Intra-Fairness Dynamics: The Bias Spillover Effect in Targeted LLM Alignment

Conventional large language model (LLM) fairness alignment largely focuses on mitigating bias along single sensitive attributes, overlooking fairness as an inherently multidimensional and context-specific value. This approach risks creating systems that achieve narrow fairness metrics while exacerbating disparities along untargeted attributes, a phenomenon known as bias spillover. While extensively studied in machine learning, bias spillover remains critically underexplored in LLM alignment. In this work, we investigate how targeted gender alignment affects fairness across nine sensitive attributes in three state-of-the-art LLMs (Mistral 7B, Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen 2.5 7B). Using Direct Preference Optimization and the BBQ benchmark, we evaluate fairness under ambiguous and disambiguous contexts. Our findings reveal noticeable bias spillover: while aggregate results show improvements, context-aware analysis exposes significant degradations in ambiguous contexts, particularly for physical appearance ($p< 0.001$ across all models), sexual orientation, and disability status. We demonstrate that improving fairness along one attribute can inadvertently worsen disparities in others under uncertainty, highlighting the necessity of context-aware, multi-attribute fairness evaluation frameworks.

Mind the XAI Gap: A Human-Centered LLM Framework for Democratizing Explainable AI

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly embedded in critical decision-making systems, however their foundational ``black-box'' models require eXplainable AI (XAI) solutions to enhance transparency, which are mostly oriented to experts, making no sense to non-experts. Alarming evidence about AI's unprecedented human values risks brings forward the imperative need for transparent human-centered XAI solutions. In this work, we introduce a domain-, model-, explanation-agnostic, generalizable and reproducible framework that ensures both transparency and human-centered explanations tailored to the needs of both experts and non-experts. The framework leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) and employs in-context learning to convey domain- and explainability-relevant contextual knowledge into LLMs. Through its structured prompt and system setting, our framework encapsulates in one response explanations understandable by non-experts and technical information to experts, all grounded in domain and explainability principles. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework, we establish a ground-truth contextual ``thesaurus'' through a rigorous benchmarking with over 40 data, model, and XAI combinations for an explainable clustering analysis of a well-being scenario. Through a comprehensive quality and human-friendliness evaluation of our framework's explanations, we prove high content quality through strong correlations with ground-truth explanations (Spearman rank correlation=0.92) and improved interpretability and human-friendliness to non-experts through a user study (N=56). Our overall evaluation confirms trust in LLMs as HCXAI enablers, as our framework bridges the above Gaps by delivering (i) high-quality technical explanations aligned with foundational XAI methods and (ii) clear, efficient, and interpretable human-centered explanations for non-experts.

AgoraSpeech: A multi-annotated comprehensive dataset of political discourse through the lens of humans and AI

Political discourse datasets are important for gaining political insights, analyzing communication strategies or social science phenomena. Although numerous political discourse corpora exist, comprehensive, high-quality, annotated datasets are scarce. This is largely due to the substantial manual effort, multidisciplinarity, and expertise required for the nuanced annotation of rhetorical strategies and ideological contexts. In this paper, we present AgoraSpeech, a meticulously curated, high-quality dataset of 171 political speeches from six parties during the Greek national elections in 2023. The dataset includes annotations (per paragraph) for six natural language processing (NLP) tasks: text classification, topic identification, sentiment analysis, named entity recognition, polarization and populism detection. A two-step annotation was employed, starting with ChatGPT-generated annotations and followed by exhaustive human-in-the-loop validation. The dataset was initially used in a case study to provide insights during the pre-election period. However, it has general applicability by serving as a rich source of information for political and social scientists, journalists, or data scientists, while it can be used for benchmarking and fine-tuning NLP and large language models (LLMs).

A Collaborative, Human-Centred Taxonomy of AI, Algorithmic, and Automation Harms

This paper introduces a collaborative, human-centered taxonomy of AI, algorithmic and automation harms. We argue that existing taxonomies, while valuable, can be narrow, unclear, typically cater to practitioners and government, and often overlook the needs of the wider public. Drawing on existing taxonomies and a large repository of documented incidents, we propose a taxonomy that is clear and understandable to a broad set of audiences, as well as being flexible, extensible, and interoperable. Through iterative refinement with topic experts and crowdsourced annotation testing, we propose a taxonomy that can serve as a powerful tool for civil society organisations, educators, policymakers, product teams and the general public. By fostering a greater understanding of the real-world harms of AI and related technologies, we aim to increase understanding, empower NGOs and individuals to identify and report violations, inform policy discussions, and encourage responsible technology development and deployment.