Camilla Quaresmini

Alessandro Casu, Camilla Quaresmini, Robin Delabays et al.

Inspired by contagion models of social belief formation, we develop an epistemically-informed modeling framework, SIS-Vo, in which vaccine-related information propagates on a signed opinion network. Our model allows for heterogeneous treatment effects of policy messages across subpopulations through demographic-specific responses. We derive fixed-point characterizations of the healthy (disease-free) and endemic equilibria of this model, and obtain conditions for local stability of the healthy state in terms of the contact network and opinion-dependent vaccination capacities. Using numerical simulations, we illustrate how suitably targeted policy interventions, acting through opinion dynamics, can stabilize the epidemic process by moving the system towards the healthy regime. The SIS-Vo framework thus provides a natural basis for control-theoretic analysis of vaccination policies that remain robust even when misinformation targets specific subgroups.

Camilla Quaresmini, Valentina Breschi, Jessica Leoni et al.

Fairness in online advertising is often formalized as a distributive justice problem, aiming to ensure that impressions, opportunities, or outcomes are allocated comparably across protected groups. Yet online advertising can still produce harms arising from ads' content and from how recipients interpret and uptake them. To capture this dimension, we draw on Miranda Fricker's notion of hermeneutical injustice. We model ad delivery as a mechanism that distributes interpretative resources and can fail in two ways: relevant concepts can be withheld through systematic under-exposure, leading to hermeneutical deprivation; and recipients may experience hermeneutical distortions when saturated with low-uptake or skewed framings. Grounded in exploratory correlational patterns from the AIDS Advertising Evaluation surveys (1986-1987), we introduce a group-level hermeneutical fairness constraint and a hermeneutically aware utility cost. We integrate them into a benchmark, utility-driven ad allocation framework that already enforces distributive justice, yielding a distributively fair, hermeneutically aware framework that prevents deprivation and distortion from concentrating within protected groups. Through controlled simulations, we explore trade-offs between economic utility, classical distributive fairness constraints, and hermeneutical cost. The results show that purely utility-based allocation drives under-delivery to the disadvantaged group. When the hermeneutical stakes of withholding ads are high, distributive constraints reduce hermeneutical cost at modest utility loss. Conversely, weighting hermeneutical cost without distributive constraints can yield policies concentrated on the disadvantaged group. These findings motivate expanding fairness analyses of online advertising beyond distributive notions to include epistemic conditions of interpretation and uptake.

Camilla Quaresmini, Lisa Piccinin, Valentina Breschi

Algorithmic systems increasingly function as epistemic infrastructures that govern the conditions of interpretative access and social belief. Yet, mainstream auditing strategies operationalize fairness primarily in predictive terms - error rates, calibration, or group-level parity - leaving epistemic harms under-theorized and under-measured. We propose a quantitative framework for evaluating forms of epistemic injustice in algorithmic environments. First, we introduce a deficit-based template that models epistemic injustices as gaps between ideal and realized conditions across features such as credibility, uptake, and epistemic agency. We map these deficits to concrete stages of algorithmic mediation, showing how epistemic injustice can persist even when standard fairness constraints are satisfied. Drawing on distributive fairness indices, we distinguish two evaluation stances: resource inequality, where indices are applied to distributions of epistemic goods directly, and capability/rights inequity, where indices are applied to output-induced epistemic opportunity. We provide an epistemic translation of canonical indices, illustrating how they diagnose complementary signatures of unfairness - such as exclusionary tails and hierarchical concentration - and support longitudinal auditing under iterative deployment. We also provide a simulation study of a recommender-mediated opinion dynamics setting, showing how the proposed indices capture the evolution of epistemic unfairness under repeated platform interventions. The result is a measurement framework that makes the epistemic dimension of algorithmic harms explicit for system design and evaluation.

Camilla Quaresmini, Giacomo Zanotti

Automatic Gender Recognition (AGR) systems are an increasingly widespread application in the Machine Learning (ML) landscape. While these systems are typically understood as detecting gender, they often classify datapoints based on observable features correlated at best with either male or female sex. In addition to questionable binary assumptions, from an epistemological point of view, this is problematic for two reasons. First, there exists a gap between the categories the system is meant to predict (woman versus man) and those onto which their output reasonably maps (female versus male). What is more, gender cannot be inferred on the basis of such observable features. This makes AGR tools often unreliable, especially in the case of non-binary and gender non-conforming people. We suggest a theoretical and practical rethinking of AGR systems. To begin, distinctions are made between sex, gender, and gender expression. Then, we build upon the observation that, unlike algorithmic misgendering, human-human misgendering is open to the possibility of re-evaluation and correction. We suggest that analogous dynamics should be recreated in AGR, giving users the possibility to correct the system's output. While implementing such a feedback mechanism could be regarded as diminishing the system's autonomy, it represents a way to significantly increase fairness levels in AGR. This is consistent with the conceptual change of paradigm that we advocate for AGR systems, which should be understood as tools respecting individuals' rights and capabilities of self-expression and determination.

Camilla Quaresmini, Giuseppe Primiero

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are not intrinsically neutral and biases trickle in any type of technological tool. In particular when dealing with people, the impact of AI algorithms' technical errors originating with mislabeled data is undeniable. As they feed wrong and discriminatory classifications, these systems are not systematically guarded against bias. In this article we consider the problem of bias in AI systems from the point of view of data quality dimensions. We highlight the limited model construction of bias mitigation tools based on accuracy strategy, illustrating potential improvements of a specific tool in gender classification errors occurring in two typically difficult contexts: the classification of non-binary individuals, for which the label set becomes incomplete with respect to the dataset; and the classification of transgender individuals, for which the dataset becomes inconsistent with respect to the label set. Using formal methods for reasoning about the behavior of the classification system in presence of a changing world, we propose to reconsider the fairness of the classification task in terms of completeness, consistency, timeliness and reliability, and offer some theoretical results.