-
From Euler to AI: Unifying Formulas for Mathematical Constants
Authors:
Tomer Raz,
Michael Shalyt,
Elyasheev Leibtag,
Rotem Kalisch,
Shachar Weinbaum,
Yaron Hadad,
Ido Kaminer
Abstract:
The constant $π$ has fascinated scholars throughout the centuries, inspiring numerous formulas for its evaluation, such as infinite sums and continued fractions. Despite their individual significance, many of the underlying connections among formulas remain unknown, missing unifying theories that could unveil deeper understanding. The absence of a unifying theory reflects a broader challenge acros…
▽ More
The constant $π$ has fascinated scholars throughout the centuries, inspiring numerous formulas for its evaluation, such as infinite sums and continued fractions. Despite their individual significance, many of the underlying connections among formulas remain unknown, missing unifying theories that could unveil deeper understanding. The absence of a unifying theory reflects a broader challenge across math and science: knowledge is typically accumulated through isolated discoveries, while deeper connections often remain hidden. In this work, we present an automated framework for the unification of mathematical formulas. Our system combines large language models (LLMs) for systematic formula harvesting, an LLM-code feedback loop for validation, and a novel symbolic algorithm for clustering and eventual unification. We demonstrate this methodology on the hallmark case of $π$, an ideal testing ground for symbolic unification. Applying this approach to 455,050 arXiv papers, we validate 407 distinct formulas for $π$ and prove relations between 381 (94%) of them, of which 188 (46%) can be derived from a single mathematical object$\unicode{x2014}$linking canonical formulas by Euler, Gauss, Brouncker, and newer ones from algorithmic discoveries by the Ramanujan Machine. Our method generalizes to other constants, including $e$, $ζ(3)$, and Catalan's constant, demonstrating the potential of AI-assisted mathematics to uncover hidden structures and unify knowledge across domains.
△ Less
Submitted 16 June, 2025; v1 submitted 24 February, 2025;
originally announced February 2025.
-
Authorship and the Politics and Ethics of LLM Watermarks
Authors:
Tim Räz
Abstract:
Recently, watermarking schemes for large language models (LLMs) have been proposed to distinguish text generated by machines and by humans. The present paper explores philosophical, political, and ethical ramifications of implementing and using watermarking schemes. A definition of authorship that includes both machines (LLMs) and humans is proposed to serve as a backdrop. It is argued that privat…
▽ More
Recently, watermarking schemes for large language models (LLMs) have been proposed to distinguish text generated by machines and by humans. The present paper explores philosophical, political, and ethical ramifications of implementing and using watermarking schemes. A definition of authorship that includes both machines (LLMs) and humans is proposed to serve as a backdrop. It is argued that private watermarks may provide private companies with sweeping rights to determine authorship, which is incompatible with traditional standards of authorship determination. Then, possible ramifications of the so-called entropy dependence of watermarking mechanisms are explored. It is argued that entropy may vary for different, socially salient groups. This could lead to group dependent rates at which machine generated text is detected. Specifically, groups more interested in low entropy text may face the challenge that it is harder to detect machine generated text that is of interest to them.
△ Less
Submitted 11 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Reliability Gaps Between Groups in COMPAS Dataset
Authors:
Tim Räz
Abstract:
This paper investigates the inter-rater reliability of risk assessment instruments (RAIs). The main question is whether different, socially salient groups are affected differently by a lack of inter-rater reliability of RAIs, that is, whether mistakes with respect to different groups affects them differently. The question is investigated with a simulation study of the COMPAS dataset. A controlled…
▽ More
This paper investigates the inter-rater reliability of risk assessment instruments (RAIs). The main question is whether different, socially salient groups are affected differently by a lack of inter-rater reliability of RAIs, that is, whether mistakes with respect to different groups affects them differently. The question is investigated with a simulation study of the COMPAS dataset. A controlled degree of noise is injected into the input data of a predictive model; the noise can be interpreted as a synthetic rater that makes mistakes. The main finding is that there are systematic differences in output reliability between groups in the COMPAS dataset. The sign of the difference depends on the kind of inter-rater statistic that is used (Cohen's Kappa, Byrt's PABAK, ICC), and in particular whether or not a correction of predictions prevalences of the groups is used.
△ Less
Submitted 29 August, 2023;
originally announced August 2023.
-
Inter-Rater Reliability is Individual Fairness
Authors:
Tim Räz
Abstract:
In this note, a connection between inter-rater reliability and individual fairness is established. It is shown that inter-rater reliability is a special case of individual fairness, a notion of fairness requiring that similar people are treated similarly.
In this note, a connection between inter-rater reliability and individual fairness is established. It is shown that inter-rater reliability is a special case of individual fairness, a notion of fairness requiring that similar people are treated similarly.
△ Less
Submitted 10 August, 2023;
originally announced August 2023.
