Hölder++: Improving the Quality-Coherence Trade-off in Multimodal VAEs

Existing approaches for multimodal variational autoencoders (VAEs) face a trade-off between generative quality and coherence-i.e., they struggle to generate realistic and diverse samples that, at the same time, are semantically consistent across modalities. A recent work shows that using a simple approximation to Hölder pooling as an aggregation method improves coherence over the SOTA MMVAE+, despite assuming a single shared representation across all modalities. Yet, it slightly compromises sample diversity. Inspired by this insight, we propose Hölder++, a novel multimodal VAE that improves the generative quality-coherence trade-off through: (i) the first implementation of Hölder pooling without any approximation for multimodal VAEs; (ii) an extended architecture that models distinct shared and private (i.e., modality-specific) representations (Hölder+); and (iii) hierarchical inference that further enhances the disentanglement between the shared and private representations (Hölder++). Our experiments corroborate that Hölder++ consistently improves the generative quality-coherence trade-off, yields more structured latent spaces, and learns shared representations that are informative for downstream tasks.

Sparse Mixture-of-Experts Reward Models Learn Interpretable and Specialized Experts for Personalized Preference Modeling

Preference modeling plays a central role in reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), enabling large language models (LLMs) to align with human values. However, most existing approaches assume a universal reward function, neglecting the diversity and heterogeneity of human preferences. To address this limitation without additional annotation costs, recent work has proposed learning multiple preference components from binary data and combining them to model individual preferences. Nevertheless, these components often fail to capture coherent and disentangled patterns, limiting their interpretability and effectiveness for personalization. In this work, we propose a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) reward model that encourages sparse routing and expert diversity during training on binary preference data. Across controlled and real-world experiments, sparse MoE learns interpretable routing patterns and specialized experts. It also improves test-time personalization, and post-adaptation shifts in expert weights provide a qualitative lens for analyzing how the model adapts to personalized preferences.

Long-term Fairness with Selective Labels

Long-term fairness algorithms aim to satisfy fairness beyond static and short-term notions by accounting for the dynamics between decision-making policies and population behavior. Most previous approaches evaluate performance and fairness measures from observable features and a label, which is assumed to be fully observed. However, in scenarios such as hiring or lending, the labels (e.g., ability to repay the loan) are selective labels as they are only revealed based on positive decisions (e.g., when a loan is granted). In this paper, we study long-term fairness in the selective labels setting and analytically show that naive solutions do not guarantee fairness. To address this gap, we then introduce a novel framework that leverages both the observed data and a label predictor model to estimate the true fairness measure value by decomposing it into the observed fairness and bias from label predictions. This allows us to derive sufficient conditions to satisfy true fairness from observable quantities by using the confidence in the predictor model. Finally, we rely on our theoretical results to propose a novel reinforcement learning algorithm for effective long-term fair decision-making with selective labels. In semisynthetic environments, the proposed algorithm reached comparable fairness and performance to an agent with oracle access to the true labels.

First-See-Then-Design: A Multi-Stakeholder View for Optimal Performance-Fairness Trade-Offs

Fairness in algorithmic decision-making is often defined in the predictive space, where predictive performance - used as a proxy for decision-maker (DM) utility - is traded off against prediction-based fairness notions, such as demographic parity or equality of opportunity. This perspective, however, ignores how predictions translate into decisions and ultimately into utilities and welfare for both DM and decision subjects (DS), as well as their allocation across social-salient groups. In this paper, we propose a multi-stakeholder framework for fair algorithmic decision-making grounded in welfare economics and distributive justice, explicitly modeling the utilities of both the DM and DS, and defining fairness via a social planner's utility that captures inequalities in DS utilities across groups under different justice-based fairness notions (e.g., Egalitarian, Rawlsian). We formulate fair decision-making as a post-hoc multi-objective optimization problem, characterizing the achievable performance-fairness trade-offs in the two-dimensional utility space of DM utility and the social planner's utility, under different decision policy classes (deterministic vs. stochastic, shared vs. group-specific). Using the proposed framework, we then identify conditions (in terms of the stakeholders' utilities) under which stochastic policies are more optimal than deterministic ones, and empirically demonstrate that simple stochastic policies can yield superior performance-fairness trade-offs by leveraging outcome uncertainty. Overall, we advocate a shift from prediction-centric fairness to a transparent, justice-based, multi-stakeholder approach that supports the collaborative design of decision-making policies.

From Universal to Individualized Actionability: Revisiting Personalization in Algorithmic Recourse

Algorithmic recourse aims to provide actionable recommendations that enable individuals to change unfavorable model outcomes, and prior work has extensively studied properties such as efficiency, robustness, and fairness. However, the role of personalization in recourse remains largely implicit and underexplored. While existing approaches incorporate elements of personalization through user interactions, they typically lack an explicit definition of personalization and do not systematically analyze its downstream effects on other recourse desiderata. In this paper, we formalize personalization as individual actionability, characterized along two dimensions: hard constraints that specify which features are individually actionable, and soft, individualized constraints that capture preferences over action values and costs. We operationalize these dimensions within the causal algorithmic recourse framework, adopting a pre-hoc user-prompting approach in which individuals express preferences via rankings or scores prior to the generation of any recourse recommendation. Through extensive empirical evaluation, we investigate how personalization interacts with key recourse desiderata, including validity, cost, and plausibility. Our results highlight important trade-offs: individual actionability constraints, particularly hard ones, can substantially degrade the plausibility and validity of recourse recommendations across amortized and non-amortized approaches. Notably, we also find that incorporating individual actionability can reveal disparities in the cost and plausibility of recourse actions across socio-demographic groups. These findings underscore the need for principled definitions, careful operationalization, and rigorous evaluation of personalization in algorithmic recourse.

