arXiv subjects

Xenia Heilmann

Publications and source records attributed to Xenia Heilmann.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Are Algorithm Registers Transparent? Perspectives from Germany

Algorithm registers are public-facing databases that display basic information about algorithms employed in public administration. While several such registers exist across Europe and globally, their capacity to deliver meaningful transparency remains contested. In Germany, the landscape is notably fragmented: no federal-level register exists, yet at least five state- and federal-level initiatives publish information about AI systems with varying scopes and objectives. A recent conceptual proposal by Alina Lorenz (2025), outlines technical and governance requirements for a national AI transparency register in Germany. We repurpose this proposal as an audit instrument, extracting structured checklists from the transparency goals and subgoals it formulates. The resulting checklists, translated from German into English, is made publicly available to support practitioners auditing existing registers or designing new ones. We apply this framework to conduct an external audit of the two main existing German transparency initiatives, Marktplatz der KI-Möglichkeiten and Platform Lernende Systeme, evaluating the extent to which they fulfill the proposed goals. Our audit reveals that several adaptations are likely needed for these registers to serve as an useful transparency instrument. We further propose a visualization of register transparency levels and derive concrete action items for improving existing German platforms.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Taking the Whys Seriously: Limitations of Counterfactual Explanations in Justification and Recourse

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) are widely used in explainable artificial intelligence (AI) to show how a model's outputs would change if the input features were manipulated. This technique is used for a range of tasks such as debugging models, explaining predictions, justifying decisions, and providing algorithmic recourse. In this paper, we explore the normative legitimacy of employing counterfactuals in real-life model deployment settings. We discuss the different stakes involved in these different purposes for which CEs are commonly employed, and find stricter requirements for justification and recourse. In particular, we find that naive application of CEs for justification and recourse can lead to ignoring contestable choices made throughout the machine learning (ML) pipeline, thus obfuscating that decisions and counterfactuals for those decisions are also artifacts of an organization's materialized design and governance choices. We demonstrate this with four empirical experiments involving interventions at stages of the ML pipeline ``upstream" of the explanation itself, and show that these affect the generated counterfactuals. We find that an organization's choices on measurement models for feature and labels, business requirements, model validation, and the metric of model success have as much or more impact on the generated counterfactuals as the specifics of the generating method. Our findings underline the need to account for such choices upon providing justification and recourse, providing a stark reminder of the relational nature of these tasks. As putative justifications or recourse recommendations, CEs do not provide adequate answers to some important "why"-questions because they preclude consideration of whether the decision-maker ought to have acted differently.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

FeDa4Fair: Client-Level Federated Datasets for Fairness Evaluation

Federated Learning (FL) enables collaborative training while preserving privacy, yet it introduces a critical challenge: the "illusion of fairness''. A global model, usually evaluated on the server, appears fair on average while keeping persistent discrimination at the client level. Current fairness-enhancing FL solutions often fall short, as they typically mitigate biases for a single, usually binary, sensitive attribute, while ignoring two realistic and conflicting scenarios: attribute-bias (where clients are unfair toward different sensitive attributes) and value-bias (where clients exhibit conflicting biases toward different values of the same attribute). To support more robust and reproducible fairness research in FL, we introduce FeDa4Fair, the first benchmarking framework designed to stress-test fairness methods under these heterogeneous conditions. Our contributions are three-fold: (1) We introduce FeDa4Fair, a library designed to create datasets tailored to evaluating fair FL methods under heterogeneous client bias; (2) we release a benchmark suite generated by the FeDa4Fair library to standardize the evaluation of fair FL methods; (3) we provide ready-to-use functions for evaluating fairness outcomes for these datasets.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Rashomon Sets and Model Multiplicity in Federated Learning

The Rashomon set captures the collection of models that achieve near-identical empirical performance yet may differ substantially in their decision boundaries. Understanding the differences among these models, i.e., their multiplicity, is recognized as a crucial step toward model transparency, fairness, and robustness, as it reveals decision boundaries instabilities that standard metrics obscure. However, the existing definitions of Rashomon set and multiplicity metrics assume centralized learning and do not extend naturally to decentralized, multi-party settings like Federated Learning (FL). In FL, multiple clients collaboratively train models under a central server's coordination without sharing raw data, which preserves privacy but introduces challenges from heterogeneous client data distribution and communication constraints. In this setting, the choice of a single best model may homogenize predictive behavior across diverse clients, amplify biases, or undermine fairness guarantees. In this work, we provide the first formalization of Rashomon sets in FL.First, we adapt the Rashomon set definition to FL, distinguishing among three perspectives: (I) a global Rashomon set defined over aggregated statistics across all clients, (II) a t-agreement Rashomon set representing the intersection of local Rashomon sets across a fraction t of clients, and (III) individual Rashomon sets specific to each client's local distribution.Second, we show how standard multiplicity metrics can be estimated under FL's privacy constraints. Finally, we introduce a multiplicity-aware FL pipeline and conduct an empirical study on standard FL benchmark datasets. Our results demonstrate that all three proposed federated Rashomon set definitions offer valuable insights, enabling clients to deploy models that better align with their local data, fairness considerations, and practical requirements.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

From If-Statements to ML Pipelines: Revisiting Bias in Code-Generation

Prior work evaluates code generation bias primarily through simple conditional statements, which represent only a narrow slice of real-world programming and reveal solely overt, explicitly encoded bias. We demonstrate that this approach dramatically underestimates bias in practice by examining a more realistic task: generating machine learning (ML) pipelines. Testing both code-specialized and general-instruction large language models, we find that generated pipelines exhibit significant bias during feature selection. Sensitive attributes appear in 87.7% of cases on average, despite models demonstrably excluding irrelevant features (e.g., including "race" while dropping "favorite color" for credit scoring). This bias is substantially more prevalent than that captured by conditional statements, where sensitive attributes appear in only 59.2% of cases. These findings are robust across prompt mitigation strategies, varying numbers of attributes, and different pipeline difficulty levels. Our results challenge simple conditionals as valid proxies for bias evaluation and suggest current benchmarks underestimate bias risk in practical deployments.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

N-Parties Private Structure and Parameter Learning for Sum-Product Networks

A sum-product network (SPN) is a graphical model that allows several types of probabilistic inference to be performed efficiently. In this paper, we propose a privacy-preserving protocol which tackles structure generation and parameter learning of SPNs. Additionally, we provide a protocol for private inference on SPNs, subsequent to training. To preserve the privacy of the participants, we derive our protocol based on secret sharing, which guarantees privacy in the honest-but-curious setting even when at most half of the parties cooperate to disclose the data. The protocol makes use of a forest of randomly generated SPNs, which is trained and weighted privately and can then be used for private inference on data points. Our experiments indicate that preserving the privacy of all participants does not decrease log-likelihood performance on both homogeneously and heterogeneously partitioned data. We furthermore show that our protocol's performance is comparable to current state-of-the-art SPN learners in homogeneously partitioned data settings. In terms of runtime and memory usage, we demonstrate that our implementation scales well when increasing the number of parties, comparing favorably to protocols for neural networks, when they are trained to reproduce the input-output behavior of SPNs.

cs.CR↗