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

Kush R. Varshney

Kush R. Varshney contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Machine LearningArtificial Intelligencecs.CYHuman-Computer InteractionCryptography and SecurityDatabases

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
14works
0followers
6topics
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

14 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

An Algebraic Exposition of the Theory of Dyadic Morality

This paper provides an algebraic exposition of the theory of dyadic morality (TDM), a psychological model of moral judgment grounded in a simple two-node template: an intentional agent causing harm to a vulnerable patient. We formalize TDM using structural causal modeling (SCM) notation and identify three psychological operators (typecasting operator, completion operator, and valence-dependent inference mechanism) that extend standard SCM to capture how people compute moral judgments under constraints. We address scalability challenges arising from TDM's dyadic limitation, showing how moral cognition compresses multi-node scenarios through node collapse and sequential processing. Drawing on this algebraic framework, we demonstrate concrete applications to AI policy design: detecting conflicting obligations, structuring helpfulness policies to preserve user agency, and designing post-failure communication as causal interventions. Finally, we recommend scoped, contextual measurement of mind perception over universal averaging to operationalize the theory empirically. This algebraic formalization enables neurosymbolic AI systems to compute morality in a way that is both mathematically rigorous and faithful to human moral cognition.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Causal Feature Selection for Algorithmic Fairness

The use of machine learning (ML) in high-stakes societal decisions has encouraged the consideration of fairness throughout the ML lifecycle. Although data integration is one of the primary steps to generate high quality training data, most of the fairness literature ignores this stage. In this work, we consider fairness in the integration component of data management, aiming to identify features that improve prediction without adding any bias to the dataset. We work under the causal interventional fairness paradigm. Without requiring the underlying structural causal model a priori, we propose an approach to identify a sub-collection of features that ensure the fairness of the dataset by performing conditional independence tests between different subsets of features. We use group testing to improve the complexity of the approach. We theoretically prove the correctness of the proposed algorithm to identify features that ensure interventional fairness and show that sub-linear conditional independence tests are sufficient to identify these variables. A detailed empirical evaluation is performed on real-world datasets to demonstrate the efficacy and efficiency of our technique.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Deciding Fast and Slow: The Role of Cognitive Biases in AI-assisted Decision-making

Several strands of research have aimed to bridge the gap between artificial intelligence (AI) and human decision-makers in AI-assisted decision-making, where humans are the consumers of AI model predictions and the ultimate decision-makers in high-stakes applications. However, people's perception and understanding are often distorted by their cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, anchoring bias, availability bias, to name a few. In this work, we use knowledge from the field of cognitive science to account for cognitive biases in the human-AI collaborative decision-making setting, and mitigate their negative effects on collaborative performance. To this end, we mathematically model cognitive biases and provide a general framework through which researchers and practitioners can understand the interplay between cognitive biases and human-AI accuracy. We then focus specifically on anchoring bias, a bias commonly encountered in human-AI collaboration. We implement a time-based de-anchoring strategy and conduct our first user experiment that validates its effectiveness in human-AI collaborative decision-making. With this result, we design a time allocation strategy for a resource-constrained setting that achieves optimal human-AI collaboration under some assumptions. We, then, conduct a second user experiment which shows that our time allocation strategy with explanation can effectively de-anchor the human and improve collaborative performance when the AI model has low confidence and is incorrect.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Differentially Private SGDA for Minimax Problems

Stochastic gradient descent ascent (SGDA) and its variants have been the workhorse for solving minimax problems. However, in contrast to the well-studied stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with differential privacy (DP) constraints, there is little work on understanding the generalization (utility) of SGDA with DP constraints. In this paper, we use the algorithmic stability approach to establish the generalization (utility) of DP-SGDA in different settings. In particular, for the convex-concave setting, we prove that the DP-SGDA can achieve an optimal utility rate in terms of the weak primal-dual population risk in both smooth and non-smooth cases. To our best knowledge, this is the first-ever-known result for DP-SGDA in the non-smooth case. We further provide its utility analysis in the nonconvex-strongly-concave setting which is the first-ever-known result in terms of the primal population risk. The convergence and generalization results for this nonconvex setting are new even in the non-private setting. Finally, numerical experiments are conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of DP-SGDA for both convex and nonconvex cases.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Empirical or Invariant Risk Minimization? A Sample Complexity Perspective

