbiased estimate of the quality of each candidate, with normal noise, but whose variance depends on the candidate's group. We then compare the utility obtained by imposing a fairness mechanism that we term $γ$-rule (it includes demographic parity and the four-fifths rule as special cases), to that of a group-oblivious selection algorithm that picks the candidates with the highest estimated quality independently of their group. Our main result shows that the demographic parity mechanism always increases the selection utility, while any $γ$-rule weakly increases it. We extend our model to a two-stage selection process where the true quality is observed at the second stage. We discuss multiple extensions of our results, in particular to different distributions of the true latent quality.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Unifying Model Explainability and Robustness via Machine-Checkable Concepts

As deep neural networks (DNNs) get adopted in an ever-increasing number of applications, explainability has emerged as a crucial desideratum for these models. In many real-world tasks, one of the principal reasons for requiring explainability is to in turn assess prediction robustness, where predictions (i.e., class labels) that do not conform to their respective explanations (e.g., presence or absence of a concept in the input) are deemed to be unreliable. However, most, if not all, prior methods for checking explanation-conformity (e.g., LIME, TCAV, saliency maps) require significant manual intervention, which hinders their large-scale deployability. In this paper, we propose a robustness-assessment framework, at the core of which is the idea of using machine-checkable concepts. Our framework defines a large number of concepts that the DNN explanations could be based on and performs the explanation-conformity check at test time to assess prediction robustness. Both steps are executed in an automated manner without requiring any human intervention and are easily scaled to datasets with a very large number of classes. Experiments on real-world datasets and human surveys show that our framework is able to enhance prediction robustness significantly: the predictions marked to be robust by our framework have significantly higher accuracy and are more robust to adversarial perturbations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access