Data minimization (DM) describes the principle of collecting only the data strictly necessary for a given task. It is a foundational principle across major data protection regulations like GDPR and CPRA. Violations of this principle have substantial real-world consequences, with regulatory actions resulting in fines reaching hundreds of millions of dollars. Notably, the relevance of data minimization is particularly pronounced in machine learning (ML) applications, which typically rely on large datasets, resulting in an emerging research area known as Data Minimization in Machine Learning (DMML). At the same time, existing work on other ML privacy and security topics often addresses concerns relevant to DMML without explicitly acknowledging the connection. This disconnect leads to confusion among practitioners, complicating their efforts to implement DM principles and interpret the terminology, metrics, and evaluation criteria used across different research communities. To address this gap, our work introduces a comprehensive framework for DMML, including a unified data pipeline, adversaries, and points of minimization. This framework allows us to systematically review the literature on data minimization and \emph{DM-adjacent} methodologies, for the first time presenting a structured overview designed to help practitioners and researchers effectively apply DM principles. Our work facilitates a unified DM-centric understanding and broader adoption of data minimization strategies in AI/ML.

As AI systems are increasingly deployed to support decision-making in critical domains, explainability has become a means to enhance the understandability of these outputs and enable users to make more informed and conscious choices. However, despite growing interest in the usability of eXplainable AI (XAI), the accessibility of these methods, particularly for users with vision impairments, remains underexplored. This paper investigates accessibility gaps in XAI through a two-pronged approach. First, a literature review of 79 studies reveals that evaluations of XAI techniques rarely include disabled users, with most explanations relying on inherently visual formats. Second, we present a four-part methodological proof of concept that opera-tionalizes inclusive XAI design: (1) categorization of AI systems, (2) persona definition and contex-tualization, (3) prototype design and implementation, and (4) expert and user assessment of XAI techniques for accessibility. Preliminary findings suggest that simplified explanations are more comprehensible for non-visual users than detailed ones, and that multimodal presentation is required for more equitable interpretability.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into real-world applications, ensuring their outputs align with human values and safety standards has become critical. The field has developed diverse alignment approaches including traditional fine-tuning methods (RLHF, instruction tuning), post-hoc correction systems, and inference-time interventions, each with distinct advantages and limitations. However, the lack of unified evaluation frameworks makes it difficult to systematically compare these paradigms and guide deployment decisions. This paper introduces a multi-dimensional evaluation of alignment techniques for LLMs, a comprehensive evaluation framework that provides a systematic comparison across all major alignment paradigms. Our framework assesses methods along four key dimensions: alignment detection, alignment quality, computational efficiency, and robustness. Through experiments across diverse base models and alignment strategies, we demonstrate the utility of our framework in identifying strengths and limitations of current state-of-the-art models, providing valuable insights for future research directions.

With the advance of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained prominence and been applied in diverse contexts. As they evolve into more sophisticated versions, it is essential to assess whether they reproduce biases, such as discrimination and racialization, while maintaining hegemonic discourses. Current bias detection approaches rely mostly on quantitative, automated methods, which often overlook the nuanced ways in which biases emerge in natural language. This study proposes a qualitative, discursive framework to complement such methods. Through manual analysis of LLM-generated short stories featuring Black and white women, we investigate gender and racial biases. We contend that qualitative methods such as the one proposed here are fundamental to help both developers and users identify the precise ways in which biases manifest in LLM outputs, thus enabling better conditions to mitigate them. Results show that Black women are portrayed as tied to ancestry and resistance, while white women appear in self-discovery processes. These patterns reflect how language models replicate crystalized discursive representations, reinforcing essentialization and a sense of social immobility. When prompted to correct biases, models offered superficial revisions that maintained problematic meanings, revealing limitations in fostering inclusive narratives. Our results demonstrate the ideological functioning of algorithms and have significant implications for the ethical use and development of AI. The study reinforces the need for critical, interdisciplinary approaches to AI design and deployment, addressing how LLM-generated discourses reflect and perpetuate inequalities.