Recently, invariant risk minimization (IRM) was proposed as a promising solution to address out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization. However, it is unclear when IRM should be preferred over the widely-employed empirical risk minimization (ERM) framework. In this work, we analyze both these frameworks from the perspective of sample complexity, thus taking a firm step towards answering this important question. We find that depending on the type of data generation mechanism, the two approaches might have very different finite sample and asymptotic behavior. For example, in the covariate shift setting we see that the two approaches not only arrive at the same asymptotic solution, but also have similar finite sample behavior with no clear winner. For other distribution shifts such as those involving confounders or anti-causal variables, however, the two approaches arrive at different asymptotic solutions where IRM is guaranteed to be close to the desired OOD solutions in the finite sample regime, while ERM is biased even asymptotically. We further investigate how different factors -- the number of environments, complexity of the model, and IRM penalty weight -- impact the sample complexity of IRM in relation to its distance from the OOD solutions

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Human-Centered Explainable AI (XAI): From Algorithms to User Experiences

In recent years, the field of explainable AI (XAI) has produced a vast collection of algorithms, providing a useful toolbox for researchers and practitioners to build XAI applications. With the rich application opportunities, explainability is believed to have moved beyond a demand by data scientists or researchers to comprehend the models they develop, to an essential requirement for people to trust and adopt AI deployed in numerous domains. However, explainability is an inherently human-centric property and the field is starting to embrace human-centered approaches. Human-computer interaction (HCI) research and user experience (UX) design in this area are becoming increasingly important. In this chapter, we begin with a high-level overview of the technical landscape of XAI algorithms, then selectively survey our own and other recent HCI works that take human-centered approaches to design, evaluate, and provide conceptual and methodological tools for XAI. We ask the question "what are human-centered approaches doing for XAI" and highlight three roles that they play in shaping XAI technologies by helping navigate, assess and expand the XAI toolbox: to drive technical choices by users' explainability needs, to uncover pitfalls of existing XAI methods and inform new methods, and to provide conceptual frameworks for human-compatible XAI.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Humble Machines: Attending to the Underappreciated Costs of Misplaced Distrust

It is curious that AI increasingly outperforms human decision makers, yet much of the public distrusts AI to make decisions affecting their lives. In this paper we explore a novel theory that may explain one reason for this. We propose that public distrust of AI is a moral consequence of designing systems that prioritize reduction of costs of false positives over less tangible costs of false negatives. We show that such systems, which we characterize as 'distrustful', are more likely to miscategorize trustworthy individuals, with cascading consequences to both those individuals and the overall human-AI trust relationship. Ultimately, we argue that public distrust of AI stems from well-founded concern about the potential of being miscategorized. We propose that restoring public trust in AI will require that systems are designed to embody a stance of 'humble trust', whereby the moral costs of the misplaced distrust associated with false negatives is weighted appropriately during development and use.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

AI Explainability 360: Impact and Design

As artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms become increasingly prevalent in society, multiple stakeholders are calling for these algorithms to provide explanations. At the same time, these stakeholders, whether they be affected citizens, government regulators, domain experts, or system developers, have different explanation needs. To address these needs, in 2019, we created AI Explainability 360 (Arya et al. 2020), an open source software toolkit featuring ten diverse and state-of-the-art explainability methods and two evaluation metrics. This paper examines the impact of the toolkit with several case studies, statistics, and community feedback. The different ways in which users have experienced AI Explainability 360 have resulted in multiple types of impact and improvements in multiple metrics, highlighted by the adoption of the toolkit by the independent LF AI & Data Foundation. The paper also describes the flexible design of the toolkit, examples of its use, and the significant educational material and documentation available to its users.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Insiders and Outsiders in Research on Machine Learning and Society

A subset of machine learning research intersects with societal issues, including fairness, accountability and transparency, as well as the use of machine learning for social good. In this work, we analyze the scholars contributing to this research at the intersection of machine learning and society through the lens of the sociology of science. By analyzing the authorship of all machine learning papers posted to arXiv, we show that compared to researchers from overrepresented backgrounds (defined by gender and race/ethnicity), researchers from underrepresented backgrounds are more likely to conduct research at this intersection than other kinds of machine learning research. This state of affairs leads to contention between two perspectives on insiders and outsiders in the scientific enterprise: outsiders being those outside the group being studied, and outsiders being those who have not participated as researchers in an area historically. This contention manifests as an epistemic question on the validity of knowledge derived from lived experience in machine learning research, and predicts boundary work that we see in a real-world example.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Characterization of Overlap in Observational Studies

