Be Fair! Can Machine Learning Engineering Agents Adhere to Fairness Constraints?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.04971v1
• Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2026 14:52:49 GMT
• Title: Be Fair! Can Machine Learning Engineering Agents Adhere to Fairness Constraints?
• Abstract summary: Machine learning engineering (MLE) agents promise to automate end-to-end ML pipeline development from raw data and natural language instructions.<n>In sensitive and regulated domains, this abstraction creates a responsibility gap.<n>We argue that existing benchmarks are insufficient to assess whether MLE agents can be safely applied in such settings.
• Score: 21.731323824637
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Machine learning engineering (MLE) agents promise to automate end-to-end ML pipeline development from raw data and natural language instructions, potentially making ML accessible to non-technical domain experts. However, in sensitive and regulated domains, this abstraction creates a responsibility gap: end-users may lack visibility into design choices that affect correctness, robustness, fairness, and regulatory compliance. We argue that existing benchmarks are insufficient to assess whether MLE agents can be safely applied in such settings. We propose desiderata for a responsibility-centered evaluation framework and conduct an exploratory study on melanoma classification, focusing on fairness across skin tones as a responsibility constraint. When evaluating two recent MLE agents, we find that agent-generated pipelines show high variance and consistently underperform manually designed baselines in both predictive quality and fairness, despite fairness-oriented prompts. These preliminary results suggest that further research is needed towards redesigning MLE agents to allow humans to guide the search process and reliably assess the compliance and quality of the generated ML pipelines.

Related papers

• From Atomic to Agentic: Towards Interpretable Evaluation of LLMs' Agentic Mathematical Capabilities [103.60384544335072]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are evolving from performing end-to-end mathematical reasoning to integrating agentic intelligence.<n>Our framework aligns problem-solving agentic behaviors with a structured taxonomy of reusable mathematical atomic capabilities.<n> Experiments reveal that models with similar end-to-end accuracy can exhibit markedly different agentic capability profiles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-27T10:52:06Z)
• VASO: Formally Verifiable Self-Evolving Skills for Physical AI Agents [57.240036084348354]
  We introduce VASO, a framework for verification-guided self-evolution of robot skill contracts.<n>VASO verifies logically inconsistent skill contracts, then verifies plans induced by the skill against global and local temporal specifications.<n>On Clearpath Jackal and PX4 quadcopter tasks, VASO reaches 97.2% formal-specification compliance using fewer than 100 optimization samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T20:02:35Z)
• Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents? [61.49434544687523]
  We introduce REFLECT, a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments.<n> REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions.<n>Our experiments show that even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:55:08Z)
• LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation [75.05397479715576]
  Large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, but their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear.<n>We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T11:31:33Z)
• CompliBench: Benchmarking LLM Judges for Compliance Violation Detection in Dialogue Systems [19.083967725767387]
  CompliBench is a novel benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of LLM judges to detect and localize guideline violations in multi-turn dialogues.<n>We develop a scalable, automated data generation pipeline that simulates user-agent interactions.<n>Our controllable flaw injection process automatically yields precise ground-truth labels for the violated guideline and the exact conversation turn.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T05:42:41Z)
• LHAW: Controllable Underspecification for Long-Horizon Tasks [8.46227536869596]
  We introduce LHAW (Long-Horizon Augmenteds), a modular, dataset-agnostic synthetic pipeline that transforms any well-specified task into controllable underspecified variants.<n>Unlike approaches that rely on LLM predictions of ambiguity, LHAW validates variants through empirical agent trials, classifying them as outcome-critical, divergent, or benign based on observed terminal state divergence.<n>We release 285 task variants from TheAgentCompany, SWE-Bench Pro and MCP-Atlas, measuring how current agents detect, reason about, and resolve underspecification across ambiguous settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T04:49:50Z)
• LLM Performance Predictors: Learning When to Escalate in Hybrid Human-AI Moderation Systems [5.7001352660257005]
  We propose a framework for supervised uncertainty quantification in content moderation systems.<n>We show that our method enables cost-aware selective classification in real-world human-AI.<n>This work establishes a principled framework for uncertainty-aware, scalable and responsible human-AI moderation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-11T17:46:49Z)
• Reasoning with Confidence: Efficient Verification of LLM Reasoning Steps via Uncertainty Heads [104.9566359759396]
  We propose a lightweight alternative for step-level reasoning verification based on data-driven uncertainty scores.<n>Our findings suggest that the internal states of LLMs encode their uncertainty and can serve as reliable signals for reasoning verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-09T03:38:29Z)
• ORCHID: Orchestrated Retrieval-Augmented Classification with Human-in-the-Loop Intelligent Decision-Making for High-Risk Property [6.643427585499247]
  ORCHID is a modular agentic system for HRP classification.<n>It pairs retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) with human oversight to produce policy-based outputs that can be audited.<n>The demonstration shows single item submission, grounded citations, SME feedback capture, and exportable audit artifacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-07T03:48:05Z)
• Automatic Building Code Review: A Case Study [6.530899637501737]
  Building officials face labor-intensive, error-prone, and costly manual reviews of design documents as projects increase in size and complexity.<n>This study introduces a novel agent-driven framework that integrates BIM-based data extraction with automated verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-03T00:30:14Z)
• MoRE-LLM: Mixture of Rule Experts Guided by a Large Language Model [54.14155564592936]
  We propose a Mixture of Rule Experts guided by a Large Language Model (MoRE-LLM)<n>MoRE-LLM steers the discovery of local rule-based surrogates during training and their utilization for the classification task.<n>LLM is responsible for enhancing the domain knowledge alignment of the rules by correcting and contextualizing them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-26T11:09:21Z)
• How Far Are LLMs from Believable AI? A Benchmark for Evaluating the Believability of Human Behavior Simulation [46.42384207122049]
  We design SimulateBench to evaluate the believability of large language models (LLMs) when simulating human behaviors. Based on SimulateBench, we evaluate the performances of 10 widely used LLMs when simulating characters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T16:51:11Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.