arXiv subjects

Brian Hyeongseok Kim

Publications and source records attributed to Brian Hyeongseok Kim.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Analyzing Fairness of Neural Network Prediction via Counterfactual Dataset Generation

Interpreting the inference-time behavior of deep neural networks remains a challenging problem. Existing approaches to counterfactual explanation typically ask: What is the closest alternative input that would alter the model's prediction in a desired way? In contrast, we explore counterfactual datasets. Rather than perturbing the input, our method efficiently finds the closest alternative training dataset, one that differs from the original dataset by changing a few labels. Training a new model on this altered dataset can then lead to a different prediction of a given test instance. This perspective provides a new way to assess fairness by directly analyzing the influence of label bias on training and inference. Our approach can be characterized as probing whether a given prediction depends on biased labels. Since exhaustively enumerating all possible alternate datasets is infeasible, we develop analysis techniques that trace how bias in the training data may propagate through the learning algorithm to the trained network. Our method heuristically ranks and modifies the labels of a bounded number of training examples to construct a counterfactual dataset, retrains the model, and checks whether its prediction on a chosen test case changes. We evaluate our approach on feedforward neural networks across over 1100 test cases from 7 widely-used fairness datasets. Results show that it modifies only a small subset of training labels, highlighting its ability to pinpoint the critical training examples that drive prediction changes. Finally, we demonstrate how our counterfactual datasets reveal connections between training examples and test cases, offering an interpretable way to probe dataset bias.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models for Fair and Reliable Organ Allocation

Medical institutions are considering the use of LLMs in high-stakes clinical decision-making, such as organ allocation. In such sensitive use cases, evaluating fairness is imperative. However, existing evaluation methods often fall short; benchmarks are too simplistic to capture real-world complexity, and accuracy-based metrics fail to address the absence of a clear ground truth. To realistically and fairly model organ allocation, specifically kidney allocation, we begin by testing the medical knowledge of LLMs to determine whether they understand the clinical factors required to make sound allocation decisions. Building on this foundation, we design two tasks: (1) Choose-One and (2) Rank-All. In Choose-One, LLMs select a single candidate from a list of potential candidates to receive a kidney. In this scenario, we assess fairness across demographics using traditional fairness metrics, such as proportional parity. In Rank-All, LLMs rank all candidates waiting for a kidney, reflecting real-world allocation processes more closely, where an organ is passed down a ranked list until allocated. Our evaluation on three LLMs reveals a divergence between fairness metrics: while exposure-based metrics suggest equitable outcomes, probability-based metrics uncover systematic preferential sorting, where specific groups were clustered in upper-ranking tiers. Furthermore, we observe that demographic preferences are highly task-dependent, showing inverted trends between Choose-One and Rank-All tasks, even when considering the topmost rank. Overall, our results indicate that current LLMs can introduce inequalities in real-world allocation scenarios, underscoring the urgent need for rigorous fairness evaluation and human oversight before their use in high-stakes decision-making.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Understanding Formal Reasoning Failures in LLMs as Abstract Interpreters

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for program verification, and yet little is known about \emph{how} they reason about program semantics during this process. In this work, we focus on abstract interpretation based-reasoning for invariant generation and introduce two novel prompting strategies that aim to elicit such reasoning from LLMs. We evaluate these strategies across several state-of-the-art LLMs on 22 programs from the SV-COMP benchmark suite widely used in software verification. We analyze both the soundness of the generated invariants and the key thematic patterns in the models' reasoning errors. This work aims to highlight new research opportunities at the intersection of LLMs and program verification for applying LLMs to verification tasks and advancing their reasoning capabilities in this application.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Large Language Models for Interpretable Mental Health Diagnosis

We propose a clinical decision support system (CDSS) for mental health diagnosis that combines the strengths of large language models (LLMs) and constraint logic programming (CLP). Having a CDSS is important because of the high complexity of diagnostic manuals used by mental health professionals and the danger of diagnostic errors. Our CDSS is a software tool that uses an LLM to translate diagnostic manuals to a logic program and solves the program using an off-the-shelf CLP engine to query a patient's diagnosis based on the encoded rules and provided data. By giving domain experts the opportunity to inspect the LLM-generated logic program, and making modifications when needed, our CDSS ensures that the diagnosis is not only accurate but also interpretable. We experimentally compare it with two baseline approaches of using LLMs: diagnosing patients using the LLM-only approach, and using the LLM-generated logic program but without expert inspection. The results show that, while LLMs are extremely useful in generating candidate logic programs, these programs still require expert inspection and modification to guarantee faithfulness to the official diagnostic manuals. Additionally, ethical concerns arise from the direct use of patient data in LLMs, underscoring the need for a safer hybrid approach like our proposed method.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

FairQuant: Certifying and Quantifying Fairness of Deep Neural Networks

We propose a method for formally certifying and quantifying individual fairness of deep neural networks (DNN). Individual fairness guarantees that any two individuals who are identical except for a legally protected attribute (e.g., gender or race) receive the same treatment. While there are existing techniques that provide such a guarantee, they tend to suffer from lack of scalability or accuracy as the size and input dimension of the DNN increase. Our method overcomes this limitation by applying abstraction to a symbolic interval based analysis of the DNN followed by iterative refinement guided by the fairness property. Furthermore, our method lifts the symbolic interval based analysis from conventional qualitative certification to quantitative certification, by computing the percentage of individuals whose classification outputs are provably fair, instead of merely deciding if the DNN is fair. We have implemented our method and evaluated it on deep neural networks trained on four popular fairness research datasets. The experimental results show that our method is not only more accurate than state-of-the-art techniques but also several orders-of-magnitude faster.

cs.LG↗