Research Papers

Location-Based Social Networks (LBSNs) provide a rich foundation for modeling urban behavior through iNETs (Interest Networks), which capture how user interests are distributed throughout urban spaces. This study compares iNETs across platforms (Google Places and Foursquare) and spatial granularities, showing that coarser levels reveal more consistent cross-platform patterns, while finer granularities expose subtle, platform-specific behaviors. Our analysis finds that, in general, user interest is primarily shaped by geographic proximity and venue similarity, while socioeconomic and political contexts play a lesser role. Building on these insights, we develop a multi-level, explainable recommendation system that predicts high-interest urban regions for different user types. The model adapts to behavior profiles -- such as explorers, who are driven by proximity, and returners, who prefer familiar venues -- and provides natural-language explanations using explainable AI (XAI) techniques. To support our approach, we introduce h3-cities, a tool for multi-scale spatial analysis, and release a public demo for interactively exploring personalized urban recommendations. Our findings contribute to urban mobility research by providing scalable, context-aware, and interpretable recommendation systems.

Online dating platforms have fundamentally transformed the formation of romantic relationships, with millions of users worldwide relying on algorithmic matching systems to find compatible partners. However, current recommendation systems in dating applications suffer from significant algorithmic deficiencies, including but not limited to popularity bias, filter bubble effects, and inadequate reciprocity modeling that limit effectiveness and introduce harmful biases. This research integrates foundational work with recent empirical findings to deliver a detailed analysis of dating app recommendation systems, highlighting key issues and suggesting research-backed solutions. Through analysis of reciprocal recommendation frameworks, fairness evaluation metrics, and industry implementations, we demonstrate that current systems achieve modest performance with collaborative filtering reaching 25.1\% while reciprocal methods achieve 28.7\%. Our proposed mathematical framework addresses these limitations through enhanced similarity measures, multi-objective optimization, and fairness-aware algorithms that maintain competitive accuracy while improving demographic representation to reduce algorithmic bias.

Ensuring diversity and inclusion (D&I) in artificial intelligence (AI) is crucial for mitigating biases and promoting equitable decision-making. However, existing AI risk assessment frameworks often overlook inclusivity, lacking standardized tools to measure an AI system's alignment with D&I principles. This paper introduces a structured AI inclusivity question bank, a comprehensive set of 253 questions designed to evaluate AI inclusivity across five pillars: Humans, Data, Process, System, and Governance. The development of the question bank involved an iterative, multi-source approach, incorporating insights from literature reviews, D&I guidelines, Responsible AI frameworks, and a simulated user study. The simulated evaluation, conducted with 70 AI-generated personas related to different AI jobs, assessed the question bank's relevance and effectiveness for AI inclusivity across diverse roles and application domains. The findings highlight the importance of integrating D&I principles into AI development workflows and governance structures. The question bank provides an actionable tool for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to systematically assess and enhance the inclusivity of AI systems, paving the way for more equitable and responsible AI technologies.

Fair clustering has become a socially significant task with the advancement of machine learning technologies and the growing demand for trustworthy AI. Group fairness ensures that the proportions of each sensitive group are similar in all clusters. Most existing group-fair clustering methods are based on the $K$-means clustering and thus require the distance between instances and the number of clusters to be given in advance. To resolve this limitation, we propose a fair Bayesian model-based clustering called Fair Bayesian Clustering (FBC). We develop a specially designed prior which puts its mass only on fair clusters, and implement an efficient MCMC algorithm. Advantages of FBC are that it can infer the number of clusters and can be applied to any data type as long as the likelihood is defined (e.g., categorical data). Experiments on real-world datasets show that FBC (i) reasonably infers the number of clusters, (ii) achieves a competitive utility-fairness trade-off compared to existing fair clustering methods, and (iii) performs well on categorical data.

