Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Theresa Elstner

Publications and source records attributed to Theresa Elstner.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Uniqueness-Aware Feature Engineering for Representing Humans in Algorithmic Decision Making

Fairness analyses of algorithmic decision systems typically treat the feature representation of individuals as an a priori fixed input. How well a feature representation captures what is actually decision-relevant for different people and their unique backgrounds, however, is typically left unexamined. We address this gap by modeling feature engineering as a stochastic selection process over the pooled characteristics as candidate features for a finite training population. Based on this model, we develop a new framework for uniqueness-aware feature engineering which operates in two layers. The first layer measures population heterogeneity using a multivariate hypergeometric model of feature prevalence. It shows how well an individual is represented by any given input representation and which individual of the population is "least represented" compared to their personal, reference characteristics. The second layer acts on this assessment using set-similarity measures to search for an optimum between representational fit of the population and predictive accuracy. Without assuming prior knowledge about unseen individuals, our framework grants represented humans agency over what counts as decision-relevant in their case, gives deploying institutions accountability through a publishable representation fit report, and provides each person subject to a decision transparency about their personal representation fit. We operationalize our framework as a six-step pipeline and show a proof-of-principle using synthetic data. Our approach offers a blueprint for making algorithmic decision systems accountable for how well they represent individuals during development and in production.

cs.CY↗

Data Annotations as Pedagogical Hints: From Subjective Labels to Critical Thinking

Machine learning courses often use pre-labelled datasets, hiding the subjectivity of human annotation. This produces an overly trusting view of data and AI models in students, at the expense of interpretive diversity and contestability of algorithmic outputs. We investigated whether manual data annotation tasks teach students about subjective labelling. Study Design: An annotation activity was implemented at two universities: Fontys (Netherlands) and IT University Copenhagen (Denmark). Students annotated skin lesion images for hair coverage on a 3-point scale. Surveys were collected from 43 participants, measuring their understanding of annotation ambiguity, data quality, bias, fairness, implementation barriers, and pedagogical effectiveness. Key Findings: Self-reported familiarity with the course content increased substantially across all concepts. Most students recognised that personal interpretation affects annotations. Students rated the activity as more effective than traditional lectures in understanding bias. Participants were motivated to learn more. Main Drawbacks: Emotional discomfort from viewing medical images was the primary issue. Many students still requested clearer guidelines to reduce disagreement, suggesting they had not yet internalised that disagreement arising from different perspectives is a feature, not a bug. Recommendations for Future Iterations: Ensure sufficient interpretive ambiguity in materials. Reduce repetitive annotation workload. Mitigate emotional discomfort from sensitive content. Explicitly frame disagreement as a learning opportunity rather than a problem to solve. Manual data annotations effectively teach students that human judgement shapes model behaviour and that disagreement reflects domain complexity, not just noise.

cs.CY↗

Representation Fidelity:Auditing Algorithmic Decisions About Humans Using Self-Descriptions

This paper introduces a new dimension for validating algorithmic decisions about humans by measuring the fidelity of their representations. Representation Fidelity measures if decisions about a person rest on reasonable grounds. We propose to operationalize this notion by measuring the distance between two representations of the same person: (1) an externally prescribed input representation on which the decision is based, and (2) a self-description provided by the human subject of the decision, used solely to validate the input representation. We examine the nature of discrepancies between these representations, how such discrepancies can be quantified, and derive a generic typology of representation mismatches that determine the degree of representation fidelity. We further present the first benchmark for evaluating representation fidelity based on a dataset of loan-granting decisions. Our Loan-Granting Self-Representations Corpus 2025 consists of a large corpus of 30 000 synthetic natural language self-descriptions derived from corresponding representations of applicants in the German Credit Dataset, along with expert annotations of representation mismatches between each pair of representations.

cs.CL↗