Large language models (LLMs) represent a promising, but controversial, tool in aiding scientific peer review. This study evaluates the usefulness of LLMs in a conference setting as a tool for vetting paper submissions against submission standards. We conduct an experiment at the 2024 Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) conference, where 234 papers were voluntarily submitted to an "LLM-based Checklist Assistant." This assistant validates whether papers adhere to the author checklist used by NeurIPS, which includes questions to ensure compliance with research and manuscript preparation standards. Evaluation of the assistant by NeurIPS paper authors suggests that the LLM-based assistant was generally helpful in verifying checklist completion. In post-usage surveys, over 70% of authors found the assistant useful, and 70% indicate that they would revise their papers or checklist responses based on its feedback. While causal attribution to the assistant is not definitive, qualitative evidence suggests that the LLM contributed to improving some submissions. Survey responses and analysis of re-submissions indicate that authors made substantive revisions to their submissions in response to specific feedback from the LLM. The experiment also highlights common issues with LLMs: inaccuracy (20/52) and excessive strictness (14/52) were the most frequent issues flagged by authors. We also conduct experiments to understand potential gaming of the system, which reveal that the assistant could be manipulated to enhance scores through fabricated justifications, highlighting potential vulnerabilities of automated review tools.

With the growing applications of Deep Learning (DL), especially recent spectacular achievements of Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and LLaMA, the commercial significance of these remarkable models has soared. However, acquiring well-trained models is costly and resource-intensive. It requires a considerable high-quality dataset, substantial investment in dedicated architecture design, expensive computational resources, and efforts to develop technical expertise. Consequently, safeguarding the Intellectual Property (IP) of well-trained models is attracting increasing attention. In contrast to existing surveys overwhelmingly focusing on model IPP mainly, this survey not only encompasses the protection on model level intelligence but also valuable dataset intelligence. Firstly, according to the requirements for effective IPP design, this work systematically summarizes the general and scheme-specific performance evaluation metrics. Secondly, from proactive IP infringement prevention and reactive IP ownership verification perspectives, it comprehensively investigates and analyzes the existing IPP methods for both dataset and model intelligence. Additionally, from the standpoint of training settings, it delves into the unique challenges that distributed settings pose to IPP compared to centralized settings. Furthermore, this work examines various attacks faced by deep IPP techniques. Finally, we outline prospects for promising future directions that may act as a guide for innovative research.

Tabular data plays a pivotal role in various fields, making it a popular format for data manipulation and exchange, particularly on the web. The interpretation, extraction, and processing of tabular information are invaluable for knowledge-intensive applications. Notably, significant efforts have been invested in annotating tabular data with ontologies and entities from background knowledge graphs, a process known as Semantic Table Interpretation (STI). STI automation aids in building knowledge graphs, enriching data, and enhancing web-based question answering. This survey aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the STI landscape. It starts by categorizing approaches using a taxonomy of 31 attributes, allowing for comparisons and evaluations. It also examines available tools, assessing them based on 12 criteria. Furthermore, the survey offers an in-depth analysis of the Gold Standards used for evaluating STI approaches. Finally, it provides practical guidance to help end-users choose the most suitable approach for their specific tasks while also discussing unresolved issues and suggesting potential future research directions.

Human writers plan, then write. For large language models (LLMs) to play a role in longer-form article generation, we must understand the planning steps humans make before writing. We explore one kind of planning, source-selection in news, as a case-study for evaluating plans in long-form generation. We ask: why do specific stories call for specific kinds of sources? We imagine a generative process for story writing where a source-selection schema is first selected by a journalist, and then sources are chosen based on categories in that schema. Learning the article's plan means predicting the schema initially chosen by the journalist. Working with professional journalists, we adapt five existing schemata and introduce three new ones to describe journalistic plans for the inclusion of sources in documents. Then, inspired by Bayesian latent-variable modeling, we develop metrics to select the most likely plan, or schema, underlying a story, which we use to compare schemata. We find that two schemata: stance and social affiliation best explain source plans in most documents. However, other schemata like textual entailment explain source plans in factually rich topics like "Science". Finally, we find we can predict the most suitable schema given just the article's headline with reasonable accuracy. We see this as an important case-study for human planning, and provides a framework and approach for evaluating other kinds of plans. We release a corpora, NewsSources, with annotations for 4M articles.

