Behavioral health conditions, which include mental health and substance use disorders, are the leading disease burden in the United States. Peer-run behavioral health organizations (PROs) critically assist individuals facing these conditions by combining mental health services with assistance for needs such as income, employment, and housing. However, limited funds and staffing make it difficult for PROs to address all service user needs. To assist peer providers at PROs with their day-to-day tasks, we introduce PeerCoPilot, a large language model (LLM)-powered assistant that helps peer providers create wellness plans, construct step-by-step goals, and locate organizational resources to support these goals. PeerCoPilot ensures information reliability through a retrieval-augmented generation pipeline backed by a large database of over 1,300 vetted resources. We conducted human evaluations with 15 peer providers and 6 service users and found that over 90% of users supported using PeerCoPilot. Moreover, we demonstrate that PeerCoPilot provides more reliable and specific information than a baseline LLM. PeerCoPilot is now used by a group of 5-10 peer providers at CSPNJ, a large behavioral health organization serving over 10,000 service users, and we are actively expanding PeerCoPilot's use.

Food rescue organizations simultaneously tackle food insecurity and waste by working with volunteers to redistribute food from donors who have excess to recipients who need it. Volunteer feedback allows food rescue organizations to identify issues early and ensure volunteer satisfaction. However, food rescue organizations monitor feedback manually, which can be cumbersome and labor-intensive, making it difficult to prioritize which issues are most important. In this work, we investigate how large language models (LLMs) assist food rescue organizers in understanding and taking action based on volunteer experiences. We work with 412 Food Rescue, a large food rescue organization based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to design RescueLens, an LLM-powered tool that automatically categorizes volunteer feedback, suggests donors and recipients to follow up with, and updates volunteer directions based on feedback. We evaluate the performance of RescueLens on an annotated dataset, and show that it can recover 96% of volunteer issues at 71% precision. Moreover, by ranking donors and recipients according to their rates of volunteer issues, RescueLens allows organizers to focus on 0.5% of donors responsible for more than 30% of volunteer issues. RescueLens is now deployed at 412 Food Rescue and through semi-structured interviews with organizers, we find that RescueLens streamlines the feedback process so organizers better allocate their time.

Peer-run organizations (PROs) provide critical, recovery-based behavioral health support rooted in lived experience. As large language models (LLMs) enter this domain, their scale, conversationality, and opacity introduce new challenges for situatedness, trust, and autonomy. Partnering with Collaborative Support Programs of New Jersey (CSPNJ), a statewide PRO in the Northeastern United States, we used comicboarding, a co-design method, to conduct workshops with 16 peer specialists and 10 service users exploring perceptions of integrating an LLM-based recommendation system into peer support. Findings show that depending on how LLMs are introduced, constrained, and co-used, they can reconfigure in-room dynamics by sustaining, undermining, or amplifying the relational authority that grounds peer support. We identify opportunities, risks, and mitigation strategies across three tensions: bridging scale and locality, protecting trust and relational dynamics, and preserving peer autonomy amid efficiency gains. We contribute design implications that center lived-experience-in-the-loop, reframe trust as co-constructed, and position LLMs not as clinical tools but as relational collaborators in high-stakes, community-led care.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) generate guarantees for treatment effects. However, RCTs often spend unnecessary resources exploring sub-optimal treatments, which can reduce the power of treatment guarantees. To address this, we propose a two-stage RCT design. In the first stage, a data-driven screening procedure prunes low-impact treatments, while the second stage focuses on developing high-probability lower bounds for the best-performing treatment effect. Unlike existing adaptive RCT frameworks, our method is simple enough to be implemented in scenarios with limited adaptivity. We derive optimal designs for two-stage RCTs and demonstrate how such designs can be implemented through sample splitting. Empirically, we demonstrate that two-stage designs improve upon single-stage approaches, especially for scenarios where domain knowledge is available through a prior. Our work is thus, a simple yet effective design for RCTs, optimizing for the ability to certify with high probability the largest possible treatment effect for at least one of the arms studied.

