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

Sarah Dean

Sarah Dean contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Machine Learningcs.CYInformation RetrievalArtificial IntelligenceComputer Science and Game Theoryeess.SYSocial and Information NetworksSystems and Control

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
0followers
8topics
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

7 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Capacity Constraints Make Admissions Processes Less Predictable

Machine learning models are often used to make predictions about admissions process outcomes, such as for colleges or jobs. However, such decision processes differ substantially from the conventional machine learning paradigm. Because admissions decisions are capacity-constrained, whether a student is admitted depends on the other applicants who apply. We show how this dependence affects predictive performance even in otherwise ideal settings. Theoretically, we introduce two concepts that characterize the relationship between admission function properties, machine learning representation, and generalization to applicant pool distribution shifts: instability, which measures how many existing decisions can change when a single new applicant is introduced; and variability, which measures the number of unique students whose decisions can change. Empirically, we illustrate our theory on individual-level admissions data from the New York City high school matching system, showing that machine learning performance degrades as the applicant pool increasingly differs from the training data. Furthermore, there are larger performance drops for schools using decision rules that are more unstable and variable. Our work raises questions about the reliability of predicting individual admissions probabilities.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2024arXiv

Ranking with Long-Term Constraints

The feedback that users provide through their choices (e.g., clicks, purchases) is one of the most common types of data readily available for training search and recommendation algorithms. However, myopically training systems based on choice data may only improve short-term engagement, but not the long-term sustainability of the platform and the long-term benefits to its users, content providers, and other stakeholders. In this paper, we thus develop a new framework in which decision makers (e.g., platform operators, regulators, users) can express long-term goals for the behavior of the platform (e.g., fairness, revenue distribution, legal requirements). These goals take the form of exposure or impact targets that go well beyond individual sessions, and we provide new control-based algorithms to achieve these goals. In particular, the controllers are designed to achieve the stated long-term goals with minimum impact on short-term engagement. Beyond the principled theoretical derivation of the controllers, we evaluate the algorithms on both synthetic and real-world data. While all controllers perform well, we find that they provide interesting trade-offs in efficiency, robustness, and the ability to plan ahead.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Choices, Risks, and Reward Reports: Charting Public Policy for Reinforcement Learning Systems

In the long term, reinforcement learning (RL) is considered by many AI theorists to be the most promising path to artificial general intelligence. This places RL practitioners in a position to design systems that have never existed before and lack prior documentation in law and policy. Public agencies could intervene on complex dynamics that were previously too opaque to deliberate about, and long-held policy ambitions would finally be made tractable. In this whitepaper we illustrate this potential and how it might be technically enacted in the domains of energy infrastructure, social media recommender systems, and transportation. Alongside these unprecedented interventions come new forms of risk that exacerbate the harms already generated by standard machine learning tools. We correspondingly present a new typology of risks arising from RL design choices, falling under four categories: scoping the horizon, defining rewards, pruning information, and training multiple agents. Rather than allowing RL systems to unilaterally reshape human domains, policymakers need new mechanisms for the rule of reason, foreseeability, and interoperability that match the risks these systems pose. We argue that criteria for these choices may be drawn from emerging subfields within antitrust, tort, and administrative law. It will then be possible for courts, federal and state agencies, and non-governmental organizations to play more active roles in RL specification and evaluation. Building on the "model cards" and "datasheets" frameworks proposed by Mitchell et al. and Gebru et al., we argue the need for Reward Reports for AI systems. Reward Reports are living documents for proposed RL deployments that demarcate design choices.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Preference Dynamics Under Personalized Recommendations

Many projects (both practical and academic) have designed algorithms to match users to content they will enjoy under the assumption that user's preferences and opinions do not change with the content they see. Evidence suggests that individuals' preferences are directly shaped by what content they see -- radicalization, rabbit holes, polarization, and boredom are all example phenomena of preferences affected by content. Polarization in particular can occur even in ecosystems with "mass media," where no personalization takes place, as recently explored in a natural model of preference dynamics by~\citet{hkazla2019geometric} and~\citet{gaitonde2021polarization}. If all users' preferences are drawn towards content they already like, or are repelled from content they already dislike, uniform consumption of media leads to a population of heterogeneous preferences converging towards only two poles. In this work, we explore whether some phenomenon akin to polarization occurs when users receive \emph{personalized} content recommendations. We use a similar model of preference dynamics, where an individual's preferences move towards content the consume and enjoy, and away from content they consume and dislike. We show that standard user reward maximization is an almost trivial goal in such an environment (a large class of simple algorithms will achieve only constant regret). A more interesting objective, then, is to understand under what conditions a recommendation algorithm can ensure stationarity of user's preferences. We show how to design a content recommendations which can achieve approximate stationarity, under mild conditions on the set of available content, when a user's preferences are known, and how one can learn enough about a user's preferences to implement such a strategy even when user preferences are initially unknown.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

AI Development for the Public Interest: From Abstraction Traps to Sociotechnical Risks

Despite interest in communicating ethical problems and social contexts within the undergraduate curriculum to advance Public Interest Technology (PIT) goals, interventions at the graduate level remain largely unexplored. This may be due to the conflicting ways through which distinct Artificial Intelligence (AI) research tracks conceive of their interface with social contexts. In this paper we track the historical emergence of sociotechnical inquiry in three distinct subfields of AI research: AI Safety, Fair Machine Learning (Fair ML) and Human-in-the-Loop (HIL) Autonomy. We show that for each subfield, perceptions of PIT stem from the particular dangers faced by past integration of technical systems within a normative social order. We further interrogate how these histories dictate the response of each subfield to conceptual traps, as defined in the Science and Technology Studies literature. Finally, through a comparative analysis of these currently siloed fields, we present a roadmap for a unified approach to sociotechnical graduate pedagogy in AI.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Recommendations and User Agency: The Reachability of Collaboratively-Filtered Information

Recommender systems often rely on models which are trained to maximize accuracy in predicting user preferences. When the systems are deployed, these models determine the availability of content and information to different users. The gap between these objectives gives rise to a potential for unintended consequences, contributing to phenomena such as filter bubbles and polarization. In this work, we consider directly the information availability problem through the lens of user recourse. Using ideas of reachability, we propose a computationally efficient audit for top-$N$ linear recommender models. Furthermore, we describe the relationship between model complexity and the effort necessary for users to exert control over their recommendations. We use this insight to provide a novel perspective on the user cold-start problem. Finally, we demonstrate these concepts with an empirical investigation of a state-of-the-art model trained on a widely used movie ratings dataset.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Balancing Competing Objectives with Noisy Data: Score-Based Classifiers for Welfare-Aware Machine Learning

While real-world decisions involve many competing objectives, algorithmic decisions are often evaluated with a single objective function. In this paper, we study algorithmic policies which explicitly trade off between a private objective (such as profit) and a public objective (such as social welfare). We analyze a natural class of policies which trace an empirical Pareto frontier based on learned scores, and focus on how such decisions can be made in noisy or data-limited regimes. Our theoretical results characterize the optimal strategies in this class, bound the Pareto errors due to inaccuracies in the scores, and show an equivalence between optimal strategies and a rich class of fairness-constrained profit-maximizing policies. We then present empirical results in two different contexts -- online content recommendation and sustainable abalone fisheries -- to underscore the applicability of our approach to a wide range of practical decisions. Taken together, these results shed light on inherent trade-offs in using machine learning for decisions that impact social welfare.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access