With increased power and prevalence of AI systems, it is ever more critical that AI systems are designed to serve all, i.e., people with diverse values and perspectives. However, aligning models to serve pluralistic human values remains an open research question. In this piece, we propose a roadmap to pluralistic alignment, specifically using language models as a test bed. We identify and formalize three possible ways to define and operationalize pluralism in AI systems: 1) Overton pluralistic models that present a spectrum of reasonable responses; 2) Steerably pluralistic models that can steer to reflect certain perspectives; and 3) Distributionally pluralistic models that are well-calibrated to a given population in distribution. We also propose and formalize three possible classes of pluralistic benchmarks: 1) Multi-objective benchmarks, 2) Trade-off steerable benchmarks, which incentivize models to steer to arbitrary trade-offs, and 3) Jury-pluralistic benchmarks which explicitly model diverse human ratings. We use this framework to argue that current alignment techniques may be fundamentally limited for pluralistic AI; indeed, we highlight empirical evidence, both from our own experiments and from other work, that standard alignment procedures might reduce distributional pluralism in models, motivating the need for further research on pluralistic alignment.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has driven many information and communication technology (ICT) breakthroughs. Nonetheless, the scope of ICT systems has expanded far beyond AI since the Turing test proposal. Critically, recent AI regulation proposals adopt AI definitions affecting ICT techniques, approaches, and systems that are not AI. In some cases, even works from mathematics, statistics, and engineering would be affected. Worryingly, AI misdefinitions are observed from Western societies to the Global South. In this paper, we propose a framework to score how \textit{validated as appropriately-defined for regulation} (VADER) an AI definition is. Our online, publicly-available VADER framework scores the coverage of premises that should underlie AI definitions for regulation, which aim to (i) reproduce principles observed in other successful technology regulations, and (ii) include all AI techniques and approaches while excluding non-AI works. Regarding the latter, our score is based on a dataset of representative AI, non-AI ICT, and non-ICT examples. We demonstrate our contribution by reviewing the AI regulation proposals of key players, namely the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, and Brazil. Importantly, none of the proposals assessed achieve the appropriateness score, ranging from a revision need to a concrete risk to ICT systems and works from other fields.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of Large Language Models (LLMs), ensuring robust safety measures is paramount. To meet this crucial need, we propose \emph{SALAD-Bench}, a safety benchmark specifically designed for evaluating LLMs, attack, and defense methods. Distinguished by its breadth, SALAD-Bench transcends conventional benchmarks through its large scale, rich diversity, intricate taxonomy spanning three levels, and versatile functionalities.SALAD-Bench is crafted with a meticulous array of questions, from standard queries to complex ones enriched with attack, defense modifications and multiple-choice. To effectively manage the inherent complexity, we introduce an innovative evaluators: the LLM-based MD-Judge for QA pairs with a particular focus on attack-enhanced queries, ensuring a seamless, and reliable evaluation. Above components extend SALAD-Bench from standard LLM safety evaluation to both LLM attack and defense methods evaluation, ensuring the joint-purpose utility. Our extensive experiments shed light on the resilience of LLMs against emerging threats and the efficacy of contemporary defense tactics. Data and evaluator are released under https://github.com/OpenSafetyLab/SALAD-BENCH.

Tree-based machine learning models, such as decision trees and random forests, have been hugely successful in classification tasks primarily because of their predictive power in supervised learning tasks and ease of interpretation. Despite their popularity and power, these models have been found to produce unexpected or discriminatory outcomes. Given their overwhelming success for most tasks, it is of interest to identify sources of their unexpected and discriminatory behavior. However, there has not been much work on understanding and debugging tree-based classifiers in the context of fairness. We introduce FairDebugger, a system that utilizes recent advances in machine unlearning research to identify training data subsets responsible for instances of fairness violations in the outcomes of a random forest classifier. FairDebugger generates top-$k$ explanations (in the form of coherent training data subsets) for model unfairness. Toward this goal, FairDebugger first utilizes machine unlearning to estimate the change in the tree structures of the random forest when parts of the underlying training data are removed, and then leverages the Apriori algorithm from frequent itemset mining to reduce the subset search space. We empirically evaluate our approach on three real-world datasets, and demonstrate that the explanations generated by FairDebugger are consistent with insights from prior studies on these datasets.

Intelligent agents powered by large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated substantial promise in autonomously conducting experiments and facilitating scientific discoveries across various disciplines. While their capabilities are promising, they also introduce novel vulnerabilities that demand careful consideration for safety. However, there exists a notable gap in the literature, as there has been no comprehensive exploration of these vulnerabilities. This position paper fills this gap by conducting a thorough examination of vulnerabilities in LLM-based agents within scientific domains, shedding light on potential risks associated with their misuse and emphasizing the need for safety measures. We begin by providing a comprehensive overview of the potential risks inherent to scientific LLM agents, taking into account user intent, the specific scientific domain, and their potential impact on the external environment. Then, we delve into the origins of these vulnerabilities and provide a scoping review of the limited existing works. Based on our analysis, we propose a triadic framework involving human regulation, agent alignment, and an understanding of environmental feedback (agent regulation) to mitigate these identified risks. Furthermore, we highlight the limitations and challenges associated with safeguarding scientific agents and advocate for the development of improved models, robust benchmarks, and comprehensive regulations to address these issues effectively.

