Maarten Buyl

Alexander H. Liu, Kartik Khandelwal, Sandeep Subramanian et al.

We introduce the Ministral 3 series, a family of parameter-efficient dense language models designed for compute and memory constrained applications, available in three model sizes: 3B, 8B, and 14B parameters. For each model size, we release three variants: a pretrained base model for general-purpose use, an instruction finetuned, and a reasoning model for complex problem-solving. In addition, we present our recipe to derive the Ministral 3 models through Cascade Distillation, an iterative pruning and continued training with distillation technique. Each model comes with image understanding capabilities, all under the Apache 2.0 license.

MaryBeth Defrance, Maarten Buyl, Tijl De Bie

Numerous methods have been implemented that pursue fairness with respect to sensitive features by mitigating biases in machine learning. Yet, the problem settings that each method tackles vary significantly, including the stage of intervention, the composition of sensitive features, the fairness notion, and the distribution of the output. Even in binary classification, these subtle differences make it highly complicated to benchmark fairness methods, as their performance can strongly depend on exactly how the bias mitigation problem was originally framed. Hence, we introduce ABCFair, a benchmark approach which allows adapting to the desiderata of the real-world problem setting, enabling proper comparability between methods for any use case. We apply ABCFair to a range of pre-, in-, and postprocessing methods on both large-scale, traditional datasets and on a dual label (biased and unbiased) dataset to sidestep the fairness-accuracy trade-off.

Maarten Buyl, MaryBeth Defrance, Tijl De Bie

Current fairness toolkits in machine learning only admit a limited range of fairness definitions and have seen little integration with automatic differentiation libraries, despite the central role these libraries play in modern machine learning pipelines. We introduce a framework of fairness regularization terms (fairrets) which quantify bias as modular, flexible objectives that are easily integrated in automatic differentiation pipelines. By employing a general definition of fairness in terms of linear-fractional statistics, a wide class of fairrets can be computed efficiently. Experiments show the behavior of their gradients and their utility in enforcing fairness with minimal loss of predictive power compared to baselines. Our contribution includes a PyTorch implementation of the fairret framework.

Maarten Buyl, Paul Missault, Pierre-Antoine Sondag

Web applications where users are presented with a limited selection of items have long employed ranking models to put the most relevant results first. Any feedback received from users is typically assumed to reflect a relative judgement on the utility of items, e.g. a user clicking on an item only implies it is better than items not clicked in the same ranked list. Hence, the objectives optimized in Learning-to-Rank (LTR) tend to be pairwise or listwise. Yet, by only viewing feedback as relative, we neglect the user's absolute feedback on the list's overall quality, e.g. when no items in the selection are clicked. We thus reconsider the standard LTR paradigm and argue the benefits of learning from this listwide signal. To this end, we propose the RankFormer as an architecture that, with a Transformer at its core, can jointly optimize a novel listwide assessment objective and a traditional listwise LTR objective. We simulate implicit feedback on public datasets and observe that the RankFormer succeeds in benefitting from listwide signals. Additionally, we conduct experiments in e-commerce on Amazon Search data and find the RankFormer to be superior to all baselines offline. An online experiment shows that knowledge distillation can be used to find immediate practical use for the RankFormer.

Maarten Buyl, Alexander Rogiers, Sander Noels et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language, enabling them to perform tasks like text summarization and question answering. These models have become popular in artificial intelligence (AI) assistants like ChatGPT and already play an influential role in how humans access information. However, the behavior of LLMs varies depending on their design, training, and use. In this paper, we prompt a diverse panel of popular LLMs to describe a large number of prominent personalities with political relevance, in all six official languages of the United Nations. By identifying and analyzing moral assessments reflected in their responses, we find normative differences between LLMs from different geopolitical regions, as well as between the responses of the same LLM when prompted in different languages. Among only models in the United States, we find that popularly hypothesized disparities in political views are reflected in significant normative differences related to progressive values. Among Chinese models, we characterize a division between internationally- and domestically-focused models. Our results show that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators. This poses the risk of political instrumentalization and raises concerns around technological and regulatory efforts with the stated aim of making LLMs ideologically 'unbiased'.

