Model fingerprinting is a widely adopted approach to safeguard the intellectual property rights of open-source models by preventing their unauthorized reuse. It is promising and convenient since it does not necessitate modifying the protected model. In this paper, we revisit existing fingerprinting methods and reveal that they are vulnerable to false claim attacks where adversaries falsely assert ownership of any third-party model. We demonstrate that this vulnerability mostly stems from their untargeted nature, where they generally compare the outputs of given samples on different models instead of the similarities to specific references. Motivated by these findings, we propose a targeted fingerprinting paradigm (i.e., FIT-Print) to counteract false claim attacks. Specifically, FIT-Print transforms the fingerprint into a targeted signature via optimization. Building on the principles of FIT-Print, we develop bit-wise and list-wise black-box model fingerprinting methods, i.e., FIT-ModelDiff and FIT-LIME, which exploit the distance between model outputs and the feature attribution of specific samples as the fingerprint, respectively. Extensive experiments on benchmark models and datasets verify the effectiveness, conferrability, and resistance to false claim attacks of our FIT-Print.

Forthcoming in Philipp Hacker, Andreas Engel, Sarah Hammer and Brent Mittelstadt (eds) The Oxford Handbook on the Foundations and Regulation of Generative AI (Oxford University Press) Abstract Foundation models and generative artificial intelligence (AI) exacerbate a core regulatory challenge associated with AI: its heterogeneity. By their very nature, foundation models and generative AI can perform multiple functions for their users, thus presenting a vast array of different risks. This multifunctionality means that prescriptive, one-size-fits-all regulation will not be a viable option. Even performance standards and ex post liability--regulatory approaches that usually afford flexibility--are unlikely to be strong candidates for responding to multifunctional AI's risks, given challenges in monitoring and enforcement. Regulators will do well instead to promote proactive risk management on the part of developers and users by using management-based regulation, an approach that has proven effective in other contexts of heterogeneity. Regulators will also need to maintain ongoing vigilance and agility. More than in other contexts, regulators of multifunctional AI will need sufficient resources, top human talent and leadership, and organizational cultures committed to regulatory excellence. Consider one of humanity's most primal of tools: the knife [30]. The knife is not a singular tool; rather, it comes in many different varieties that serve many functions, each of which can generate value for society. Knives are used in the kitchen to prepare delicious meals, and then they are used by diners to consume those same meals. Knives carve objects, cut rope, and open packages. They clear paths through forests and jungles, and they help in harvesting seasonal crops. Knives can be used, of course, to injure or kill people. But in the hands of surgeons, knives are routinely used to save lives. And even though knives take many different forms and are often designed for many different purposes--think of, for example, the many types and sizes of surgical scalpels, woodcarver's chisels, and kitchen implements, among others--knives designed for one purpose also can be adapted for different uses, as anyone who has used a dinner knife to open a postal letter can attest. Many knives, though, are deliberately intended to serve multiple functions, as is the case with a simple pocketknife or, even more emblematically, the classic Swiss army knife, some models of which boast a combination of more than 30 different tools in one. The proliferation of functions performed by different knives has led over the years to different forms and sources of rules governing their manufacture, sale, and deployment.

Contextual pricing strategies are prevalent in online retailing, where the seller adjusts prices based on products' attributes and buyers' characteristics. Although such strategies can enhance seller's profits, they raise concerns about fairness when significant price disparities emerge among specific groups, such as gender or race. These disparities can lead to adverse perceptions of fairness among buyers and may even violate the law and regulation. In contrast, price differences can incentivize disadvantaged buyers to strategically manipulate their group identity to obtain a lower price. In this paper, we investigate contextual dynamic pricing with fairness constraints, taking into account buyers' strategic behaviors when their group status is private and unobservable from the seller. We propose a dynamic pricing policy that simultaneously achieves price fairness and discourages strategic behaviors. Our policy achieves an upper bound of $O(\sqrt{T}+H(T))$ regret over $T$ time horizons, where the term $H(T)$ arises from buyers' assessment of the fairness of the pricing policy based on their learned price difference. When buyers are able to learn the fairness of the price policy, this upper bound reduces to $O(\sqrt{T})$. We also prove an $\Omega(\sqrt{T})$ regret lower bound of any pricing policy under our problem setting. We support our findings with extensive experimental evidence, showcasing our policy's effectiveness. In our real data analysis, we observe the existence of price discrimination against race in the loan application even after accounting for other contextual information. Our proposed pricing policy demonstrates a significant improvement, achieving 35.06% reduction in regret compared to the benchmark policy.

Model monitoring involves analyzing AI algorithms once they have been deployed and detecting changes in their behaviour. This thesis explores machine learning model monitoring ML before the predictions impact real-world decisions or users. This step is characterized by one particular condition: the absence of labelled data at test time, which makes it challenging, even often impossible, to calculate performance metrics. The thesis is structured around two main themes: (i) AI alignment, measuring if AI models behave in a manner consistent with human values and (ii) performance monitoring, measuring if the models achieve specific accuracy goals or desires. The thesis uses a common methodology that unifies all its sections. It explores feature attribution distributions for both monitoring dimensions. Using these feature attribution explanations, we can exploit their theoretical properties to derive and establish certain guarantees and insights into model monitoring.

