The widespread adoption of machine learning in scientific research has created a fundamental tension between model opacity and scientific understanding. Whilst some advocate for intrinsically interpretable models, we introduce Computational Interpretabilism (CI) as a philosophical framework for post-hoc interpretability in scientific AI. Drawing parallels with human expertise, where post-hoc rationalisation coexists with reliable performance, CI establishes that scientific knowledge emerges through structured model interpretation when properly bounded by empirical validation. Through mediated understanding and bounded factivity, we demonstrate how post-hoc methods achieve epistemically justified insights without requiring complete mechanical transparency, resolving tensions between model complexity and scientific comprehension.

As LLMs are increasingly deployed in global applications, the importance of cultural sensitivity becomes paramount, ensuring that users from diverse backgrounds feel respected and understood. Cultural harm can arise when these models fail to align with specific cultural norms, resulting in misrepresentations or violations of cultural values. This work addresses the challenges of ensuring cultural sensitivity in LLMs, especially in small-parameter models that often lack the extensive training data needed to capture global cultural nuances. We present two key contributions: (1) A cultural harm test dataset, created to assess model outputs across different cultural contexts through scenarios that expose potential cultural insensitivities, and (2) A culturally aligned preference dataset, aimed at restoring cultural sensitivity through fine-tuning based on feedback from diverse annotators. These datasets facilitate the evaluation and enhancement of LLMs, ensuring their ethical and safe deployment across different cultural landscapes. Our results show that integrating culturally aligned feedback leads to a marked improvement in model behavior, significantly reducing the likelihood of generating culturally insensitive or harmful content. Ultimately, this work paves the way for more inclusive and respectful AI systems, fostering a future where LLMs can safely and ethically navigate the complexities of diverse cultural landscapes.

With the rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs), significant safety concerns have emerged. Fundamentally, the safety of large language models is closely linked to the accuracy, comprehensiveness, and clarity of their understanding of safety knowledge, particularly in domains such as law, policy and ethics. This factuality ability is crucial in determining whether these models can be deployed and applied safely and compliantly within specific regions. To address these challenges and better evaluate the factuality ability of LLMs to answer short questions, we introduce the Chinese SafetyQA benchmark. Chinese SafetyQA has several properties (i.e., Chinese, Diverse, High-quality, Static, Easy-to-evaluate, Safety-related, Harmless). Based on Chinese SafetyQA, we perform a comprehensive evaluation on the factuality abilities of existing LLMs and analyze how these capabilities relate to LLM abilities, e.g., RAG ability and robustness against attacks.

Disparate impact doctrine offers an important legal apparatus for targeting unfair data-driven algorithmic decisions. A recent body of work has focused on conceptualizing and operationalizing one particular construct from this doctrine -- the less discriminatory alternative, an alternative policy that reduces disparities while meeting the same business needs of a status quo or baseline policy. This paper puts forward four fundamental results, which each represent limits to searching for and using less discriminatory algorithms (LDAs). (1) Statistically, although LDAs are almost always identifiable in retrospect on fixed populations, making conclusions about how alternative classifiers perform on an unobserved distribution is more difficult. (2) Mathematically, a classifier can only exhibit certain combinations of accuracy and selection rate disparity between groups, given the size of each group and the base rate of the property or outcome of interest in each group. (3) Computationally, a search for a lower-disparity classifier at some baseline level of utility is NP-hard. (4) From a modeling and consumer welfare perspective, defining an LDA only in terms of business needs can lead to LDAs that leave consumers strictly worse off, including members of the disadvantaged group. These findings, which may seem on their face to give firms strong defenses against discrimination claims, only tell part of the story. For each of our negative results limiting what is attainable in this setting, we offer positive results demonstrating that there exist effective and low-cost strategies that are remarkably effective at identifying viable lower-disparity policies.

Long-form document matching aims to judge the relevance between two documents and has been applied to various scenarios. Most existing works utilize hierarchical or long context models to process documents, which achieve coarse understanding but may ignore details. Some researchers construct a document view with similar sentences about aligned document subtopics to focus on detailed matching signals. However, a long document generally contains multiple subtopics. The matching signals are heterogeneous from multiple topics. Considering only the homologous aligned subtopics may not be representative enough and may cause biased modeling. In this paper, we introduce a new framework to model representative matching signals. First, we propose to capture various matching signals through subtopics of document pairs. Next, We construct multiple document views based on subtopics to cover heterogeneous and valuable details. However, existing spatial aggregation methods like attention, which integrate all these views simultaneously, are hard to integrate heterogeneous information. Instead, we propose temporal aggregation, which effectively integrates different views gradually as the training progresses. Experimental results show that our learning framework is effective on several document-matching tasks, including news duplication and legal case retrieval.

The AI Act introduces the obligation to conduct a Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA), with the possibility to reuse a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), and requires the EU Commission to create of an automated tool to support the FRIA process. In this article, we provide our novel exploration of the DPIA and FRIA as information processes to enable the creation of automated tools. We first investigate the information involved in DPIA and FRIA, and then use this to align the two to state where a DPIA can be reused in a FRIA. We then present the FRIA as a 5-step process and discuss the role of an automated tool for each step. Our work provides the necessary foundation for creating and managing information for FRIA and supporting it through an automated tool as required by the AI Act.