High-level representations have become a central focus in enhancing AI transparency and control, shifting attention from individual neurons or circuits to structured semantic directions that align with human-interpretable concepts. While the Linear Representation Hypothesis (LRH) suggests that such directions emerge in representations, it remains unclear how these representations originate and why they become increasingly stable across layers. To solve this issue, we introduce the Input-Space Linearity Hypothesis, positing that concept-aligned directions originate in the input space and are steadily maintained with increasing depth. We then propose the Spectral Principal Path (SPP) framework, which formalizes how deep networks progressively distill linear representations along the spectral principal directions. We provide rigorous stability guarantees for the SPP based on the Wedin $\sinΘ$ perturbation theorem, identifying testable conditions, including spectral gap and context incoherence, that jointly ensure layer-wise directional preservation. By bridging theoretical analysis with empirical evidence, this work identifies a spectral view of how linear representations arise in LLMs, and suggests potential implications for concept-level controllable, robust, and coherent approaches to fairness and transparency in modern AI systems.

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems become deeply embedded in everyday life, calls to align AI development with ethical and societal values have intensified. Interdisciplinary collaboration is often championed as a key pathway for fostering such engagement. Yet it remains unclear whether interdisciplinary research teams are actually leading this shift in practice. This study analyzes over 100,000 AI-related papers published on ArXiv between 2014 and 2024 to examine how ethical values and societal concerns are integrated into technical AI research. We develop a classifier to identify societal content and measure the extent to which research papers express these considerations. We find a striking shift: while interdisciplinary teams remain more likely to produce societally-oriented research, computer science-only teams now account for a growing share of the field's overall societal output. These teams are increasingly integrating societal concerns into their papers and tackling a wide range of domains - from fairness and safety to healthcare and misinformation. These findings challenge common assumptions about the drivers of societal AI and raise important questions. First, what are the implications for emerging understandings of AI safety and governance if most societally-oriented research is being undertaken by exclusively technical teams? Second, for scholars in the social sciences and humanities: in a technical field increasingly responsive to societal demands, what distinctive perspectives can we still offer to help shape the future of AI?

AI models have become active decision makers, often acting without human supervision. The rapid advancement of AI technology has already caused harmful incidents that have hurt individuals and societies and AI unfairness in heavily criticized. It is urgent to disrupt AI pipelines which largely neglect human principles and focus on computational biases exploration at the data (pre), model(in), and deployment (post) processing stages. We claim that by exploiting the advances of agents technology, we will introduce cautious, prompt, and ongoing fairness watch schemes, under realistic, systematic, and human-centric fairness expectations. We envision agents as fairness guardians, since agents learn from their environment, adapt to new information, and solve complex problems by interacting with external tools and other systems. To set the proper fairness guardrails in the overall AI pipeline, we introduce a fairness-by-design approach which embeds multi-role agents in an end-to-end (human to AI) synergetic scheme. Our position is that we may design adaptive and realistic AI fairness frameworks, and we introduce a generalized algorithm which can be customized to the requirements and goals of each AI decision making scenario. Our proposed, so called FAIRTOPIA framework, is structured over a three-layered architecture, which encapsulates the AI pipeline inside an agentic guardian and a knowledge-based, self-refining layered scheme. Based on our proposition, we enact fairness watch in all of the AI pipeline stages, under robust multi-agent workflows, which will inspire new fairness research hypothesis, heuristics, and methods grounded in human-centric, systematic, interdisciplinary, socio-technical principles.

In efforts toward achieving responsible artificial intelligence (AI), fostering a culture of workplace transparency, diversity, and inclusion can breed innovation, trust, and employee contentment. In AI and Machine Learning (ML), such environments correlate with higher standards of responsible development. Without transparency, disparities, microaggressions and misconduct will remain unaddressed, undermining the very structural inequities responsible AI aims to mitigate. While prior work investigates workplace transparency and disparities in broad domains (e.g. science and technology, law) for specific demographic subgroups, it lacks in-depth and intersectional conclusions and a focus on the AI/ML community. To address this, we conducted a pilot survey of 1260 AI/ML professionals both in industry and academia across different axes, probing aspects such as belonging, performance, workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, accessibility, performance and compensation, microaggressions, misconduct, growth, and well-being. Results indicate enduring disparities in workplace experiences for underrepresented and/or marginalized subgroups. In particular, we highlight that accessibility remains an important challenge for a positive work environment and that disabled employees have a worse workplace experience than their non-disabled colleagues. We further surface disparities for intersectional groups and discuss how the implementation of DEI initiatives may differ from their perceived impact on the workplace. This study is a first step towards increasing transparency and informing AI/ML practitioners and organizations with empirical results. We aim to foster equitable decision-making in the design and evaluation of organizational policies and provide data that may empower professionals to make more informed choices of prospective workplaces.