The black-box nature of large language models (LLMs) necessitates the development of eXplainable AI (XAI) techniques for transparency and trustworthiness. However, evaluating these techniques remains a challenge. This study presents a general evaluation framework using four key metrics: Human-reasoning Agreement (HA), Robustness, Consistency, and Contrastivity. We assess the effectiveness of six explainability techniques from five different XAI categories model simplification (LIME), perturbation-based methods (SHAP), gradient-based approaches (InputXGradient, Grad-CAM), Layer-wise Relevance Propagation (LRP), and attention mechanisms-based explainability methods (Attention Mechanism Visualization, AMV) across five encoder-based language models: TinyBERT, BERTbase, BERTlarge, XLM-R large, and DeBERTa-xlarge, using the IMDB Movie Reviews and Tweet Sentiment Extraction (TSE) datasets. Our findings show that the model simplification-based XAI method (LIME) consistently outperforms across multiple metrics and models, significantly excelling in HA with a score of 0.9685 on DeBERTa-xlarge, robustness, and consistency as the complexity of large language models increases. AMV demonstrates the best Robustness, with scores as low as 0.0020. It also excels in Consistency, achieving near-perfect scores of 0.9999 across all models. Regarding Contrastivity, LRP performs the best, particularly on more complex models, with scores up to 0.9371.

In the prior literature, they cited the low dimensional embedding methods is the reason of the poor performance of the embedding based methods. In this paper, the author proposed that the final score vector for the labels actually generated by highly non-linear transformation such as thresholding the scores. Thus it is not clear if the low-rank structure of the score vectors directly cause the low-rank on the label vectors. Furthermore, the author uses a simple neural network to mimic the low-dimensional embedding can attain near-perfect training accuracy but generalize poorly and suggesting that overfitting is the root cause of the poor performance of the embedding based methods. This is the first contribution of the paper which breaks the glass ceiling of embedding based methods.

There is some disagreement about the significance of the paper among the reviewers. Three steps can be distinguished. First, to refute the common belief that low-dimensional embeddings act as bottlenecks that limit the accuracy in the extreme classification case. Here, while it is true (raised by reviewer 1) that a representation result does not imply computational achievability, I feel that it reverses the direction of justification. If someone could show that common optimization methods fail to find embeddings (which "exist"), then this would re-instantiate the argument, yet in a more refined/precise form.

"This could be a truly equalizing breakthrough that is great for researchers and developers with limited resources, especially those from the Global South," says Hancheng Cao, an assistant professor in information systems at Emory University. DeepSeek's success is even more remarkable given the constraints facing Chinese AI companies in the form of increasing US export controls on cutting-edge chips. But early evidence shows that these measures are not working as intended. Rather than weakening China's AI capabilities, the sanctions appear to be driving startups like DeepSeek to innovate in ways that prioritize efficiency, resource-pooling, and collaboration. To create R1, DeepSeek had to rework its training process to reduce the strain on its GPUs, a variety released by Nvidia for the Chinese market that have their performance capped at half the speed of its top products, according to Zihan Wang, a former DeepSeek employee and current PhD student in computer science at Northwestern University.

Algorithmic modelling relies on limited information in data to extrapolate outcomes for unseen scenarios, often embedding an element of arbitrariness in its decisions. A perspective on this arbitrariness that has recently gained interest is multiplicity-the study of arbitrariness across a set of "good models", i.e., those likely to be deployed in practice. In this work, we systemize the literature on multiplicity by: (a) formalizing the terminology around model design choices and their contribution to arbitrariness, (b) expanding the definition of multiplicity to incorporate underrepresented forms beyond just predictions and explanations, (c) clarifying the distinction between multiplicity and other traditional lenses of arbitrariness, i.e., uncertainty and variance, and (d) distilling the benefits and potential risks of multiplicity into overarching trends, situating it within the broader landscape of responsible AI. We conclude by identifying open research questions and highlighting emerging trends in this young but rapidly growing area of research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely applied to downstream domains. However, current LLMs for high-stakes domain tasks, such as financial investment and legal QA, typically generate brief answers without reasoning processes and explanations. This limits users' confidence in making decisions based on their responses. While original CoT shows promise, it lacks self-correction mechanisms during reasoning. This work introduces Domain$o1$s, which enhances LLMs' reasoning capabilities on domain tasks through supervised fine-tuning and tree search. We construct CoT-stock-2k and CoT-legal-2k datasets for fine-tuning models that activate domain-specific reasoning steps based on their judgment. Additionally, we propose Selective Tree Exploration to spontaneously explore solution spaces and sample optimal reasoning paths to improve performance. We also introduce PROOF-Score, a new metric for evaluating domain models' explainability, complementing traditional accuracy metrics with richer assessment dimensions. Extensive experiments on stock investment recommendation and legal reasoning QA tasks demonstrate Domaino1s's leading performance and explainability. Our code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Domaino1s-006F/.