This paper presents a new computanullonal model of creanullve outcomes, informed by creanullvity theories and techniques, which was implemented tool to generate more novel opportuninulles for innovanullon projects. The model implemented five funcnullons that were developed to contribute to the generanullon of innovanullon opportuninulles with higher novelty without loss of usefulness. The model was evaluated using opportuninulles generated for an innovanullon project in the hospitality sector . The evaluanullon revealed that the co mputanullonal model generated outcomes that were more novel and/or useful than outcomes from Notebook LM and ChatGPT4o. However, not all of the model's funcnullons contributed to the generanullon of more novel opportuninulles, leading to new direcnullons for further model development .

Abstract--In an era where AI (Artificial Intelligence) systems play an increasing role in the battlefield, ensuring responsible targeting demands rigorous assessment of potential collateral effects. In this context, a novel collateral damage assessment model for target engagement of AI systems in military operations is introduced. Its layered structure captures the categories and architectural components of the AI systems to be engaged together with corresponding engaging vectors and contextual aspects. At the same time, spreading, severity, likelihood, and evaluation metrics are considered in order to provide a clear representation enhanced by transparent reasoning mechanisms. Further, the model is demonstrated and evaluated through instantiation which serves as a basis for further dedicated efforts that aim at building responsible and trustworthy intelligent systems for assessing the effects produced by engaging AI systems in military operations.

Artificial intelligence (AI) holds great promise for transforming healthcare. However, despite significant advances, the integration of AI solutions into real-world clinical practice remains limited. A major barrier is the quality and fairness of training data, which is often compromised by biased data collection practices. This paper draws on insights from the AI4HealthyAging project, part of Spain's national R&D initiative, where our task was to detect biases during clinical data collection. We identify several types of bias across multiple use cases, including historical, representation, and measurement biases. These biases manifest in variables such as sex, gender, age, habitat, socioeconomic status, equipment, and labeling. We conclude with practical recommendations for improving the fairness and robustness of clinical problem design and data collection. We hope that our findings and experience contribute to guiding future projects in the development of fairer AI systems in healthcare.

With the wide application of deep reinforcement learning (DRL) techniques in complex fields such as autonomous driving, intelligent manufacturing, and smart healthcare, how to improve its security and robustness in dynamic and changeable environments has become a core issue in current research. Especially in the face of adversarial attacks, DRL may suffer serious performance degradation or even make potentially dangerous decisions, so it is crucial to ensure their stability in security-sensitive scenarios. In this paper, we first introduce the basic framework of DRL and analyze the main security challenges faced in complex and changing environments. In addition, this paper proposes an adversarial attack classification framework based on perturbation type and attack target and reviews the mainstream adversarial attack methods against DRL in detail, including various attack methods such as perturbation state space, action space, reward function and model space. To effectively counter the attacks, this paper systematically summarizes various current robustness training strategies, including adversarial training, competitive training, robust learning, adversarial detection, defense distillation and other related defense techniques, we also discuss the advantages and shortcomings of these methods in improving the robustness of DRL. Finally, this paper looks into the future research direction of DRL in adversarial environments, emphasizing the research needs in terms of improving generalization, reducing computational complexity, and enhancing scalability and explainability, aiming to provide valuable references and directions for researchers.

Citations from LLM-based RAG systems are supposed to simplify response verification. However, this does not hold for citation failure, when a model generates a helpful response, but fails to cite complete evidence. In contrast to previous work, we propose to disentangle this from response failure, where the response itself is flawed, and citing complete evidence is impossible. To address citation failure, this work follows a two-step approach: (1) We study when citation failure occurs and (2) how it can be mitigated. For step 1, we extend prior work by investigating how the relation between response and evidence affects citation quality. We introduce CITECONTROL, a benchmark that systematically varies this relation to analyze failure modes. Experiments show that failures increase with relational complexity and suggest that combining citation methods could improve performance, motivating step 2. To improve LLM citation efficiently, we propose CITENTION, a framework integrating generative, attention-based, and retrieval-based methods. Results demonstrate substantial citation improvements on CITECONTROL and in transfer settings. We make our data and code publicly available.

