Andres Algaba

Carmen Mazijn, Carina Prunkl, Andres Algaba et al.

AI systems can create, propagate, support, and automate bias in decision-making processes. To mitigate biased decisions, we both need to understand the origin of the bias and define what it means for an algorithm to make fair decisions. Most group fairness notions assess a model's equality of outcome by computing statistical metrics on the outputs. We argue that these output metrics encounter intrinsic obstacles and present a complementary approach that aligns with the increasing focus on equality of treatment. By Locating Unfairness through Canonical Inverse Design (LUCID), we generate a canonical set that shows the desired inputs for a model given a preferred output. The canonical set reveals the model's internal logic and exposes potential unethical biases by repeatedly interrogating the decision-making process. We evaluate LUCID on the UCI Adult and COMPAS data sets and find that some biases detected by a canonical set differ from those of output metrics. The results show that by shifting the focus towards equality of treatment and looking into the algorithm's internal workings, the canonical sets are a valuable addition to the toolbox of algorithmic fairness evaluation.

Andres Algaba, Carmen Mazijn, Carina Prunkl et al.

Most group fairness notions detect unethical biases by computing statistical parity metrics on a model's output. However, this approach suffers from several shortcomings, such as philosophical disagreement, mutual incompatibility, and lack of interpretability. These shortcomings have spurred the research on complementary bias detection methods that offer additional transparency into the sources of discrimination and are agnostic towards an a priori decision on the definition of fairness and choice of protected features. A recent proposal in this direction is LUCID (Locating Unfairness through Canonical Inverse Design), where canonical sets are generated by performing gradient descent on the input space, revealing a model's desired input given a preferred output. This information about the model's mechanisms, i.e., which feature values are essential to obtain specific outputs, allows exposing potential unethical biases in its internal logic. Here, we present LUCID-GAN, which generates canonical inputs via a conditional generative model instead of gradient-based inverse design. LUCID-GAN has several benefits, including that it applies to non-differentiable models, ensures that canonical sets consist of realistic inputs, and allows to assess proxy and intersectional discrimination. We empirically evaluate LUCID-GAN on the UCI Adult and COMPAS data sets and show that it allows for detecting unethical biases in black-box models without requiring access to the training data.

Marthe Ballon, Andres Algaba, Brecht Verbeken et al.

Recent advances in the finetuning of large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved their performance on established benchmarks, emphasizing the need for increasingly difficult, synthetic data. A key step in this data generation pipeline is a method for estimating problem difficulty. Current approaches, such as human calibration or performance-based scoring, fail to generalize to out-of-distribution problems, i.e. problems currently unsolvable by humans and LLMs, because they are not scalable, time-consuming, and ground truth dependent. Therefore, we propose a new method for estimating problem difficulty, LLM compare, that addresses these limitations. An LLM performs pairwise difficulty comparisons, and then Bradley-Terry scores are computed based on the outcomes. To validate our method, we first propose a conceptual framework that positions existing approaches on three orthogonal planes--construction, scale and dependence--identifying which quadrants a measure needs to occupy to score out-of-distribution problems. LLM compare naturally occupies all desirable quadrants as the first measure that is continuous and dynamic, model-agnostic and independent of ground truth information. As a second validation, we show that LLM compare demonstrates strong alignment with human annotations: Pearson $r \geq 0.80$ for $n=1876$. Thirdly, we show that LLM compare is robust to hallucinations, with less than $6\%$ degradation in Pearson correlation for $10\%$ noise injection. Our work represents a significant step towards replacing time-consuming human annotations and synthetic data generation, and will be an important driver for curriculum design, model evaluation, and AI-assisted research ideation.

Andres Algaba, Carmen Mazijn, Vincent Holst et al.