Shared micromobility (e.g., shared bikes and electric scooters), as a kind of emerging urban transportation, has become more and more popular in the world. However, the blooming of shared micromobility vehicles brings some social problems to the city (e.g., overloaded vehicles on roads, and the inequity of vehicle deployment), which deviate from the city regulator's expectation of the service of the shared micromobility system. In addition, the multi-operator shared micromobility system in a city complicates the problem because of their non-cooperative self-interested pursuits. Existing regulatory frameworks of multi-operator vehicle rebalancing generally assume the intrusive control of vehicle rebalancing of all the operators, which is not practical in the real world. To address this limitation, we design REALISM, a regulatory framework for coordinated scheduling in multi-operator shared micromobility services that incorporates the city regulator's regulations in the form of assigning a score to each operator according to the city goal achievements and operators' individual contributions to achieving the city goal, measured by Shapley value. To realize the fairness-aware score assignment, we measure the fairness of assigned scores and use them as one of the components to optimize the score assignment model. To optimize the whole framework, we develop an alternating procedure to make operators and the city regulator interact with each other until convergence. We evaluate our framework based on real-world e-scooter usage data in Chicago. Our experiment results show that our method achieves a performance gain of at least 39.93% in the equity of vehicle usage and 1.82% in the average demand satisfaction of the whole city.

AI systems for software development are rapidly gaining prominence, yet significant challenges remain in ensuring their safety. To address this, Amazon launched the Trusted AI track of the Amazon Nova AI Challenge, a global competition among 10 university teams to drive advances in secure AI. In the challenge, five teams focus on developing automated red teaming bots, while the other five create safe AI assistants. This challenge provides teams with a unique platform to evaluate automated red-teaming and safety alignment methods through head-to-head adversarial tournaments where red teams have multi-turn conversations with the competing AI coding assistants to test their safety alignment. Along with this, the challenge provides teams with a feed of high quality annotated data to fuel iterative improvement. Throughout the challenge, teams developed state-of-the-art techniques, introducing novel approaches in reasoning-based safety alignment, robust model guardrails, multi-turn jail-breaking, and efficient probing of large language models (LLMs). To support these efforts, the Amazon Nova AI Challenge team made substantial scientific and engineering investments, including building a custom baseline coding specialist model for the challenge from scratch, developing a tournament orchestration service, and creating an evaluation harness. This paper outlines the advancements made by university teams and the Amazon Nova AI Challenge team in addressing the safety challenges of AI for software development, highlighting this collaborative effort to raise the bar for AI safety.

Thinking mode has always been regarded as one of the most valuable modes in LLMs. However, we uncover a surprising and previously overlooked phenomenon: LLMs with thinking mode are more easily broken by Jailbreak attack. We evaluate 9 LLMs on AdvBench and HarmBench and find that the success rate of attacking thinking mode in LLMs is almost higher than that of non-thinking mode. Through large numbers of sample studies, it is found that for educational purposes and excessively long thinking lengths are the characteristics of successfully attacked data, and LLMs also give harmful answers when they mostly know that the questions are harmful. In order to alleviate the above problems, this paper proposes a method of safe thinking intervention for LLMs, which explicitly guides the internal thinking processes of LLMs by adding "specific thinking tokens" of LLMs to the prompt. The results demonstrate that the safe thinking intervention can significantly reduce the attack success rate of LLMs with thinking mode.

Leveraging large language models in real-world settings often entails a need to utilize domain-specific data and tools in order to follow the complex regulations that need to be followed for acceptable use. Within financial sectors, modern enterprises increasingly rely on Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems to address complex compliance requirements in financial document workflows. However, existing solutions struggle to account for the inherent heterogeneity of data (e.g., text, tables, diagrams) and evolving nature of regulatory standards used in financial filings, leading to compromised accuracy in critical information extraction. We propose the FinSage framework as a solution, utilizing a multi-aspect RAG framework tailored for regulatory compliance analysis in multi-modal financial documents. FinSage introduces three innovative components: (1) a multi-modal pre-processing pipeline that unifies diverse data formats and generates chunk-level metadata summaries, (2) a multi-path sparse-dense retrieval system augmented with query expansion (HyDE) and metadata-aware semantic search, and (3) a domain-specialized re-ranking module fine-tuned via Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to prioritize compliance-critical content. Extensive experiments demonstrate that FinSage achieves an impressive recall of 92.51% on 75 expert-curated questions derived from surpasses the best baseline method on the FinanceBench question answering datasets by 24.06% in accuracy. Moreover, FinSage has been successfully deployed as financial question-answering agent in online meetings, where it has already served more than 1,200 people.

The robust training built upon the loose guarantees limits the improvement of model robustness.

The right to be forgotten calls for efficient machine unlearning techniques that make trained machine learning models forget a cohort of data.