-
ML Interpretability: Simple Isn't Easy
Authors:
Tim Räz
Abstract:
The interpretability of ML models is important, but it is not clear what it amounts to. So far, most philosophers have discussed the lack of interpretability of black-box models such as neural networks, and methods such as explainable AI that aim to make these models more transparent. The goal of this paper is to clarify the nature of interpretability by focussing on the other end of the 'interpre…
▽ More
The interpretability of ML models is important, but it is not clear what it amounts to. So far, most philosophers have discussed the lack of interpretability of black-box models such as neural networks, and methods such as explainable AI that aim to make these models more transparent. The goal of this paper is to clarify the nature of interpretability by focussing on the other end of the 'interpretability spectrum'. The reasons why some models, linear models and decision trees, are highly interpretable will be examined, and also how more general models, MARS and GAM, retain some degree of interpretability. I find that while there is heterogeneity in how we gain interpretability, what interpretability is in particular cases can be explicated in a clear manner.
△ Less
Submitted 24 November, 2022;
originally announced November 2022.
-
Emergence of Concepts in DNNs?
Authors:
Tim Räz
Abstract:
The present paper reviews and discusses work from computer science that proposes to identify concepts in internal representations (hidden layers) of DNNs. It is examined, first, how existing methods actually identify concepts that are supposedly represented in DNNs. Second, it is discussed how conceptual spaces -- sets of concepts in internal representations -- are shaped by a tradeoff between pre…
▽ More
The present paper reviews and discusses work from computer science that proposes to identify concepts in internal representations (hidden layers) of DNNs. It is examined, first, how existing methods actually identify concepts that are supposedly represented in DNNs. Second, it is discussed how conceptual spaces -- sets of concepts in internal representations -- are shaped by a tradeoff between predictive accuracy and compression. These issues are critically examined by drawing on philosophy. While there is evidence that DNNs able to represent non-trivial inferential relations between concepts, our ability to identify concepts is severely limited.
△ Less
Submitted 11 November, 2022;
originally announced November 2022.
-
Gerrymandering Individual Fairness
Authors:
Tim Räz
Abstract:
Individual fairness, proposed by Dwork et al., is a fairness measure that is supposed to prevent the unfair treatment of individuals on the subgroup level, and to overcome the problem that group fairness measures are susceptible to manipulation, or gerrymandering. The goal of the present paper is to explore the extent to which it is possible to gerrymander individual fairness itself. It will be pr…
▽ More
Individual fairness, proposed by Dwork et al., is a fairness measure that is supposed to prevent the unfair treatment of individuals on the subgroup level, and to overcome the problem that group fairness measures are susceptible to manipulation, or gerrymandering. The goal of the present paper is to explore the extent to which it is possible to gerrymander individual fairness itself. It will be proved that gerrymandering individual fairness in the context of predicting scores is possible. It will also be argued that individual fairness provides a very weak notion of fairness for some choices of feature space and metric. Finally, it will be discussed how the general idea of individual fairness may be preserved by formulating a notion of fairness that allows us to overcome some of the problems with individual fairness identified here and elsewhere.
△ Less
Submitted 25 April, 2022;
originally announced April 2022.
-
Gradual (In)Compatibility of Fairness Criteria
Authors:
Corinna Hertweck,
Tim Räz
Abstract:
Impossibility results show that important fairness measures (independence, separation, sufficiency) cannot be satisfied at the same time under reasonable assumptions. This paper explores whether we can satisfy and/or improve these fairness measures simultaneously to a certain degree. We introduce information-theoretic formulations of the fairness measures and define degrees of fairness based on th…
▽ More
Impossibility results show that important fairness measures (independence, separation, sufficiency) cannot be satisfied at the same time under reasonable assumptions. This paper explores whether we can satisfy and/or improve these fairness measures simultaneously to a certain degree. We introduce information-theoretic formulations of the fairness measures and define degrees of fairness based on these formulations. The information-theoretic formulations suggest unexplored theoretical relations between the three fairness measures. In the experimental part, we use the information-theoretic expressions as regularizers to obtain fairness-regularized predictors for three standard datasets. Our experiments show that a) fairness regularization directly increases fairness measures, in line with existing work, and b) some fairness regularizations indirectly increase other fairness measures, as suggested by our theoretical findings. This establishes that it is possible to increase the degree to which some fairness measures are satisfied at the same time -- some fairness measures are gradually compatible.
△ Less
Submitted 16 March, 2022; v1 submitted 9 September, 2021;
originally announced September 2021.
-
Group Fairness: Independence Revisited
Authors:
Tim Räz
Abstract:
This paper critically examines arguments against independence, a measure of group fairness also known as statistical parity and as demographic parity. In recent discussions of fairness in computer science, some have maintained that independence is not a suitable measure of group fairness. This position is at least partially based on two influential papers (Dwork et al., 2012, Hardt et al., 2016) t…
▽ More
This paper critically examines arguments against independence, a measure of group fairness also known as statistical parity and as demographic parity. In recent discussions of fairness in computer science, some have maintained that independence is not a suitable measure of group fairness. This position is at least partially based on two influential papers (Dwork et al., 2012, Hardt et al., 2016) that provide arguments against independence. We revisit these arguments, and we find that the case against independence is rather weak. We also give arguments in favor of independence, showing that it plays a distinctive role in considerations of fairness. Finally, we discuss how to balance different fairness considerations.
△ Less
Submitted 8 January, 2021;
originally announced January 2021.