Personalized federated learning (PFL) addresses a critical challenge of collaboratively training customized models for clients with heterogeneous and scarce local data. Conventional federated learning, which relies on a single consensus model, proves inadequate under such data heterogeneity. Its standard aggregation method of weighting client updates heuristically or by data volume, operates under an equal-contribution assumption, failing to account for the actual utility and reliability of each client's update. This often results in suboptimal personalization and aggregation bias. To overcome these limitations, we introduce Contribution-Oriented PFL (CO-PFL), a novel algorithm that dynamically estimates each client's contribution for global aggregation. CO-PFL performs a joint assessment by analyzing both gradient direction discrepancies and prediction deviations, leveraging information from gradient and data subspaces. This dual-subspace analysis provides a principled and discriminative aggregation weight for each client, emphasizing high-quality updates. Furthermore, to bolster personalization adaptability and optimization stability, CO-PFL cohesively integrates a parameter-wise personalization mechanism with mask-aware momentum optimization. Our approach effectively mitigates aggregation bias, strengthens global coordination, and enhances local performance by facilitating the construction of tailored submodels with stable updates. Extensive experiments on four benchmark datasets (CIFAR10, CIFAR10C, CINIC10, and Mini-ImageNet) confirm that CO-PFL consistently surpasses state-of-the-art methods in in personalization accuracy, robustness, scalability and convergence stability.

Large Language Models inherit stereotypes from their pretraining data, leading to biased behavior toward certain social groups in many Natural Language Processing tasks, such as hateful speech detection or sentiment analysis. Surprisingly, the evaluation of this kind of bias in stance detection methods has been largely overlooked by the community. Stance Detection involves labeling a statement as being against, in favor, or neutral towards a specific target and is among the most sensitive NLP tasks, as it often relates to political leanings. In this paper, we focus on the bias of Large Language Models when performing stance detection in a zero-shot setting. We automatically annotate posts in pre-existing stance detection datasets with two attributes: dialect or vernacular of a specific group and text complexity/readability, to investigate whether these attributes influence the model's stance detection decisions. Our results show that LLMs exhibit significant stereotypes in stance detection tasks, such as incorrectly associating pro-marijuana views with low text complexity and African American dialect with opposition to Donald Trump.

It is often claimed that machine learning-based generative AI products will drastically streamline and reduce the cost of legal practice. This enthusiasm assumes lawyers can effectively manage AI's risks. Cases in Australia and elsewhere in which lawyers have been reprimanded for submitting inaccurate AI-generated content to courts suggest this paradigm must be revisited. This paper argues that a new paradigm is needed to evaluate AI use in practice, given (a) AI's disconnection from reality and its lack of transparency, and (b) lawyers' paramount duties like honesty, integrity, and not to mislead the court. It presents an alternative model of AI use in practice that more holistically reflects these features (the verification-value paradox). That paradox suggests increases in efficiency from AI use in legal practice will be met by a correspondingly greater imperative to manually verify any outputs of that use, rendering the net value of AI use often negligible to lawyers. The paper then sets out the paradox's implications for legal practice and legal education, including for AI use but also the values that the paradox suggests should undergird legal practice: fidelity to the truth and civic responsibility.

AI systems have the potential to produce both benefits and harms, but without rigorous and ongoing adversarial evaluation, AI actors will struggle to assess the breadth and magnitude of the AI risk surface. Researchers from the field of systems design have developed several effective sociotechnical AI evaluation and red teaming techniques targeting bias, hate speech, mis/disinformation, and other documented harm classes. However, as increasingly sophisticated AI systems are released into high-stakes sectors (such as education, healthcare, and intelligence-gathering), our current evaluation and monitoring methods are proving less and less capable of delivering effective oversight. In order to actually deliver responsible AI and to ensure AI's harms are fully understood and its security vulnerabilities mitigated, pioneering new approaches to close this "responsibility gap" are now more urgent than ever. In this paper, we propose one such approach, the cooperative public AI red-teaming exercise, and discuss early results of its prior pilot implementations. This approach is intertwined with CAMLIS itself: the first in-person public demonstrator exercise was held in conjunction with CAMLIS 2024. We review the operational design and results of this exercise, the prior National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)'s Assessing the Risks and Impacts of AI (ARIA) pilot exercise, and another similar exercise conducted with the Singapore Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA). Ultimately, we argue that this approach is both capable of delivering meaningful results and is also scalable to many AI developing jurisdictions.

Recent progress in NLP research has demonstrated remarkable capabilities of large language models (LLMs) across a wide range of tasks. While recent multilingual benchmarks have advanced cultural evaluation for LLMs, critical gaps remain in capturing the nuances of low-resource cultures. Our work addresses these limitations through a Bengali Language Cultural Knowledge (BLanCK) dataset including folk traditions, culinary arts, and regional dialects. Our investigation of several multilingual language models shows that while these models perform well in non-cultural categories, they struggle significantly with cultural knowledge and performance improves substantially across all models when context is provided, emphasizing context-aware architectures and culturally curated training data.