Vasiliki Papanikou

Antonia Karra, Vasiliki Papanikou, Georgios Vardakas et al.

Clustering is increasingly used to support high-impact decisions, yet standard objectives such as $k$-means can produce clusterings that treat demographic groups unequally. Existing fair clustering methods typically optimize a single notion of fairness and often overlook how clustering costs interact with the geometry of the induced decision boundaries. We propose \textsc{UniFair}, a unified framework that jointly optimizes \emph{separation fairness} and \emph{social fairness}. Separation fairness encourages protected groups to lie farther from the induced decision boundaries, while social fairness reduces disparities in within-cluster distortion by penalizing group-wise clustering costs. We develop gradient-based optimization procedures for separation-fair and unified $k$-means objectives, and extend them to deep clustering by enforcing the same criteria in the latent space of an autoencoder. Experiments on tabular and image datasets show that \textsc{UniFair} reduces both boundary-related and cost-based group disparities with only a modest increase in clustering loss.

Vasiliki Papanikou, Evaggelia Pitoura

Graph representation learning has achieved notable success in encoding graph-structured data into latent vector spaces, enabling a wide range of downstream tasks. However, these node representations remain opaque and difficult to interpret. Existing explainability methods primarily focus on supervised settings or on explaining individual representation dimensions, leaving a critical gap in explaining the overall structure of node representations. In this paper, we propose TACENR (Task-Agnostic Contrastive Explanations for Node Representations), a local explanation method that identifies not only attribute features but also proximity and structural ones that contribute the most in the representation space. TACENR builds on contrastive learning, through which we learn a similarity function in the representation space, revealing which are the features that play an important role in the representation of a node. While our focus is on task-agnostic explanations, TACENR can be applied to supervised scenarios as well. Experimental results demonstrate that proximity and structural features play a significant role in shaping node representations and that our supervised variant performs comparably to existing task-specific approaches in identifying the most impactful features.

Christos Fragkathoulas, Vasiliki Papanikou, Danae Pla Karidi et al.

Algorithmic fairness and explainability are foundational elements for achieving responsible AI. In this paper, we focus on their interplay, a research area that is recently receiving increasing attention. To this end, we first present two comprehensive taxonomies, each representing one of the two complementary fields of study: fairness and explanations. Then, we categorize explanations for fairness into three types: (a) Explanations to enhance fairness metrics, (b) Explanations to help us understand the causes of (un)fairness, and (c) Explanations to assist us in designing methods for mitigating unfairness. Finally, based on our fairness and explanation taxonomies, we present undiscovered literature paths revealing gaps that can serve as valuable insights for future research.

Vasiliki Papanikou, Panagiotis Papadakos, Theodora Karamanidou et al.

In this paper, we present a comprehensive survey on the pervasive issue of medical misinformation in social networks from the perspective of information technology. The survey aims at providing a systematic review of related research and helping researchers and practitioners navigate through this fast-changing field. Specifically, we first present manual and automatic approaches for fact-checking. We then explore fake news detection methods, using content, propagation features, or source features, as well as mitigation approaches for countering the spread of misinformation. We also provide a detailed list of several datasets on health misinformation and of publicly available tools. We conclude the survey with a discussion on the open challenges and future research directions in the battle against health misinformation.

Vasiliki Papanikou, Danae Pla Karidi, Evaggelia Pitoura et al.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in areas that significantly impact human lives, concerns about fairness and transparency have grown, especially regarding their impact on protected groups. Recently, the intersection of explainability and fairness has emerged as an important area to promote responsible AI systems. This paper explores how explainability methods can be leveraged to detect and interpret unfairness. We propose a pipeline that integrates local post-hoc explanation methods to derive fairness-related insights. During the pipeline design, we identify and address critical questions arising from the use of explanations as bias detectors such as the relationship between distributive and procedural fairness, the effect of removing the protected attribute, the consistency and quality of results across different explanation methods, the impact of various aggregation strategies of local explanations on group fairness evaluations, and the overall trustworthiness of explanations as bias detectors. Our results show the potential of explanation methods used for fairness while highlighting the need to carefully consider the aforementioned critical aspects.

Christos Fragkathoulas, Vasiliki Papanikou, Evaggelia Pitoura et al.

Counterfactual explanations assess unfairness by revealing how inputs must change to achieve a desired outcome. This paper introduces the first graph-based framework for generating group counterfactual explanations to audit group fairness, a key aspect of trustworthy machine learning. Our framework, FACEGroup (Feasible and Actionable Counterfactual Explanations for Group Fairness), models real-world feasibility constraints, identifies subgroups with similar counterfactuals, and captures key trade-offs in counterfactual generation, distinguishing it from existing methods. To evaluate fairness, we introduce novel metrics for both group and subgroup level analysis that explicitly account for these trade-offs. Experiments on benchmark datasets show that FACEGroup effectively generates feasible group counterfactuals while accounting for trade-offs, and that our metrics capture and quantify fairness disparities.