From uncertainty quantification to real-world object detection, we recognize the importance of machine learning algorithms, particularly in safety-critical domains such as autonomous driving or medical diagnostics. In machine learning, ambiguous data plays an important role in various machine learning domains. Optical illusions present a compelling area of study in this context, as they offer insight into the limitations of both human and machine perception. Despite this relevance, optical illusion datasets remain scarce. In this work, we introduce a novel dataset of optical illusions featuring intermingled animal pairs designed to evoke perceptual ambiguity. We identify generalizable visual concepts, particularly gaze direction and eye cues, as subtle yet impactful features that significantly influence model accuracy. By confronting models with perceptual ambiguity, our findings underscore the importance of concepts in visual learning and provide a foundation for studying bias and alignment between human and machine vision. To make this dataset useful for general purposes, we generate optical illusions systematically with different concepts discussed in our bias mitigation section. The dataset is accessible in Kaggle via https://kaggle.com/datasets/693bf7c6dd2cb45c8a863f9177350c8f9849a9508e9d50526e2ffcc5559a8333. Our source code can be found at https://github.com/KDD-OpenSource/Ambivision.git.

Although popularized AI fairness metrics, e.g., demographic parity, have uncovered bias in AI-assisted decision-making outcomes, they do not consider how much effort one has spent to get to where one is today in the input feature space. However, the notion of effort is important in how Philosophy and humans understand fairness. We propose a philosophy-informed approach to conceptualize and evaluate Effort-aware Fairness (EaF), grounded in the concept of Force, which represents the temporal trajectory of predictive features coupled with inertia. Besides theoretical formulation, our empirical contributions include: (1) a pre-registered human subjects experiment, which shows that for both stages of the (individual) fairness evaluation process, people consider the temporal trajectory of a predictive feature more than its aggregate value; (2) pipelines to compute Effort-aware Individual/Group Fairness in the criminal justice and personal finance contexts. Our work may enable AI model auditors to uncover and potentially correct unfair decisions against individuals who have spent significant efforts to improve but are still stuck with systemic disadvantages outside their control.

Algorithmic decision-making systems sometimes produce errors or skewed predictions toward a particular group, leading to unfair results. Debiasing practices, applied at different stages of the development of such systems, occasionally introduce new forms of unfairness or exacerbate existing inequalities. We focus on post-processing techniques that modify algorithmic predictions to achieve fairness in classification tasks, examining the unintended consequences of these interventions. To address this challenge, we develop a set of measures that quantify the disparity in the flips applied to the solution in the post-processing stage. The proposed measures will help practitioners: (1) assess the proportionality of the debiasing strategy used, (2) have transparency to explain the effects of the strategy in each group, and (3) based on those results, analyze the possibility of the use of some other approaches for bias mitigation or to solve the problem. We introduce a methodology for applying the proposed metrics during the post-processing stage and illustrate its practical application through an example. This example demonstrates how analyzing the proportionality of the debiasing strategy complements traditional fairness metrics, providing a deeper perspective to ensure fairer outcomes across all groups.

Algorithmic bias has been the subject of much recent controversy. To clarify what is at stake and to make progress resolving the controversy, a better understanding of the concepts involved would be helpful. The discussion here focuses on the disputed claim that algorithms themselves cannot be biased. To clarify this claim we need to know what kind of thing 'algorithms themselves' are, and to disambiguate the several meanings of 'bias' at play. This further involves showing how bias of moral import can result from statistical biases, and drawing connections to previous conceptual work about political artifacts and oppressive things. Data bias has been identified in domains like hiring, policing and medicine. Examples where algorithms themselves have been pinpointed as the locus of bias include recommender systems that influence media consumption, academic search engines that influence citation patterns, and the 2020 UK algorithmically-moderated A-level grades. Recognition that algorithms are a kind of thing that can be biased is key to making decisions about responsibility for harm, and preventing algorithmically mediated discrimination.