Conversation forecasting tasks a model with predicting the outcome of an unfolding conversation. For instance, it can be applied in social media moderation to predict harmful user behaviors before they occur, allowing for preventative interventions. While large language models (LLMs) have recently been proposed as an effective tool for conversation forecasting, it's unclear what biases they may have, especially against forecasting the (potentially harmful) outcomes we request them to predict during moderation. This paper explores to what extent model uncertainty can be used as a tool to mitigate potential biases. Specifically, we ask three primary research questions: 1) how does LLM forecasting accuracy change when we ask models to represent their uncertainty; 2) how does LLM bias change when we ask models to represent their uncertainty; 3) how can we use uncertainty representations to reduce or completely mitigate biases without many training data points. We address these questions for 5 open-source language models tested on 2 datasets designed to evaluate conversation forecasting for social media moderation.

Despite advancements in enhancing LLM safety against jailbreak attacks, evaluating LLM defenses remains a challenge, with current methods often lacking explainability and generalization to complex scenarios, leading to incomplete assessments (e.g., direct judgment without reasoning, low F1 score of GPT-4 in complex cases, bias in multilingual scenarios). To address this, we present JAILJUDGE, a comprehensive benchmark featuring diverse risk scenarios, including synthetic, adversarial, in-the-wild, and multilingual prompts, along with high-quality human-annotated datasets. The JAILJUDGE dataset includes over 35k+ instruction-tune data with reasoning explainability and JAILJUDGETEST, a 4.5k+ labeled set for risk scenarios, and a 6k+ multilingual set across ten languages. To enhance evaluation with explicit reasoning, we propose the JailJudge MultiAgent framework, which enables explainable, fine-grained scoring (1 to 10). This framework supports the construction of instruction-tuning ground truth and facilitates the development of JAILJUDGE Guard, an end-to-end judge model that provides reasoning and eliminates API costs. Additionally, we introduce JailBoost, an attacker-agnostic attack enhancer, and GuardShield, a moderation defense, both leveraging JAILJUDGE Guard. Our experiments demonstrate the state-of-the-art performance of JailJudge methods (JailJudge MultiAgent, JAILJUDGE Guard) across diverse models (e.g., GPT-4, Llama-Guard) and zero-shot scenarios. JailBoost and GuardShield significantly improve jailbreak attack and defense tasks under zero-shot settings, with JailBoost enhancing performance by 29.24% and GuardShield reducing defense ASR from 40.46% to 0.15%.

A century ago, John Dewey observed that '[s]team and electricity have done more to alter the conditions under which men associate together than all the agencies which affected human relationships before our time'. In the last few decades, computing technologies have had a similar effect. Political philosophy's central task is to help us decide how to live together, by analysing our social relations, diagnosing their failings, and articulating ideals to guide their revision. But these profound social changes have left scarcely a dent in the model of social relations that (analytical) political philosophers assume. This essay aims to reverse that trend. It first builds a model of our novel social relations as they are now, and as they are likely to evolved, and then explores how those differences affect our theories of how to live together. I introduce the 'Algorithmic City', the network of algorithmically-mediated social relations, then characterise the intermediary power by which it is governed. I show how algorithmic governance raises new challenges for political philosophy concerning the justification of authority, the foundations of procedural legitimacy, and the possibility of justificatory neutrality.

Aligning large language models with human preferences improves interaction quality and safety by ensuring outputs better reflect human values. A promising strategy involves Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), starting with collecting and ranking responses generated by a supervised fine-tuning model to refine alignment. Current methods (DPO) focus on learning from pairwise preference data, categorizing responses into preferred and less preferred pairs, and optimizing by maximizing pairwise margins. Recent studies have uncovered a substantial discrepancy between the theoretical aspirations of preference learning and its real-world results. Current preference alignment techniques underperform expectations, with ranking accuracies below 60% on standard datasets. This suggests existing methods inadequately capture ideal preference relationships within sequences. To address this challenge, this paper introduces Direct Ranking Preference Optimization (DRPO), a novel method that views human preference alignment as a Learning-to-Rank (LTR) task. DRPO leverages NDCG, a widely used LTR metric, to optimize the ranking of responses within lists based on preference data, thereby enhancing ranking accuracies. Due to the nondifferentiability of NDCG, we propose diffNDCG loss, a differentiable approximation facilitated by a sorting network to simulate NDCG. Furthermore, to improve the quality of generated response, we propose a novel margin-based Adaptive Rank Policy Score. Extensive experiments have shown that DRPO outperforms existing baseline methods, enhancing the quality of the generated responses. Large language models (LLMs), trained on extensive and diverse datasets, can be prompted to demonstrate impressive capabilities across a broad range of tasks (Huang et al., 2024; Chiang et al., 2023; OpenAI et al., 2024; Touvron et al., 2023). However, due to the varied nature of their training data, these models sometimes produce content that may not align with human preferences, including fabricated answers, offensive comments, or harmful responses (Bai et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023). To ensure the development of AI systems that are safe and controllable, this paper investigates learning tasks for LLMs that guide them to generate responses in alignment with human preferences. Human preference alignment has become an active research area. Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) (Ouyang et al., 2022) is the first proposed method in this area. However, the optimization process of RLHF is complex, and its implementation introduces challenges due to unstable and costly training. Recent studies (Hong et al., 2024; Ethayarajh et al., 2024) have started to adopt alternatives to RLHF.

