From email, over social networks, to virtual worlds, the way people work and enjoy their free time is changing dramatically. The resulting networks are usually large in scale, involving huge numbers of interactions, and are open for the interacting entities to join or leave at will. People are often supported by software components of different complexity to which some of the corresponding tasks can be delegated. In practice, such systems cannot be built and managed based on rigid, centralised client-server architectures, but call for more flexible and decentralised means of interaction. The field of Agreement Technologies (AT) [1] envisions next-generation open distributed systems, where interactions between software components are based on the concept of agreement, and which enact two key mechanisms: a means to specify the "space" of agreements that the agents can possibly reach, and an interaction model by means of which agreements can be effectively reached. Autonomy, interaction, mobility and openness are key characteristics that are tackled from a theoretical and practical perspective. Coordination in Distributed Systems is often seen as governing the interaction among distributed processes, with the aim of "gluing together" their behaviour, so that the resulting ensemble shows desired characteristics or functionalities [2]. This notion has also been applied to Distributed Systems made up of software agents. Initially, the main purpose of such multiagent systems was to efficiently perform problem-solving in a distributed manner: both the agents and their rules of interaction were designed together, often in a top-down manner and applying a divide-and-Appl.

Data valuation is concerned with determining a fair valuation of data from data sources to compensate them or to identify training examples that are the most or least useful for predictions. With the rising interest in personal data ownership and data protection regulations, model owners will likely have to fulfil more data deletion requests. This raises issues that have not been addressed by existing works: Are the data valuation scores still fair with deletions? Must the scores be expensively recomputed? The answer is no. To avoid recomputations, we propose using our data valuation framework DeRDaVa upfront for valuing each data source's contribution to preserving robust model performance after anticipated data deletions. DeRDaVa can be efficiently approximated and will assign higher values to data that are more useful or less likely to be deleted. We further generalize DeRDaVa to Risk-DeRDaVa to cater to risk-averse/seeking model owners who are concerned with the worst/best-cases model utility. We also empirically demonstrate the practicality of our solutions.

With the rapid development of large language models (LLMs), they are not only used as general-purpose AI assistants but are also customized through further fine-tuning to meet the requirements of different applications. A pivotal factor in the success of current LLMs is the alignment process. Current alignment methods, such as supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), focus on training-time alignment and are often complex and cumbersome to implement. Therefore, we develop \textbf{InferAligner}, a novel inference-time alignment method that utilizes cross-model guidance for harmlessness alignment. InferAligner utilizes safety steering vectors extracted from safety-aligned model to modify the activations of the target model when responding to harmful inputs, thereby guiding the target model to provide harmless responses. Experimental results show that our method can be very effectively applied to domain-specific models in finance, medicine, and mathematics, as well as to multimodal large language models (MLLMs) such as LLaVA. It significantly diminishes the Attack Success Rate (ASR) of both harmful instructions and jailbreak attacks, while maintaining almost unchanged performance in downstream tasks.

Methods for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE) from observational data have largely focused on continuous or binary outcomes, with less attention paid to survival outcomes and almost none to settings with competing risks. In this work, we develop censoring unbiased transformations (CUTs) for survival outcomes both with and without competing risks.After converting time-to-event outcomes using these CUTs, direct application of HTE learners for continuous outcomes yields consistent estimates of heterogeneous cumulative incidence effects, total effects, and separable direct effects. Our CUTs enable application of a much larger set of state of the art HTE learners for censored outcomes than had previously been available, especially in competing risks settings. We provide generic model-free learner-specific oracle inequalities bounding the finite-sample excess risk. The oracle efficiency results depend on the oracle selector and estimated nuisance functions from all steps involved in the transformation. We demonstrate the empirical performance of the proposed methods in simulation studies.