This study consists of a novel approach toward the analysis of court judgments spanning five countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Rwanda, Sweden and Hong Kong. This study also explores the intersection of the latest advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and legal analysis, emphasizing the role of AI (specifically generative AI) in identifying human biases and facilitating automated, valid, and coherent multisided argumentation of court judgments with the goal of ensuring consistent application of laws in and across various jurisdictions. By incorporating Advanced Language Models (ALMs) and a newly introduced human-AI collaborative framework, this paper seeks to analyze Grounded Theory-based research design with Advanced Language Models (ALMs) in the practice of law. SHIRLEY is the name of the AI-based application (built on top of OpenAI's GPT technology), focusing on detecting logical inconsistencies and biases across various legal decisions. SHIRLEY analysis is aggregated and is accompanied by a comparison-oriented AI-based application called SAM (also an ALM) to identify relative deviations in SHIRLEY bias detections. Further, a CRITIC is generated within semi-autonomous arbitration process via the ALM, SARA. A novel approach is introduced in the utilization of an AI arbitrator to critically evaluate biases and qualitative-in-nature nuances identified by the aforementioned AI applications (SAM in concert with SHIRLEY), based on the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration. This Semi-Automated Arbitration Process (SAAP) aims to uphold the integrity and fairness of legal judgments by ensuring a nuanced debate-resultant "understanding" through a hybrid system of AI and human-based collaborative analysis.

With the rise of complex cyber devices Cyber Forensics (CF) is facing many new challenges. For example, there are dozens of systems running on smartphones, each with more than millions of downloadable applications. Sifting through this large amount of data and making sense requires new techniques, such as from the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). To apply these techniques successfully in CF, we need to justify and explain the results to the stakeholders of CF, such as forensic analysts and members of the court, for them to make an informed decision. If we want to apply AI successfully in CF, there is a need to develop trust in AI systems. Some other factors in accepting the use of AI in CF are to make AI authentic, interpretable, understandable, and interactive. This way, AI systems will be more acceptable to the public and ensure alignment with legal standards. An explainable AI (XAI) system can play this role in CF, and we call such a system XAI-CF. XAI-CF is indispensable and is still in its infancy. In this paper, we explore and make a case for the significance and advantages of XAI-CF. We strongly emphasize the need to build a successful and practical XAI-CF system and discuss some of the main requirements and prerequisites of such a system. We present a formal definition of the terms CF and XAI-CF and a comprehensive literature review of previous works that apply and utilize XAI to build and increase trust in CF. We discuss some challenges facing XAI-CF. We also provide some concrete solutions to these challenges. We identify key insights and future research directions for building XAI applications for CF. This paper is an effort to explore and familiarize the readers with the role of XAI applications in CF, and we believe that our work provides a promising basis for future researchers interested in XAI-CF.

Integrating Internet of Things (IoT) technology inside the cold supply chain can enhance transparency, efficiency, and quality, optimizing operating procedures and increasing productivity. The integration of IoT in this complicated setting is hindered by specific barriers that need a thorough examination. Prominent barriers to IoT implementation in the cold supply chain are identified using a two-stage model. After reviewing the available literature on the topic of IoT implementation, a total of 13 barriers were found. The survey data was cross-validated for quality, and Cronbach's alpha test was employed to ensure validity. This research applies the interpretative structural modeling technique in the first phase to identify the main barriers. Among those barriers, "regularity compliance" and "cold chain networks" are key drivers for IoT adoption strategies. MICMAC's driving and dependence power element categorization helps evaluate the barrier interactions. In the second phase of this research, a decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory methodology was employed to identify causal relationships between barriers and evaluate them according to their relative importance. Each cause is a potential drive, and if its efficiency can be enhanced, the system as a whole benefits. The research findings provide industry stakeholders, governments, and organizations with significant drivers of IoT adoption to overcome these barriers and optimize the utilization of IoT technology to improve the effectiveness and reliability of the cold supply chain.

The rapid advancement of Large AI Models (LAIMs), particularly diffusion models and large language models, has marked a new era where AI-generated multimedia is increasingly integrated into various aspects of daily life. Although beneficial in numerous fields, this content presents significant risks, including potential misuse, societal disruptions, and ethical concerns. Consequently, detecting multimedia generated by LAIMs has become crucial, with a marked rise in related research. Despite this, there remains a notable gap in systematic surveys that focus specifically on detecting LAIM-generated multimedia. Addressing this, we provide the first survey to comprehensively cover existing research on detecting multimedia (such as text, images, videos, audio, and multimodal content) created by LAIMs. Specifically, we introduce a novel taxonomy for detection methods, categorized by media modality, and aligned with two perspectives: pure detection (aiming to enhance detection performance) and beyond detection (adding attributes like generalizability, robustness, and interpretability to detectors). Additionally, we have presented a brief overview of generation mechanisms, public datasets, and online detection tools to provide a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners in this field. Furthermore, we identify current challenges in detection and propose directions for future research that address unexplored, ongoing, and emerging issues in detecting multimedia generated by LAIMs. Our aim for this survey is to fill an academic gap and contribute to global AI security efforts, helping to ensure the integrity of information in the digital realm. The project link is https://github.com/Purdue-M2/Detect-LAIM-generated-Multimedia-Survey.

While the operationalisation of high-level AI ethics principles into practical AI/ML systems has made progress, there is still a theory-practice gap in managing tensions between the underlying AI ethics aspects. We cover five approaches for addressing the tensions via trade-offs, ranging from rudimentary to complex. The approaches differ in the types of considered context, scope, methods for measuring contexts, and degree of justification. None of the approaches is likely to be appropriate for all organisations, systems, or applications. To address this, we propose a framework which consists of: (i) proactive identification of tensions, (ii) prioritisation and weighting of ethics aspects, (iii) justification and documentation of trade-off decisions. The proposed framework aims to facilitate the implementation of well-rounded AI/ML systems that are appropriate for potential regulatory requirements.