Alexander Rogiers, Sander Noels, Maarten Buyl et al.

The rapid rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has created new disruptive possibilities for persuasive communication, by enabling fully-automated personalized and interactive content generation at an unprecedented scale. In this paper, we survey the research field of LLM-based persuasion that has emerged as a result. We begin by exploring the different modes in which LLM Systems are used to influence human attitudes and behaviors. In areas such as politics, marketing, public health, e-commerce, and charitable giving, such LLM Systems have already achieved human-level or even super-human persuasiveness. We identify key factors influencing their effectiveness, such as the manner of personalization and whether the content is labelled as AI-generated. We also summarize the experimental designs that have been used to evaluate progress. Our survey suggests that the current and future potential of LLM-based persuasion poses profound ethical and societal risks, including the spread of misinformation, the magnification of biases, and the invasion of privacy. These risks underscore the urgent need for ethical guidelines and updated regulatory frameworks to avoid the widespread deployment of irresponsible and harmful LLM Systems.

Maarten Buyl, Hadi Khalaf, Claudio Mayrink Verdun et al.

In AI alignment, extensive latitude must be granted to annotators, either human or algorithmic, to judge which model outputs are `better' or `safer.' We refer to this latitude as alignment discretion. Such discretion remains largely unexamined, posing two risks: (i) annotators may use their power of discretion arbitrarily, and (ii) models may fail to mimic this discretion. To study this phenomenon, we draw on legal concepts of discretion that structure how decision-making authority is conferred and exercised, particularly in cases where principles conflict or their application is unclear or irrelevant. Extended to AI alignment, discretion is required when alignment principles and rules are (inevitably) conflicting or indecisive. We present a set of metrics to systematically analyze when and how discretion in AI alignment is exercised, such that both risks (i) and (ii) can be observed. Moreover, we distinguish between human and algorithmic discretion and analyze the discrepancy between them. By measuring both human and algorithmic discretion over safety alignment datasets, we reveal layers of discretion in the alignment process that were previously unaccounted for. Furthermore, we demonstrate how algorithms trained on these datasets develop their own forms of discretion in interpreting and applying these principles, which challenges the purpose of having any principles at all. Our paper presents the first step towards formalizing this core gap in current alignment processes, and we call on the community to further scrutinize and control alignment discretion.

Sander Noels, Guillaume Bied, Maarten Buyl et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as gateways to information, yet their content moderation practices remain underexplored. This work investigates the extent to which LLMs refuse to answer or omit information when prompted on political topics. To do so, we distinguish between hard censorship (i.e., generated refusals, error messages, or canned denial responses) and soft censorship (i.e., selective omission or downplaying of key elements), which we identify in LLMs' responses when asked to provide information on a broad range of political figures. Our analysis covers 14 state-of-the-art models from Western countries, China, and Russia, prompted in all six official United Nations (UN) languages. Our analysis suggests that although censorship is observed across the board, it is predominantly tailored to an LLM provider's domestic audience and typically manifests as either hard censorship or soft censorship (though rarely both concurrently). These findings underscore the need for ideological and geographic diversity among publicly available LLMs, and greater transparency in LLM moderation strategies to facilitate informed user choices. All data are made freely available.

MaryBeth Defrance, Guillaume Bied, Maarten Buyl et al.

Over the past 15 years, hundreds of bias mitigation methods have been proposed in the pursuit of fairness in machine learning (ML). However, algorithmic biases are domain-, task-, and model-specific, leading to a `portability trap': bias mitigation solutions in one context may not be appropriate in another. Thus, a myriad of design choices have to be made when creating a bias mitigation method, such as the formalization of fairness it pursues, and where and how it intervenes in the ML pipeline. This creates challenges in benchmarking and comparing the relative merits of different bias mitigation methods, and limits their uptake by practitioners. We propose BiMi Sheets as a portable, uniform guide to document the design choices of any bias mitigation method. This enables researchers and practitioners to quickly learn its main characteristics and to compare with their desiderata. Furthermore, the sheets' structure allow for the creation of a structured database of bias mitigation methods. In order to foster the sheets' adoption, we provide a platform for finding and creating BiMi Sheets at bimisheet.com.