This paper studies long-term fair machine learning which aims to mitigate group disparity over the long term in sequential decision-making systems. To define long-term fairness, we leverage the temporal causal graph and use the 1-Wasserstein distance between the interventional distributions of different demographic groups at a sufficiently large time step as the quantitative metric. Then, we propose a three-phase learning framework where the decision model is trained on high-fidelity data generated by a deep generative model. We formulate the optimization problem as a performative risk minimization and adopt the repeated gradient descent algorithm for learning. The empirical evaluation shows the efficacy of the proposed method using both synthetic and semi-synthetic datasets.

Opinionated users often seek information that aligns with their preexisting beliefs while dismissing contradictory evidence due to confirmation bias. This conduct hinders their ability to consider alternative stances when searching the web. Despite this, few studies have analyzed how the diversification of search results on disputed topics influences the search behavior of highly opinionated users. To this end, we present a preregistered user study (n = 257) investigating whether different levels (low and high) of bias metrics and search results presentation (with or without AI-predicted stances labels) can affect the stance diversity consumption and search behavior of opinionated users on three debated topics (i.e., atheism, intellectual property rights, and school uniforms). Our results show that exposing participants to (counter-attitudinally) biased search results increases their consumption of attitude-opposing content, but we also found that bias was associated with a trend toward overall fewer interactions within the search page. We also found that 19% of users interacted with queries and search pages but did not select any search results. When we removed these participants in a post-hoc analysis, we found that stance labels increased the diversity of stances consumed by users, particularly when the search results were biased. Our findings highlight the need for future research to explore distinct search scenario settings to gain insight into opinionated users' behavior.

Dynamic adversarial question generation, where humans write examples to stump a model, aims to create examples that are realistic and informative. However, the advent of large language models (LLMs) has been a double-edged sword for human authors: more people are interested in seeing and pushing the limits of these models, but because the models are so much stronger an opponent, they are harder to defeat. To understand how these models impact adversarial question writing process, we enrich the writing guidance with LLMs and retrieval models for the authors to reason why their questions are not adversarial. While authors could create interesting, challenging adversarial questions, they sometimes resort to tricks that result in poor questions that are ambiguous, subjective, or confusing not just to a computer but also to humans. To address these issues, we propose new metrics and incentives for eliciting good, challenging questions and present a new dataset of adversarially authored questions.

Current methods to identify and classify racist language in text rely on small-n qualitative approaches or large-n approaches focusing exclusively on overt forms of racist discourse. This article provides a step-by-step generalizable guideline to identify and classify different forms of racist discourse in large corpora. In our approach, we start by conceptualizing racism and its different manifestations. We then contextualize these racist manifestations to the time and place of interest, which allows researchers to identify their discursive form. Finally, we apply XLM-RoBERTa (XLM-R), a cross-lingual model for supervised text classification with a cutting-edge contextual understanding of text. We show that XLM-R and XLM-R-Racismo, our pretrained model, outperform other state-of-the-art approaches in classifying racism in large corpora. We illustrate our approach using a corpus of tweets relating to the Ecuadorian ind\'igena community between 2018 and 2021.

"A Minister of Artificial Intelligence who is the age of my son, appointed to regulate a hypothetical technology, proves to me that your government has too much time and resources on its hands." Those were the words of a senior government official during a bilateral meeting in 2017, soon after I was appointed as the world's first Minister for Artificial Intelligence. Upon hearing that remark, I distinctly recall feeling a pang of indignation by their equating youth with incompetence, but even more so by their clear disregard and trivialization of AI. Six years into my role of leading the UAE's strategy to become the most prepared country for AI, the past year has been an exhilarating sprint of unprecedented AI advancements. It is now undeniable that AI is no longer a hypothetical technology, but one that warrants far more government time and resources across the globe.

Connor Leahy remembers the time he first realized AI was going to kill us all. It was 2019, and OpenAI's GPT-2 had just come out. Leahy downloaded the nascent large language model to his laptop, and took it along to a hackathon at the Technical University of Munich, where he was studying. In a tiny, cramped room, sitting on a couch surrounded by four friends, he booted up the AI system. Even though it could barely string coherent sentences together, Leahy identified in GPT-2 something that had been missing from every other AI model up until that point.