We present counterfactual situation testing (CST), a causal data mining framework for detecting individual discrimination in a dataset of classifier decisions. CST answers the question "what would have been the model outcome had the individual, or complainant, been of a different protected status?" It extends the legally-grounded situation testing (ST) of Thanh et al. (2011) by operationalizing the notion of fairness given the difference via counterfactual reasoning. ST finds for each complainant similar protected and non-protected instances in the dataset; constructs, respectively, a control and test group; and compares the groups such that a difference in outcomes implies a potential case of individual discrimination. CST, instead, avoids this idealized comparison by establishing the test group on the complainant's generated counterfactual, which reflects how the protected attribute when changed influences other seemingly neutral attributes of the complainant. Under CST we test for discrimination for each complainant by comparing similar individuals within each group but dissimilar individuals across groups. We consider single (e.g., gender) and multidimensional (e.g., gender and race) discrimination testing. For multidimensional discrimination we study multiple and intersectional discrimination and, as feared by legal scholars, find evidence that the former fails to account for the latter kind. Using a k-nearest neighbor implementation, we showcase CST on synthetic and real data. Experimental results show that CST uncovers a higher number of cases than ST, even when the model is counterfactually fair. In fact, CST extends counterfactual fairness (CF) of Kusner et al. (2017) by equipping CF with confidence intervals.

Large language models (LLMs) have seen rapid development in recent years, revolutionizing various applications and significantly enhancing convenience and productivity. However, alongside their impressive capabilities, ethical concerns and new types of attacks, such as jailbreaking, have emerged. While most prompting techniques focus on optimizing adversarial inputs for individual cases, resulting in higher computational costs when dealing with large datasets. Less research has addressed the more general setting of training a universal attacker that can transfer to unseen tasks. In this paper, we introduce JUMP, a prompt-based method designed to jailbreak LLMs using universal multi-prompts. We also adapt our approach for defense, which we term DUMP. Experimental results demonstrate that our method for optimizing universal multi-prompts outperforms existing techniques.

Building generalist models has recently demonstrated remarkable capabilities in diverse scientific domains. Within the realm of molecular learning, several studies have explored unifying diverse tasks across diverse domains. However, negative conflicts and interference between molecules and knowledge from different domain may have a worse impact in threefold. First, conflicting molecular representations can lead to optimization difficulties for the models. Second, mixing and scaling up training data across diverse tasks is inherently challenging. Third, the computational cost of refined pretraining is prohibitively high. To address these limitations, this paper presents Omni-Mol, a scalable and unified LLM-based framework for direct instruction tuning. Omni-Mol builds on three key components to tackles conflicts: (1) a unified encoding mechanism for any task input; (2) an active-learning-driven data selection strategy that significantly reduces dataset size; (3) a novel design of the adaptive gradient stabilization module and anchor-and-reconcile MoE framework that ensures stable convergence. Experimentally, Omni-Mol achieves state-of-the-art performance across 15 molecular tasks, demonstrates the presence of scaling laws in the molecular domain, and is supported by extensive ablation studies and analyses validating the effectiveness of its design. The code and weights of the powerful AI-driven chemistry generalist are open-sourced at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Omni-Mol-8EDB.

Algorithmic fairness has conventionally adopted a perspective of racial color-blindness (i.e., difference unaware treatment). We contend that in a range of important settings, group difference awareness matters. For example, differentiating between groups may be necessary in legal contexts (e.g., the U.S. compulsory draft applies to men but not women) and harm assessments (e.g., calling a girl a terrorist may be less harmful than calling a Muslim person one). In our work we first introduce an important distinction between descriptive (fact-based), normative (value-based), and correlation (association-based) benchmarks. This distinction is significant because each category requires distinct interpretation and mitigation tailored to its specific characteristics. Then, we present a benchmark suite composed of eight different scenarios for a total of 16k questions that enables us to assess difference awareness. Finally, we show results across ten models that demonstrate difference awareness is a distinct dimension of fairness where existing bias mitigation strategies may backfire.

Most existing process compliance monitoring approaches detect compliance violations in an ex post manner. Only predicate prediction focuses on predicting them. However, predicate prediction provides a binary yes/no notion of compliance, lacking the ability to measure to which extent an ongoing process instance deviates from the desired state as specified in constraints. Here, being able to quantify the magnitude of violation would provide organizations with deeper insights into their operational performance, enabling informed decision making to reduce or mitigate the risk of non-compliance. Thus, we propose two predictive compliance monitoring approaches to close this research gap. The first approach reformulates the binary classification problem as a hybrid task that considers both classification and regression, while the second employs a multi-task learning method to explicitly predict the compliance status and the magnitude of violation for deviant cases simultaneously. In this work, we focus on temporal constraints as they are significant in almost any application domain, e.g., health care. The evaluation on synthetic and real-world event logs demonstrates that our approaches are capable of quantifying the magnitude of violations while maintaining comparable performance for compliance predictions achieved by state-of-the-art approaches.