Overlap between treatment groups is required for non-parametric estimation of causal effects. If a subgroup of subjects always receives the same intervention, we cannot estimate the effect of intervention changes on that subgroup without further assumptions. When overlap does not hold globally, characterizing local regions of overlap can inform the relevance of causal conclusions for new subjects, and can help guide additional data collection. To have impact, these descriptions must be interpretable for downstream users who are not machine learning experts, such as policy makers. We formalize overlap estimation as a problem of finding minimum volume sets subject to coverage constraints and reduce this problem to binary classification with Boolean rule classifiers. We then generalize this method to estimate overlap in off-policy policy evaluation. In several real-world applications, we demonstrate that these rules have comparable accuracy to black-box estimators and provide intuitive and informative explanations that can inform policy making.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Interpretable Subgroup Discovery in Treatment Effect Estimation with Application to Opioid Prescribing Guidelines

The dearth of prescribing guidelines for physicians is one key driver of the current opioid epidemic in the United States. In this work, we analyze medical and pharmaceutical claims data to draw insights on characteristics of patients who are more prone to adverse outcomes after an initial synthetic opioid prescription. Toward this end, we propose a generative model that allows discovery from observational data of subgroups that demonstrate an enhanced or diminished causal effect due to treatment. Our approach models these sub-populations as a mixture distribution, using sparsity to enhance interpretability, while jointly learning nonlinear predictors of the potential outcomes to better adjust for confounding. The approach leads to human-interpretable insights on discovered subgroups, improving the practical utility for decision support

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Invariant Risk Minimization Games

The standard risk minimization paradigm of machine learning is brittle when operating in environments whose test distributions are different from the training distribution due to spurious correlations. Training on data from many environments and finding invariant predictors reduces the effect of spurious features by concentrating models on features that have a causal relationship with the outcome. In this work, we pose such invariant risk minimization as finding the Nash equilibrium of an ensemble game among several environments. By doing so, we develop a simple training algorithm that uses best response dynamics and, in our experiments, yields similar or better empirical accuracy with much lower variance than the challenging bi-level optimization problem of Arjovsky et al. (2019). One key theoretical contribution is showing that the set of Nash equilibria for the proposed game are equivalent to the set of invariant predictors for any finite number of environments, even with nonlinear classifiers and transformations. As a result, our method also retains the generalization guarantees to a large set of environments shown in Arjovsky et al. (2019). The proposed algorithm adds to the collection of successful game-theoretic machine learning algorithms such as generative adversarial networks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Joint Optimization of AI Fairness and Utility: A Human-Centered Approach

Today, AI is increasingly being used in many high-stakes decision-making applications in which fairness is an important concern. Already, there are many examples of AI being biased and making questionable and unfair decisions. The AI research community has proposed many methods to measure and mitigate unwanted biases, but few of them involve inputs from human policy makers. We argue that because different fairness criteria sometimes cannot be simultaneously satisfied, and because achieving fairness often requires sacrificing other objectives such as model accuracy, it is key to acquire and adhere to human policy makers' preferences on how to make the tradeoff among these objectives. In this paper, we propose a framework and some exemplar methods for eliciting such preferences and for optimizing an AI model according to these preferences.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Trust and Transparency in Contact Tracing Applications

The global outbreak of COVID-19 has led to focus on efforts to manage and mitigate the continued spread of the disease. One of these efforts include the use of contact tracing to identify people who are at-risk of developing the disease through exposure to an infected person. Historically, contact tracing has been primarily manual but given the exponential spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, there has been significant interest in the development and use of digital contact tracing solutions to supplement the work of human contact tracers. The collection and use of sensitive personal details by these applications has led to a number of concerns by the stakeholder groups with a vested interest in these solutions. We explore digital contact tracing solutions in detail and propose the use of a transparent reporting mechanism, FactSheets, to provide transparency of and support trust in these applications. We also provide an example FactSheet template with questions that are specific to the contact tracing application domain.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access