Per-Domain Generalizing Policies: On Learning Efficient and Robust Q-Value Functions (Extended Version with Technical Appendix)

Learning per-domain generalizing policies is a key challenge in learning for planning. Standard approaches learn state-value functions represented as graph neural networks using supervised learning on optimal plans generated by a teacher planner. In this work, we advocate for learning Q-value functions instead. Such policies are drastically cheaper to evaluate for a given state, as they need to process only the current state rather than every successor. Surprisingly, vanilla supervised learning of Q-values performs poorly as it does not learn to distinguish between the actions taken and those not taken by the teacher. We address this by using regularization terms that enforce this distinction, resulting in Q-value policies that consistently outperform state-value policies across a range of 10 domains and are competitive with the planner LAMA-first.

Hellinger Multimodal Variational Autoencoders

Multimodal variational autoencoders (VAEs) are widely used for weakly supervised generative learning with multiple modalities. Predominant methods aggregate unimodal inference distributions using either a product of experts (PoE), a mixture of experts (MoE), or their combinations to approximate the joint posterior. In this work, we revisit multimodal inference through the lens of probabilistic opinion pooling, an optimization-based approach. We start from Hölder pooling with $α=0.5$, which corresponds to the unique symmetric member of the $α\text{-divergence}$ family, and derive a moment-matching approximation, termed Hellinger. We then leverage such an approximation to propose HELVAE, a multimodal VAE that avoids sub-sampling, yielding an efficient yet effective model that: (i) learns more expressive latent representations as additional modalities are observed; and (ii) empirically achieves better trade-offs between generative coherence and quality, outperforming state-of-the-art multimodal VAE models.

Bridging Fairness and Explainability: Can Input-Based Explanations Promote Fairness in Hate Speech Detection?

Natural language processing (NLP) models often replicate or amplify social bias from training data, raising concerns about fairness. At the same time, their black-box nature makes it difficult for users to recognize biased predictions and for developers to effectively mitigate them. While some studies suggest that input-based explanations can help detect and mitigate bias, others question their reliability in ensuring fairness. Existing research on explainability in fair NLP has been predominantly qualitative, with limited large-scale quantitative analysis. In this work, we conduct the first systematic study of the relationship between explainability and fairness in hate speech detection, focusing on both encoder- and decoder-only models. We examine three key dimensions: (1) identifying biased predictions, (2) selecting fair models, and (3) mitigating bias during model training. Our findings show that input-based explanations can effectively detect biased predictions and serve as useful supervision for reducing bias during training, but they are unreliable for selecting fair models among candidates.

Accept or Deny? Evaluating LLM Fairness and Performance in Loan Approval across Table-to-Text Serialization Approaches

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed in high-stakes decision-making tasks, such as loan approvals. While their applications expand across domains, LLMs struggle to process tabular data, ensuring fairness and delivering reliable predictions. In this work, we assess the performance and fairness of LLMs on serialized loan approval datasets from three geographically distinct regions: Ghana, Germany, and the United States. Our evaluation focuses on the model's zero-shot and in-context learning (ICL) capabilities. Our results reveal that the choice of serialization (Serialization refers to the process of converting tabular data into text formats suitable for processing by LLMs.) format significantly affects both performance and fairness in LLMs, with certain formats such as GReat and LIFT yielding higher F1 scores but exacerbating fairness disparities. Notably, while ICL improved model performance by 4.9-59.6% relative to zero-shot baselines, its effect on fairness varied considerably across datasets. Our work underscores the importance of effective tabular data representation methods and fairness-aware models to improve the reliability of LLMs in financial decision-making.

Towards Reasonable Concept Bottleneck Models

In this paper, we propose $\textbf{C}$oncept $\textbf{REA}$soning $\textbf{M}$odels (CREAM), a novel family of Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) that: (i) explicitly encodes concept-concept (${\texttt{C-C}}$) and concept-task (${\texttt{C$\rightarrow$Y}}$) relationships to enforce a desired model reasoning; and (ii) use a regularized side-channel to achieve competitive task performance, while keeping high concept importance. Specifically, CREAM architecturally embeds (bi)directed concept-concept, and concept to task relationships specified by a human expert, while severing undesired information flows (e.g., to handle mutually exclusive concepts). Moreover, CREAM integrates a black-box side-channel that is regularized to encourage task predictions to be grounded in the relevant concepts, thereby utilizing the side-channel only when necessary to enhance performance. Our experiments show that: (i) CREAM mainly relies on concepts while achieving task performance on par with black-box models; and (ii) the embedded ${\texttt{C-C}}$ and ${\texttt{C$\rightarrow$Y}}$ relationships ease model interventions and mitigate concept leakage.