Legal case retrieval is a special Information Retrieval~(IR) task focusing on legal case documents. Depending on the downstream tasks of the retrieved case documents, users' information needs in legal case retrieval could be significantly different from those in Web search and traditional ad-hoc retrieval tasks. While there are several studies that retrieve legal cases based on text similarity, the underlying search intents of legal retrieval users, as shown in this paper, are more complicated than that yet mostly unexplored. To this end, we present a novel hierarchical intent taxonomy of legal case retrieval. It consists of five intent types categorized by three criteria, i.e., search for Particular Case(s), Characterization, Penalty, Procedure, and Interest. The taxonomy was constructed transparently and evaluated extensively through interviews, editorial user studies, and query log analysis. Through a laboratory user study, we reveal significant differences in user behavior and satisfaction under different search intents in legal case retrieval. Furthermore, we apply the proposed taxonomy to various downstream legal retrieval tasks, e.g., result ranking and satisfaction prediction, and demonstrate its effectiveness. Our work provides important insights into the understanding of user intents in legal case retrieval and potentially leads to better retrieval techniques in the legal domain, such as intent-aware ranking strategies and evaluation methodologies.

Bias evaluation benchmarks and dataset and model documentation have emerged as central processes for assessing the biases and harms of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. However, these auditing processes have been criticized for their failure to integrate the knowledge of marginalized communities and consider the power dynamics between auditors and the communities. Consequently, modes of bias evaluation have been proposed that engage impacted communities in identifying and assessing the harms of AI systems (e.g., bias bounties). Even so, asking what marginalized communities want from such auditing processes has been neglected. In this paper, we ask queer communities for their positions on, and desires from, auditing processes. To this end, we organized a participatory workshop to critique and redesign bias bounties from queer perspectives. We found that when given space, the scope of feedback from workshop participants goes far beyond what bias bounties afford, with participants questioning the ownership, incentives, and efficacy of bounties. We conclude by advocating for community ownership of bounties and complementing bounties with participatory processes (e.g., co-creation).

Federated learning (FL) is a distributed machine learning paradigm allowing multiple clients to collaboratively train a global model without sharing their local data. However, FL entails exposing the model to various participants. This poses a risk of unauthorized model distribution or resale by the malicious client, compromising the intellectual property rights of the FL group. To deter such misbehavior, it is essential to establish a mechanism for verifying the ownership of the model and as well tracing its origin to the leaker among the FL participants. In this paper, we present FedTracker, the first FL model protection framework that provides both ownership verification and traceability. FedTracker adopts a bi-level protection scheme consisting of global watermark mechanism and local fingerprint mechanism. The former authenticates the ownership of the global model, while the latter identifies which client the model is derived from. FedTracker leverages Continual Learning (CL) principles to embedding the watermark in a way that preserves the utility of the FL model on both primitive task and watermark task. FedTracker also devises a novel metric to better discriminate different fingerprints. Experimental results show FedTracker is effective in ownership verification, traceability, and maintains good fidelity and robustness against various watermark removal attacks.

The distributed nature of the Internet further facilitates sharing these data with organizations worldwide [1]. Identifying the organizations that receive these personal data is becoming increasingly crucial for different stakeholders. For example, supervisory authorities may leverage this information to conduct investigations on the relationship between the source and destination of some personal data flows to understand a system's compliance with, for instance, legal requirements for international transfers of personal data [2]. Also, privacy and legal researchers can use this information to discover what companies are collecting massive amounts of personal data [3]. Additionally, app and web developers may want to check what organizations they send their users' personal data to, sometimes even without their knowledge [4], to meet transparency requirements set, e.g., by privacy regulations. Even app marketplaces can take advantage of it in their app review processes (e.g.

On a Monday morning in April, Sam Altman sat inside OpenAI's San Francisco headquarters, telling me about a dangerous artificial intelligence that his company had built but would never release. His employees, he later said, often lose sleep worrying about the AIs they might one day release without fully appreciating their dangers. With his heel perched on the edge of his swivel chair, he looked relaxed. The powerful AI that his company had released in November had captured the world's imagination like nothing in tech's recent history. There was grousing in some quarters about the things ChatGPT could not yet do well, and in others about the future it may portend, but Altman wasn't sweating it; this was, for him, a moment of triumph. Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read. In small doses, Altman's large blue eyes emit a beam of earnest intellectual attention, and he seems to understand that, in large doses, their intensity might unsettle. In this case, he was ...