Citation practices are crucial in shaping the structure of scientific knowledge, yet they are often influenced by contemporary norms and biases. The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) introduces a new dynamic to these practices. Interestingly, the characteristics and potential biases of references recommended by LLMs that entirely rely on their parametric knowledge, and not on search or retrieval-augmented generation, remain unexplored. Here, we analyze these characteristics in an experiment using a dataset from AAAI, NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR, published after GPT-4's knowledge cut-off date. In our experiment, LLMs are tasked with suggesting scholarly references for the anonymized in-text citations within these papers. Our findings reveal a remarkable similarity between human and LLM citation patterns, but with a more pronounced high citation bias, which persists even after controlling for publication year, title length, number of authors, and venue. The results hold for both GPT-4, and the more capable models GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 where the papers are part of the training data. Additionally, we observe a large consistency between the characteristics of LLM's existing and non-existent generated references, indicating the model's internalization of citation patterns. By analyzing citation graphs, we show that the references recommended are embedded in the relevant citation context, suggesting an even deeper conceptual internalization of the citation networks. While LLMs can aid in citation generation, they may also amplify existing biases, such as the Matthew effect, and introduce new ones, potentially skewing scientific knowledge dissemination.

Andres Algaba, Vincent Holst, Floriano Tori et al.

The spread of scientific knowledge depends on how researchers discover and cite previous work. The adoption of large language models (LLMs) in the scientific research process introduces a new layer to these citation practices. However, it remains unclear to what extent LLMs align with human citation practices, how they perform across domains, and may influence citation dynamics. Here, we show that LLMs systematically reinforce the Matthew effect in citations by consistently favoring highly cited papers when generating references. This pattern persists across scientific domains despite significant field-specific variations in existence rates, which refer to the proportion of generated references that match existing records in external bibliometric databases. Analyzing 274,951 references generated by GPT-4o for 10,000 papers, we find that LLM recommendations diverge from traditional citation patterns by preferring more recent references with shorter titles and fewer authors. Emphasizing their content-level relevance, the generated references are semantically aligned with the content of each paper at levels comparable to the ground truth references and display similar network effects while reducing author self-citations. These findings illustrate how LLMs may reshape citation practices and influence the trajectory of scientific discovery by reflecting and amplifying established trends. As LLMs become more integrated into the scientific research process, it is important to understand their role in shaping how scientific communities discover and build upon prior work.

Stig Hellemans, Andres Algaba, Sam Verboven et al.

Counterfactual explanations provide actionable insights to achieve desired outcomes by suggesting minimal changes to input features. However, existing methods rely on fixed sets of mutable features, which makes counterfactual explanations inflexible for users with heterogeneous real-world constraints. Here, we introduce Flexible Counterfactual Explanations, a framework incorporating counterfactual templates, which allows users to dynamically specify mutable features at inference time. In our implementation, we use Generative Adversarial Networks (FCEGAN), which align explanations with user-defined constraints without requiring model retraining or additional optimization. Furthermore, FCEGAN is designed for black-box scenarios, leveraging historical prediction datasets to generate explanations without direct access to model internals. Experiments across economic and healthcare datasets demonstrate that FCEGAN significantly improves counterfactual explanations' validity compared to traditional benchmark methods. By integrating user-driven flexibility and black-box compatibility, counterfactual templates support personalized explanations tailored to user constraints.

Simon De Vos, Jente Van Belle, Andres Algaba et al.

Data-driven decision support tools play an increasingly central role in decision-making across various domains. In this work, we focus on binary classification models for predicting positive-outcome scores and deciding on resource allocation, e.g., credit scores for granting loans or churn propensity scores for targeting customers with a retention campaign. Such models may exhibit discriminatory behavior toward specific demographic groups through their predicted scores, potentially leading to unfair resource allocation. We focus on demographic parity as a fairness metric to compare the proportions of instances that are selected based on their positive outcome scores across groups. In this work, we propose a decision-centric fairness methodology that induces fairness only within the decision-making region -- the range of relevant decision thresholds on the score that may be used to decide on resource allocation -- as an alternative to a global fairness approach that seeks to enforce parity across the entire score distribution. By restricting the induction of fairness to the decision-making region, the proposed decision-centric approach avoids imposing overly restrictive constraints on the model, which may unnecessarily degrade the quality of the predicted scores. We empirically compare our approach to a global fairness approach on multiple (semi-synthetic) datasets to identify scenarios in which focusing on fairness where it truly matters, i.e., decision-centric fairness, proves beneficial.