BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Peter Henderson

Peter Henderson appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
cs.CYMachine LearningArtificial IntelligenceCryptography and Security

Catalog footprint

What is connected

7works
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

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

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Legal Alignment for Safe and Ethical AI

Alignment of artificial intelligence (AI) encompasses the normative problem of specifying how AI systems should act and the technical problem of ensuring AI systems comply with those specifications. To date, AI alignment has generally overlooked an important source of knowledge and practice for grappling with these problems: law. In this paper, we aim to fill this gap by exploring how legal rules, principles, and methods can be leveraged to address problems of alignment and inform the design of AI systems that operate safely and ethically. This emerging field -- legal alignment -- focuses on three research directions: (1) designing AI systems to comply with the content of legal rules developed through legitimate institutions and processes, (2) adapting methods from legal interpretation to guide how AI systems reason and make decisions, and (3) harnessing legal concepts as a structural blueprint for confronting challenges of reliability, trust, and cooperation in AI systems. These research directions present new conceptual, empirical, and institutional questions, which include examining the specific set of laws that particular AI systems should follow, creating evaluations to assess their legal compliance in real-world settings, and developing governance frameworks to support the implementation of legal alignment in practice. Tackling these questions requires expertise across law, computer science, and other disciplines, offering these communities the opportunity to collaborate in designing AI for the better.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Entropy Regularization for Population Estimation

Entropy regularization is known to improve exploration in sequential decision-making problems. We show that this same mechanism can also lead to nearly unbiased and lower-variance estimates of the mean reward in the optimize-and-estimate structured bandit setting. Mean reward estimation (i.e., population estimation) tasks have recently been shown to be essential for public policy settings where legal constraints often require precise estimates of population metrics. We show that leveraging entropy and KL divergence can yield a better trade-off between reward and estimator variance than existing baselines, all while remaining nearly unbiased. These properties of entropy regularization illustrate an exciting potential for bridging the optimal exploration and estimation literatures.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models

AI is undergoing a paradigm shift with the rise of models (e.g., BERT, DALL-E, GPT-3) that are trained on broad data at scale and are adaptable to a wide range of downstream tasks. We call these models foundation models to underscore their critically central yet incomplete character. This report provides a thorough account of the opportunities and risks of foundation models, ranging from their capabilities (e.g., language, vision, robotics, reasoning, human interaction) and technical principles(e.g., model architectures, training procedures, data, systems, security, evaluation, theory) to their applications (e.g., law, healthcare, education) and societal impact (e.g., inequity, misuse, economic and environmental impact, legal and ethical considerations). Though foundation models are based on standard deep learning and transfer learning, their scale results in new emergent capabilities,and their effectiveness across so many tasks incentivizes homogenization. Homogenization provides powerful leverage but demands caution, as the defects of the foundation model are inherited by all the adapted models downstream. Despite the impending widespread deployment of foundation models, we currently lack a clear understanding of how they work, when they fail, and what they are even capable of due to their emergent properties. To tackle these questions, we believe much of the critical research on foundation models will require deep interdisciplinary collaboration commensurate with their fundamentally sociotechnical nature.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Ideas for Improving the Field of Machine Learning: Summarizing Discussion from the NeurIPS 2019 Retrospectives Workshop

This report documents ideas for improving the field of machine learning, which arose from discussions at the ML Retrospectives workshop at NeurIPS 2019. The goal of the report is to disseminate these ideas more broadly, and in turn encourage continuing discussion about how the field could improve along these axes. We focus on topics that were most discussed at the workshop: incentives for encouraging alternate forms of scholarship, re-structuring the review process, participation from academia and industry, and how we might better train computer scientists as scientists. Videos from the workshop can be accessed at https://slideslive.com/neurips/west-114-115-retrospectives-a-venue-for-selfreflection-in-ml-research

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

TDprop: Does Jacobi Preconditioning Help Temporal Difference Learning?

We investigate whether Jacobi preconditioning, accounting for the bootstrap term in temporal difference (TD) learning, can help boost performance of adaptive optimizers. Our method, TDprop, computes a per parameter learning rate based on the diagonal preconditioning of the TD update rule. We show how this can be used in both $n$-step returns and TD($λ$). Our theoretical findings demonstrate that including this additional preconditioning information is, surprisingly, comparable to normal semi-gradient TD if the optimal learning rate is found for both via a hyperparameter search. In Deep RL experiments using Expected SARSA, TDprop meets or exceeds the performance of Adam in all tested games under near-optimal learning rates, but a well-tuned SGD can yield similar improvements -- matching our theory. Our findings suggest that Jacobi preconditioning may improve upon typical adaptive optimization methods in Deep RL, but despite incorporating additional information from the TD bootstrap term, may not always be better than SGD.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims

With the recent wave of progress in artificial intelligence (AI) has come a growing awareness of the large-scale impacts of AI systems, and recognition that existing regulations and norms in industry and academia are insufficient to ensure responsible AI development. In order for AI developers to earn trust from system users, customers, civil society, governments, and other stakeholders that they are building AI responsibly, they will need to make verifiable claims to which they can be held accountable. Those outside of a given organization also need effective means of scrutinizing such claims. This report suggests various steps that different stakeholders can take to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems and their associated development processes, with a focus on providing evidence about the safety, security, fairness, and privacy protection of AI systems. We analyze ten mechanisms for this purpose--spanning institutions, software, and hardware--and make recommendations aimed at implementing, exploring, or improving those mechanisms.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Chaotic Memory Randomization for Securing Embedded Systems

Embedded systems permeate through nearly all aspects of modern society. From cars to refrigerators to nuclear refineries, securing these systems has never been more important. Intrusions, such as the Stuxnet malware which broke the centrifuges in Iran's Natanz refinery, can be catastrophic to not only the infected systems, but even to the wellbeing of the surrounding population. Modern day protection mechanisms for these embedded systems generally look only at protecting the network layer, and those that try to discover malware already existing on a system typically aren't efficient enough to run on a standalone embedded system. As such, we present a novel way to ensure that no malware has been inserted into an embedded system. We chaotically randomize the entire memory space of the application, interspersing watchdog-monitor programs throughout, to monitor that the core application hasn't been infiltrated. By validating the original program through conventional methods and creating a clean reset, we can ensure that any inserted malware is purged from the system with minimal effect on the given system. We also present a software prototype to validate the possibility of this approach, but given the limitations and vulnerabilities of the prototype, we also suggest a hardware alternative to the system.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access