What is the context which gave rise to the obligation to carry out a Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA) in the AI Act? How has assessment of the impact on fundamental rights been framed by the EU legislator in the AI Act? What methodological criteria should be followed in developing the FRIA? These are the three main research questions that this article aims to address, through both legal analysis of the relevant provisions of the AI Act and discussion of various possible models for assessment of the impact of AI on fundamental rights. The overall objective of this article is to fill existing gaps in the theoretical and methodological elaboration of the FRIA, as outlined in the AI Act. In order to facilitate the future work of EU and national bodies and AI operators in placing this key tool for human-centric and trustworthy AI at the heart of the EU approach to AI design and development, this article outlines the main building blocks of a model template for the FRIA. While this proposal is consistent with the rationale and scope of the AI Act, it is also applicable beyond the cases listed in Article 27 and can serve as a blueprint for other national and international regulatory initiatives to ensure that AI is fully consistent with human rights.

Knowing that the generative capabilities of large language models (LLM) are sometimes hampered by tendencies to hallucinate or create non-factual responses, researchers have increasingly focused on methods to ground generated outputs in factual data. Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a key approach for integrating knowledge from data sources outside of the LLM's training set, including proprietary and up-to-date information. While many research papers explore various RAG strategies, their true efficacy is tested in real-world applications with actual data. The journey from conceiving an idea to actualizing it in the real world is a lengthy process. We present insights from the development and field-testing of a pilot project that integrates LLMs with RAG for information retrieval. Additionally, we examine the impacts on the information value chain, encompassing people, processes, and technology. Our aim is to identify the opportunities and challenges of implementing this emerging technology, particularly within the context of behavioral research in the information systems (IS) field. The contributions of this work include the development of best practices and recommendations for adopting this promising technology while ensuring compliance with industry regulations through a proposed AI governance model.

Authors: John Chodacki (California Digital Library), Mark Hanhel (figshare), Stefano Iacus (Dataverse), Ryan Scherle (Dryad), Eric Olson (Center for Open Science), Nici Pfeiffer (Center for Open Science), Kristi Holmes (Zenodo), Mohammad Hosseini (Zenodo) The Generalist Repository Ecosystem Initiative (GREI) is a NIH-funded program where repositories collaborate in a "coopetition" model to enhance the work of generalist data repositories, which are critical infrastructure across research domains. As part of our commitment to this work, we recognize the evolving importance of artificial intelligence (AI) in the future of science and infrastructure. To help our community navigate AI-driven changes, we have developed the following taxonomy to illustrate the roles AI can play in managing data repositories, improving data quality, and increasing accessibility. Building on previously developed taxonomies and our coopetition efforts, the GREI repositories propose the following "GREI Data Repository AI Taxonomy," specifically tailored for data repository roles. Why do we need this?

Toxicity classification in textual content remains a significant problem. Data with labels from a single annotator fall short of capturing the diversity of human perspectives. Therefore, there is a growing need to incorporate crowdsourced annotations for training an effective toxicity classifier. Additionally, the standard approach to training a classifier using empirical risk minimization (ERM) may fail to address the potential shifts between the training set and testing set due to exploiting spurious correlations. This work introduces a novel bi-level optimization framework that integrates crowdsourced annotations with the soft-labeling technique and optimizes the soft-label weights by Group Distributionally Robust Optimization (GroupDRO) to enhance the robustness against out-of-distribution (OOD) risk. We theoretically prove the convergence of our bi-level optimization algorithm. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach outperforms existing baseline methods in terms of both average and worst-group accuracy, confirming its effectiveness in leveraging crowdsourced annotations to achieve more effective and robust toxicity classification.

Thus, most public-sector AI systems used today are developed by and acquired from private vendors. A growing number of academic and advocacy efforts have pointed out how AI systems procured in the public sector have predominantly targeted narrowly defined notions of efficiency and performance enhancements, resulting in adverse effects that disparately impact marginalized communities[18, 37, 46, 50, 86, 96]. While such incidents have exposed flaws in individual AI systems, they highlight deeper issues in how AI is acquired, used, and governed in the public sector. The AI procurement process encompasses decisions of which AI tools to ask for, adopt or reject, and the manner in which they are developed and deployed: decisions of critical importance for communities who may be harmed by AI. Such decisions not only influence the performance and risks posed by AI systems, but also play a significant role in shaping broader governance practices and ethical standards by which AI operates in the public sector. Interestingly, there is a long history of governments adapting their public procurement practices to enact social change, e.g., by creating processes that prioritize minority-owned businesses [62],

This chapter is meant to be part of the book "Differential Privacy in Artificial Intelligence: From Theory to Practice" and provides an introduction to Differential Privacy. It starts by illustrating various attempts to protect data privacy, emphasizing where and why they failed, and providing the key desiderata of a robust privacy definition. It then defines the key actors, tasks, and scopes that make up the domain of privacy-preserving data analysis. Following that, it formalizes the definition of Differential Privacy and its inherent properties, including composition, post-processing immunity, and group privacy. The chapter also reviews the basic techniques and mechanisms commonly used to implement Differential Privacy in its pure and approximate forms.