Concept-based explainability methods provide insight into deep learning systems by constructing explanations using human-understandable concepts. While the literature on human reasoning demonstrates that we exploit relationships between concepts when solving tasks, it is unclear whether concept-based methods incorporate the rich structure of inter-concept relationships. We analyse the concept representations learnt by concept-based models to understand whether these models correctly capture inter-concept relationships. First, we empirically demonstrate that state-of-the-art concept-based models produce representations that lack stability and robustness, and such methods fail to capture inter-concept relationships. Then, we develop a novel algorithm which leverages inter-concept relationships to improve concept intervention accuracy, demonstrating how correctly capturing inter-concept relationships can improve downstream tasks.

Restless multi-armed bandits (RMAB) extend multi-armed bandits so arm pulls impact future arm states. Despite the success of RMABs, a key limiting assumption is the separability of rewards into a sum across arms. We address this deficiency by proposing restless-multi-armed bandit with global rewards (RMAB-G), a generalization of RMABs to global non-separable rewards. To solve RMAB-G, we develop the Linear-Whittle and Shapley-Whittle indices, which extend Whittle indices from RMABs to RMAB-Gs. We prove approximation bounds which demonstrate how Linear and Shapley-Whittle indices fail for non-linear rewards. To overcome this limitation, we propose two sets of adaptive policies: the first computes indices iteratively and the second combines indices with Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS). Empirically, we demonstrate that adaptive policies outperform both pre-computed index policies and baselines in synthetic and real-world food rescue datasets.

Placing a human in the loop may help abate the risks of deploying AI systems in safety-critical settings (e.g., a clinician working with a medical AI system). However, mitigating risks arising from human error and uncertainty within such human-AI interactions is an important and understudied issue. In this work, we study human uncertainty in the context of concept-based models, a family of AI systems that enable human feedback via concept interventions where an expert intervenes on human-interpretable concepts relevant to the task. Prior work in this space often assumes that humans are oracles who are always certain and correct. Yet, real-world decision-making by humans is prone to occasional mistakes and uncertainty. We study how existing concept-based models deal with uncertain interventions from humans using two novel datasets: UMNIST, a visual dataset with controlled simulated uncertainty based on the MNIST dataset, and CUB-S, a relabeling of the popular CUB concept dataset with rich, densely-annotated soft labels from humans. We show that training with uncertain concept labels may help mitigate weaknesses of concept-based systems when handling uncertain interventions. These results allow us to identify several open challenges, which we argue can be tackled through future multidisciplinary research on building interactive uncertainty-aware systems. To facilitate further research, we release a new elicitation platform, UElic, to collect uncertain feedback from humans in collaborative prediction tasks.

Our research focuses on developing matching policies that match drivers and riders for ride-pooling services. We aim to develop policies that balance efficiency and various forms of fairness. We did this through two methods: new matching algorithms that include a fairness term in the objective function, and income redistribution methods based on the Shapley value of a driver. I tested these methods on New York City Taxicab data to evaluate their performance and found that they succeed in reducing certain forms of fairness.

Rideshare and ride-pooling platforms use artificial intelligence-based matching algorithms to pair riders and drivers. However, these platforms can induce unfairness either through an unequal income distribution or disparate treatment of riders. We investigate two methods to reduce forms of inequality in ride-pooling platforms: by incorporating fairness constraints into the objective function and redistributing income to drivers who deserve more. To test these out, we use New York City taxi data to evaluate their performance on both the rider and driver side. For the first method, we find that optimizing for driver fairness out-performs state-of-the-art models in terms of the number of riders serviced, showing that optimizing for fairness can assist profitability in certain circumstances. For the second method, we explore income redistribution as a method to combat income inequality by having drivers keep an $r$ fraction of their income, and contribute the rest to a redistribution pool. For certain values of $r$, most drivers earn near their Shapley value, while still incentivizing drivers to maximize income, thereby avoiding the free-rider problem and reducing income variability. While the first method is useful because it improves both rider and driver-side fairness, the second method is useful because it improves fairness without affecting profitability, and both methods can be combined to improve rider and driver-side fairness.