Algorithms are increasingly used to automate or aid human decisions, yet recent research shows that these algorithms may exhibit bias across legally protected demographic groups. However, data on these groups may be unavailable to organizations or external auditors due to privacy legislation. This paper studies bias detection using an unsupervised clustering tool when data on demographic groups are unavailable. We collaborate with the Dutch Executive Agency for Education to audit an algorithm that was used to assign risk scores to college students at the national level in the Netherlands between 2012-2023. Our audit covers more than 250,000 students from the whole country. The unsupervised clustering tool highlights known disparities between students with a non-European migration background and Dutch origin. Our contributions are three-fold: (1) we assess bias in a real-world, large-scale and high-stakes decision-making process by a governmental organization; (2) we use simulation studies to highlight potential pitfalls of using the unsupervised clustering tool to detect true bias when demographic group data are unavailable and provide recommendations for valid inferences; (3) we provide the unsupervised clustering tool in an open-source library. Our work serves as a starting point for a deliberative assessment by human experts to evaluate potential discrimination in algorithmic-supported decision-making processes.

Training data used for developing machine learning classifiers can exhibit biases against specific protected attributes. Such biases typically originate from historical discrimination or certain underlying patterns that disproportionately under-represent minority groups, such as those identified by their gender, religion, or race. In this paper, we propose a novel approach, FairUDT, a fairness-aware Uplift-based Decision Tree for discrimination identification. FairUDT demonstrates how the integration of uplift modeling with decision trees can be adapted to include fair splitting criteria. Additionally, we introduce a modified leaf relabeling approach for removing discrimination. We divide our dataset into favored and deprived groups based on a binary sensitive attribute, with the favored dataset serving as the treatment group and the deprived dataset as the control group. By applying FairUDT and our leaf relabeling approach to preprocess three benchmark datasets, we achieve an acceptable accuracy-discrimination tradeoff. We also show that FairUDT is inherently interpretable and can be utilized in discrimination detection tasks. The code for this project is available https://github.com/ara-25/FairUDT

Human label variation (HLV) challenges the standard assumption that an example has a single ground truth, instead embracing the natural variation in human labelling to train and evaluate models. While various training methods and metrics for HLV have been proposed, there has been no systematic meta-evaluation of HLV evaluation metrics, contributing to the lack of clarity in the best HLV training method. We propose new evaluation metrics and training methods and empirically meta-evaluate HLV evaluation metrics. We find that training on either disaggregated annotations or soft labels often performs best across metrics, and that our proposed soft metric correlates best with human preference.

In Thaler v The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (DABUS), Smith J. held that an AI owner can possibly claim patent ownership over an AI-generated invention based on their ownership and control of the AI system. This AI-owner approach reveals a new option to allocate property rights over AI-generated output. While this judgment was primarily about inventorship and ownership of AI-generated invention in patent law, it has important implications for copyright law. After analysing the weaknesses of applying existing judicial approaches to copyright ownership of AI-generated works, this paper examines whether the AI-owner approach is a better option for determining copyright ownership of AI-generated works. The paper argues that while contracts can be used to work around the AI-owner approach in scenarios where users want to commercially exploit the outputs, this approach still provides more certainty and less transaction costs for relevant parties than other approaches proposed so far.

Technical standards, or simply standards, are established documented guidelines and rules that facilitate the interoperability, quality, and accuracy of systems and processes. In recent years, we have witnessed an emerging paradigm shift where the adoption of generative AI (GenAI) models has increased tremendously, spreading implementation interests across standard-driven industries, including engineering, legal, healthcare, and education. In this paper, we assess the criticality levels of different standards across domains and sectors and complement them by grading the current compliance capabilities of state-of-the-art GenAI models. To support the discussion, we outline possible challenges and opportunities with integrating GenAI for standard compliance tasks while also providing actionable recommendations for entities involved with developing and using standards. Overall, we argue that aligning GenAI with standards through computational methods can help strengthen regulatory and operational compliance. We anticipate this area of research will play a central role in the management, oversight, and trustworthiness of larger, more powerful GenAI-based systems in the near future.