Iris Dominguez-Catena, Daniel Paternain, Mikel Galar et al.

In recent years, the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) systems has raised concerns about our ability to ensure their fairness, that is, how to avoid discrimination based on protected characteristics such as gender, race, or age. While algorithmic fairness is well-studied in simple binary classification tasks on tabular data, its application to complex, real-world scenarios-such as Facial Expression Recognition (FER)-remains underexplored. FER presents unique challenges: it is inherently multiclass, and biases emerge across intersecting demographic variables, each potentially comprising multiple protected groups. We present a comprehensive framework to analyze bias propagation from datasets to trained models in image-based FER systems, while introducing new bias metrics specifically designed for multiclass problems with multiple demographic groups. Our methodology studies bias propagation by (1) inducing controlled biases in FER datasets, (2) training models on these biased datasets, and (3) analyzing the correlation between dataset bias metrics and model fairness notions. Our findings reveal that stereotypical biases propagate more strongly to model predictions than representational biases, suggesting that preventing emotion-specific demographic patterns should be prioritized over general demographic balance in FER datasets. Additionally, we observe that biased datasets lead to reduced model accuracy, challenging the assumed fairness-accuracy trade-off.

Maarten Buyl, Tijl De Bie

In past work on fairness in machine learning, the focus has been on forcing the prediction of classifiers to have similar statistical properties for people of different demographics. To reduce the violation of these properties, fairness methods usually simply rescale the classifier scores, ignoring similarities and dissimilarities between members of different groups. Yet, we hypothesize that such information is relevant in quantifying the unfairness of a given classifier. To validate this hypothesis, we introduce Optimal Transport to Fairness (OTF), a method that quantifies the violation of fairness constraints as the smallest Optimal Transport cost between a probabilistic classifier and any score function that satisfies these constraints. For a flexible class of linear fairness constraints, we construct a practical way to compute OTF as a differentiable fairness regularizer that can be added to any standard classification setting. Experiments show that OTF can be used to achieve an improved trade-off between predictive power and fairness.

Maarten Buyl, Tijl De Bie

Learning and reasoning over graphs is increasingly done by means of probabilistic models, e.g. exponential random graph models, graph embedding models, and graph neural networks. When graphs are modeling relations between people, however, they will inevitably reflect biases, prejudices, and other forms of inequity and inequality. An important challenge is thus to design accurate graph modeling approaches while guaranteeing fairness according to the specific notion of fairness that the problem requires. Yet, past work on the topic remains scarce, is limited to debiasing specific graph modeling methods, and often aims to ensure fairness in an indirect manner. We propose a generic approach applicable to most probabilistic graph modeling approaches. Specifically, we first define the class of fair graph models corresponding to a chosen set of fairness criteria. Given this, we propose a fairness regularizer defined as the KL-divergence between the graph model and its I-projection onto the set of fair models. We demonstrate that using this fairness regularizer in combination with existing graph modeling approaches efficiently trades-off fairness with accuracy, whereas the state-of-the-art models can only make this trade-off for the fairness criterion that they were specifically designed for.

Maarten Buyl, Tijl De Bie

As machine learning algorithms are increasingly deployed for high-impact automated decision making, ethical and increasingly also legal standards demand that they treat all individuals fairly, without discrimination based on their age, gender, race or other sensitive traits. In recent years much progress has been made on ensuring fairness and reducing bias in standard machine learning settings. Yet, for network embedding, with applications in vulnerable domains ranging from social network analysis to recommender systems, current options remain limited both in number and performance. We thus propose DeBayes: a conceptually elegant Bayesian method that is capable of learning debiased embeddings by using a biased prior. Our experiments show that these representations can then be used to perform link prediction that is significantly more fair in terms of popular metrics such as demographic parity and equalized opportunity.