The EU AI Act Article 5 is designed to regulate AI manipulation to prevent potential harmful consequences. However, the practical implementation of this legislation is challenging due to the ambiguous terminologies and the unclear presentations of manipulative techniques. Moreover, the Article 5 also suffers criticize of inadequate protective efficacy. This paper attempts to clarify terminologies and to enhance the protective efficacy by integrating insights from psychology and behavioral economics. Firstly, this paper employs cognitive psychology research to elucidate the term subliminal techniques and its associated representation. Additionally, this paper extends the study of heuristics: a set of thinking shortcuts which can be aroused for behavior changing from behavior economics to the realm of manipulative techniques. The elucidation and expansion of terminologies not only provide a more accurate understanding of the legal provision but also enhance its protective efficacy. Secondly, this paper proposes five classical heuristics and their associated examples to illustrate how can AI arouse those heuristics to alter users behavior. The enumeration of heuristics serves as a practical guide for stakeholders such as AI developers, algorithm auditors, users, and legal practitioners, enabling them to identify manipulative techniques and implement countermeasures. Finally, this paper critically evaluates the protective efficacy of Article 5 for both the general public and vulnerable groups. This paper argues that the current protective efficacy of Article 5 is insufficient and thus proposes specific revision suggestions to terms a and b in Article 5 to enhance its protective efficacy. This work contributes to the ongoing discourse on AI ethics and legal regulations, providing a practical guide for interpreting and applying the EU AI Act Article 5.

Models based on bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) produce state of the art (SOTA) results on many natural language processing (NLP) tasks such as named entity recognition (NER), part-of-speech (POS) tagging etc. An interesting phenomenon occurs when classifying long documents such as those from the US supreme court where BERT-based models can be considered difficult to use on a first-pass or out-of-the-box basis. In this paper, we experiment with several BERT-based classification techniques for US supreme court decisions or supreme court database (SCDB) and compare them with the previous SOTA results. We then compare our results specifically with SOTA models for long documents. We compare our results for two classification tasks: (1) a broad classification task with 15 categories and (2) a fine-grained classification task with 279 categories. Our best result produces an accuracy of 80\% on the 15 broad categories and 60\% on the fine-grained 279 categories which marks an improvement of 8\% and 28\% respectively from previously reported SOTA results.

Deep generative models have emerged as an exciting avenue for inverse molecular design, with progress coming from the interplay between training algorithms and molecular representations. One of the key challenges in their applicability to materials science and chemistry has been the lack of access to sizeable training datasets with property labels. Published patents contain the first disclosure of new materials prior to their publication in journals, and are a vast source of scientific knowledge that has remained relatively untapped in the field of data-driven molecular design. Because patents are filed seeking to protect specific uses, molecules in patents can be considered to be weakly labeled into application classes. Furthermore, patents published by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are downloadable and have machine-readable text and molecular structures. In this work, we train domain-specific generative models using patent data sources by developing an automated pipeline to go from USPTO patent digital files to the generation of novel candidates with minimal human intervention. We test the approach on two in-class extracted datasets, one in organic electronics and another in tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We then evaluate the ability of generative models trained on these in-class datasets on two categories of tasks (distribution learning and property optimization), identify strengths and limitations, and suggest possible explanations and remedies that could be used to overcome these in practice.

To enhance the quality of generated stories, recent story generation models have been investigating the utilization of higher-level attributes like plots or commonsense knowledge. The application of prompt-based learning with large language models (LLMs), exemplified by GPT-3, has exhibited remarkable performance in diverse natural language processing (NLP) tasks. This paper conducts a comprehensive investigation, utilizing both automatic and human evaluation, to compare the story generation capacity of LLMs with recent models across three datasets with variations in style, register, and length of stories. The results demonstrate that LLMs generate stories of significantly higher quality compared to other story generation models. Moreover, they exhibit a level of performance that competes with human authors, albeit with the preliminary observation that they tend to replicate real stories in situations involving world knowledge, resembling a form of plagiarism.

In the recent years, many software systems have adopted AI techniques, especially deep learning techniques. Due to their black-box nature, AI-based systems brought challenges to traceability, because AI system behaviors are based on models and data, whereas the requirements or policies are rules in the form of natural or programming language. To the best of our knowledge, there is a limited amount of studies on how AI and deep neural network-based systems behave against rule-based requirements/policies. This experience paper examines deep neural network behaviors against rule-based requirements described in natural language policies. In particular, we focus on a case study to check AI-based content moderation software against content moderation policies. First, using crowdsourcing, we collect natural language test cases which match each moderation policy, we name this dataset HateModerate; second, using the test cases in HateModerate, we test the failure rates of state-of-the-art hate speech detection software, and we find that these models have high failure rates for certain policies; finally, since manual labeling is costly, we further proposed an automated approach to augument HateModerate by finetuning OpenAI's large language models to automatically match new examples to policies. The dataset and code of this work can be found on our anonymous website: \url{https://sites.google.com/view/content-moderation-project}.