Introduction. Generative Artificial Intelligence, particularly large language models (LLMs), offers transformative potential for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR). However, evaluating the quality, transparency, and rigor of LLM-assisted research lacks standardized guidance. This article introduces the ELEVATE AI LLMs framework and checklist, designed to support researchers and reviewers in assessing LLM use in HEOR. Methods. The ELEVATE AI LLMs framework was developed through a targeted review of existing guidelines and evaluation frameworks. The framework comprises ten evaluation domains, including model characteristics, accuracy, comprehensiveness, and fairness. The accompanying checklist operationalizes the framework. To validate the framework, we applied it to two published studies, demonstrating its usability across different HEOR tasks. Results. The ELEVATE AI LLMs framework provides a comprehensive structure for evaluating LLM-assisted research, while the checklist facilitates practical application. Validation of the framework and checklist on studies of systematic literature reviews and health economic modeling highlighted their ability to identify strengths and gaps in reporting. Limitations. While the ELEVATE AI LLMs framework provides robust guidance, its broader generalizability and applicability to diverse HEOR tasks require further empirical testing. Additionally, several metrics adapted from computer science need further validation in HEOR contexts. Conclusion. The ELEVATE AI LLMs framework and checklist fill a critical gap in HEOR by offering structured guidance for evaluating LLM-assisted research. By promoting transparency, accuracy, and reproducibility, they aim to standardize and improve the integration of LLMs into HEOR, ensuring their outputs meet the field's rigorous standards.

Full-packet encryption is a technique used by modern evasive Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) to avoid protocol-based flagging from censorship models by disguising their traffic as random noise on the network. Traditional methods for censoring full-packet-encryption based VPN protocols requires assuming a substantial amount of collateral damage, as other non-VPN network traffic that appears random will be blocked. I tested several machine learning-based classification models against the Aggressive Circumvention of Censorship (ACC) protocol, a fully-encrypted evasive VPN protocol which merges strategies from a wide variety of currently in-use evasive VPN protocols. My testing found that while ACC was able to survive our models when compared to random noise, it was easily detectable with minimal collateral damage using several different machine learning models when within a stream of regular network traffic. While resistant to the current techniques deployed by nation-state censors, the ACC protocol and other evasive protocols are potentially subject to packet-based protocol identification utilizing similar classification models.

How much value does a dataset or a data production process have to an agent who wishes to use the data to assist decision-making? This is a fundamental question towards understanding the value of data as well as further pricing of data. This paper develops an approach for capturing the instrumental value of data production processes, which takes two key factors into account: (a) the context of the agent's decision-making problem; (b) prior data or information the agent already possesses. We ''micro-found'' our valuation concepts by showing how they connect to classic notions of information design and signals in information economics. When instantiated in the domain of Bayesian linear regression, our value naturally corresponds to information gain. Based on our designed data value, we then study a basic monopoly pricing setting with a buyer looking to purchase from a seller some labeled data of a certain feature direction in order to improve a Bayesian regression model. We show that when the seller has the ability to fully customize any data request, she can extract the first-best revenue (i.e., full surplus) from any population of buyers, i.e., achieving first-degree price discrimination. If the seller can only sell data that are derived from an existing data pool, this limits her ability to customize, and achieving first-best revenue becomes generally impossible. However, we design a mechanism that achieves seller revenue at most $\log (\kappa)$ less than the first-best revenue, where $\kappa$ is the condition number associated with the data matrix. A corollary of this result is that the seller can extract the first-best revenue in the multi-armed bandits special case.

The rapid development and deployment of large language models (LLMs) have introduced a new frontier in artificial intelligence, marked by unprecedented capabilities in natural language understanding and generation. However, the increasing integration of these models into critical applications raises substantial safety concerns, necessitating a thorough examination of their potential risks and associated mitigation strategies. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of the current landscape of LLM safety, covering four major categories: value misalignment, robustness to adversarial attacks, misuse, and autonomous AI risks. In addition to the comprehensive review of the mitigation methodologies and evaluation resources on these four aspects, we further explore four topics related to LLM safety: the safety implications of LLM agents, the role of interpretability in enhancing LLM safety, the technology roadmaps proposed and abided by a list of AI companies and institutes for LLM safety, and AI governance aimed at LLM safety with discussions on international cooperation, policy proposals, and prospective regulatory directions. Our findings underscore the necessity for a proactive, multifaceted approach to LLM safety, emphasizing the integration of technical solutions, ethical considerations, and robust governance frameworks. This survey is intended to serve as a foundational resource for academy researchers, industry practitioners, and policymakers, offering insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with the safe integration of LLMs into society. Ultimately, it seeks to contribute to the safe and beneficial development of LLMs, aligning with the overarching goal of harnessing AI for societal advancement and well-being. A curated list of related papers has been publicly available at a GitHub repository.