The detection of bias in natural language processing (NLP) is a critical challenge, particularly with the increasing use of large language models (LLMs) in various domains. This paper introduces GUS-Net, an innovative approach to bias detection that focuses on three key types of biases: (G)eneralizations, (U)nfairness, and (S)tereotypes. GUS-Net leverages generative AI and automated agents to create a comprehensive synthetic dataset, enabling robust multi-label token classification. Our methodology enhances traditional bias detection methods by incorporating the contextual encodings of pre-trained models, resulting in improved accuracy and depth in identifying biased entities. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that GUS-Net outperforms state-of-the-art techniques, achieving superior performance in terms of accuracy, F1-score, and Hamming Loss. The findings highlight GUS-Net's effectiveness in capturing a wide range of biases across diverse contexts, making it a valuable tool for social bias detection in text. This study contributes to the ongoing efforts in NLP to address implicit bias, providing a pathway for future research and applications in various fields. The Jupyter notebooks used to create the dataset and model are available at: https://github.com/Ethical-Spectacle/fair-ly/tree/main/resources. Warning: This paper contains examples of harmful language, and reader discretion is recommended.

KnowWhereGraph is one of the largest fully publicly available geospatial knowledge graphs. It includes data from 30 layers on natural hazards (e.g., hurricanes, wildfires), climate variables (e.g., air temperature, precipitation), soil properties, crop and land-cover types, demographics, and human health, various place and region identifiers, among other themes. These have been leveraged through the graph by a variety of applications to address challenges in food security and agricultural supply chains; sustainability related to soil conservation practices and farm labor; and delivery of emergency humanitarian aid following a disaster. In this paper, we introduce the ontology that acts as the schema for KnowWhereGraph. This broad overview provides insight into the requirements and design specifications for the graph and its schema, including the development methodology (modular ontology modeling) and the resources utilized to implement, materialize, and deploy KnowWhereGraph with its end-user interfaces and public query SPARQL endpoint.

Algorithmic intermediaries govern the digital public sphere through their architectures, amplification algorithms, and moderation practices. In doing so, they shape public communication and distribute attention in ways that were previously infeasible with such subtlety, speed and scale. From misinformation and affective polarisation to hate speech and radicalisation, the many pathologies of the digital public sphere attest that they could do so better. But what ideals should they aim at? Political philosophy should be able to help, but existing theories typically assume that a healthy public sphere will spontaneously emerge if only we get the boundaries of free expression right. They offer little guidance on how to intentionally constitute the digital public sphere. In addition to these theories focused on expression, we need a further theory of communicative justice, targeted specifically at the algorithmic intermediaries that shape communication and distribute attention. This lecture argues that political philosophy urgently owes an account of how to govern communication in the digital public sphere, and introduces and defends a democratic egalitarian theory of communicative justice.

This whitepaper offers an overview of the ethical considerations surrounding research into or with large language models (LLMs). As LLMs become more integrated into widely used applications, their societal impact increases, bringing important ethical questions to the forefront. With a growing body of work examining the ethical development, deployment, and use of LLMs, this whitepaper provides a comprehensive and practical guide to best practices, designed to help those in research and in industry to uphold the highest ethical standards in their work.

Conditional demographic parity (CDP) is a measure of the demographic parity of a predictive model or decision process when conditioning on an additional feature or set of features. Many algorithmic fairness techniques exist to target demographic parity, but CDP is much harder to achieve, particularly when the conditioning variable has many levels and/or when the model outputs are continuous. The problem of auditing and enforcing CDP is understudied in the literature. In light of this, we propose novel measures of {conditional demographic disparity (CDD)} which rely on statistical distances borrowed from the optimal transport literature. We further design and evaluate regularization-based approaches based on these CDD measures. Our methods, \fairbit{} and \fairlp{}, allow us to target CDP even when the conditioning variable has many levels. When model outputs are continuous, our methods target full equality of the conditional distributions, unlike other methods that only consider first moments or related proxy quantities. We validate the efficacy of our approaches on real-world datasets.

Predicting case criticality helps legal professionals in the court system manage large volumes of case law. This paper introduces the Criticality Prediction dataset, a new resource for evaluating the potential influence of Swiss Federal Supreme Court decisions on future jurisprudence. Unlike existing approaches that rely on resource-intensive manual annotations, we semi-automatically derive labels leading to a much larger dataset than otherwise possible. Our dataset features a two-tier labeling system: (1) the LD-Label, which identifies cases published as Leading Decisions (LD), and (2) the Citation-Label, which ranks cases by their citation frequency and recency. This allows for a more nuanced evaluation of case importance. We evaluate several multilingual models, including fine-tuned variants and large language models, and find that fine-tuned models consistently outperform zero-shot baselines, demonstrating the need for task-specific adaptation. Our contributions include the introduction of this task and the release of a multilingual dataset to the research community.