Ivaxi Sheth
Publications
Trustworthy AI Suffers from Invariance Conflicts and Causality is The Solution
As artificial intelligence (AI), including machine learning (ML) models and foundation models (FMs), is increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, ensuring their trustworthiness has become a central challenge. However, the core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously, especially while preserving utility. This position paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI. We ground our arguments in re-interpreting trustworthy AI trade-offs as incompatible invariance requirements under different changes to the data-generating process. We then illustrate that causality provides a unifying framework for understanding how trade-offs in trustworthy AI arise, and how they can be softened or resolved through selective invariance. This perspective applies to both classical ML models and large-scale FMs. Our paper discusses how causal assumptions may be applied explicitly or implicitly in modern large-scale systems. Finally, we outline open challenges and opportunities for using causality to build more trustworthy AI.
IV Co-Scientist: Multi-Agent LLM Framework for Causal Instrumental Variable Discovery
In the presence of confounding between an endogenous variable and the outcome, instrumental variables (IVs) are used to isolate the causal effect of the endogenous variable. Identifying valid instruments requires interdisciplinary knowledge, creativity, and contextual understanding, making it a non-trivial task. In this paper, we investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can aid in this task. We perform a two-stage evaluation framework. First, we test whether LLMs can recover well-established instruments from the literature, assessing their ability to replicate standard reasoning. Second, we evaluate whether LLMs can identify and avoid instruments that have been empirically or theoretically discredited. Building on these results, we introduce IV Co-Scientist, a multi-agent system that proposes, critiques, and refines IVs for a given treatment-outcome pair. We also introduce a statistical test to contextualize consistency in the absence of ground truth. Our results show the potential of LLMs to discover valid instrumental variables from a large observational database.
PersistBench: When Should Long-Term Memories Be Forgotten by LLMs?
Conversational assistants are increasingly integrating long-term memory with large language models (LLMs). This persistence of memories, e.g., the user is vegetarian, can enhance personalization in future conversations. However, the same persistence can also introduce safety risks that have been largely overlooked. Hence, we introduce PersistBench to measure the extent of these safety risks. We identify two long-term memory-specific risks: cross-domain leakage, where LLMs inappropriately inject context from the long-term memories; and memory-induced sycophancy, where stored long-term memories insidiously reinforce user biases. We evaluate 18 frontier and open-source LLMs on our benchmark. Our results reveal a surprisingly high failure rate across these LLMs - a median failure rate of 53% on cross-domain samples and 97% on sycophancy samples. To address this, our benchmark encourages the development of more robust and safer long-term memory usage in frontier conversational systems.
Funny or Persuasive, but Not Both: Evaluating Fine-Grained Multi-Concept Control in LLMs
Large Language Models (LLMs) offer strong generative capabilities, but many applications require explicit and \textit{fine-grained} control over specific textual concepts, such as humor, persuasiveness, or formality. Prior approaches in prompting and representation engineering can provide coarse or single-attribute control, but systematic evaluation of multi-attribute settings remains limited. We introduce an evaluation framework for fine-grained controllability for both single- and dual-concept scenarios, focusing on linguistically distinct concept pairs (e.g., persuasiveness vs.~humor). Surprisingly, across multiple LLMs and generative tasks, we find that performance often drops in the dual-concept setting, even though the chosen concepts should in principle be separable. This reveals a fundamental limitation of naive prompting-based control: models struggle with compositionality even when concepts are intuitively independent. Our framework provides systematic evidence of this gap and offers a principled approach for measuring the ability of future methods for multi-concept control.