Most fake news detection methods learn latent feature representations based on neural networks, which makes them black boxes to classify a piece of news without giving any justification. Existing explainable systems generate veracity justifications from investigative journalism, which suffer from debunking delayed and low efficiency. Recent studies simply assume that the justification is equivalent to the majority opinions expressed in the wisdom of crowds. However, the opinions typically contain some inaccurate or biased information since the wisdom of crowds is uncensored. To detect fake news from a sea of diverse, crowded and even competing narratives, in this paper, we propose a novel defense-based explainable fake news detection framework. Specifically, we first propose an evidence extraction module to split the wisdom of crowds into two competing parties and respectively detect salient evidences. To gain concise insights from evidences, we then design a prompt-based module that utilizes a large language model to generate justifications by inferring reasons towards two possible veracities. Finally, we propose a defense-based inference module to determine veracity via modeling the defense among these justifications. Extensive experiments conducted on two real-world benchmarks demonstrate that our proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in terms of fake news detection and provides high-quality justifications.

In this work, we introduce the PKU-SafeRLHF dataset, designed to promote research on safety alignment in large language models (LLMs). As a sibling project to SafeRLHF and BeaverTails, we separate annotations of helpfulness and harmlessness for question-answering pairs, providing distinct perspectives on these coupled attributes. Overall, we provide 44.6k refined prompts and 265k question-answer pairs with safety meta-labels for 19 harm categories and three severity levels ranging from minor to severe, with answers generated by Llama-family models. Based on this, we collected 166.8k preference data, including dual-preference (helpfulness and harmlessness decoupled) and single-preference data (trade-off the helpfulness and harmlessness from scratch), respectively. Using the large-scale annotation data, we further train severity-sensitive moderation for the risk control of LLMs and safety-centric RLHF algorithms for the safety alignment of LLMs. We believe this dataset will be a valuable resource for the community, aiding in the safe deployment of LLMs.

We give a detailed overview of the CAIL 2023 Argument Mining Track, one of the Chinese AI and Law Challenge (CAIL) 2023 tracks. The main goal of the track is to identify and extract interacting argument pairs in trial dialogs. It mainly uses summarized judgment documents but can also refer to trial recordings. The track consists of two stages, and we introduce the tasks designed for each stage; we also extend the data from previous events into a new dataset -- CAIL2023-ArgMine -- with annotated new cases from various causes of action. We outline several submissions that achieve the best results, including their methods for different stages. While all submissions rely on language models, they have incorporated strategies that may benefit future work in this field.

Large Language Models (LLMs) require careful safety alignment to prevent malicious outputs. While significant research focuses on mitigating harmful content generation, the enhanced safety often come with the side effect of over-refusal, where LLMs may reject innocuous prompts and become less helpful. Although the issue of over-refusal has been empirically observed, a systematic measurement is challenging due to the difficulty of crafting prompts that appear harmful but are benign. This study proposes a novel method for automatically generating large-scale sets of "seemingly toxic prompts" (benign prompts likely rejected by LLMs). Leveraging this technique, we introduce OR-Bench, the first large-scale over-refusal benchmark. OR-Bench comprises 80,000 seemingly toxic prompts across 10 common rejection categories, a subset of around 1,000 hard prompts that are challenging even for state-of-the-art LLMs, and an additional 600 toxic prompts to prevent indiscriminate responses. We then conduct a comprehensive study to measure the over-refusal of 25 popular LLMs across 8 model families. Our datasets are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/bench-llm/or-bench and the demo can be found at https://huggingface.co/spaces/bench-llm/or-bench. We hope this benchmark can help the community develop better safety aligned models.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of the IoT, the security of connected devices has become a paramount concern. This paper explores the concept of proactive threat hunting as a pivotal strategy for enhancing the security and sustainability of IoT systems. Proactive threat hunting is an alternative to traditional reactive security measures that analyses IoT networks continuously and in advance to find and eliminate threats before they occure. By improving the security posture of IoT devices this approach significantly contributes to extending IoT operational lifespan and reduces environmental impact. By integrating security metrics similar to the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) into consumer platforms, this paper argues that proactive threat hunting can elevate user awareness about the security of IoT devices. This has the potential to impact consumer choices and encourage a security-conscious mindset in both the manufacturing and user communities. Through a comprehensive analysis, this study demonstrates how proactive threat hunting can contribute to the development of a more secure, sustainable, and user-aware IoT ecosystem.

Evaluating aligned large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests is crucial for safe, policy-compliant deployments. Existing evaluation efforts, however, face three limitations that we address with SORRY-Bench, our proposed benchmark. First, existing methods often use coarse-grained taxonomies of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics. For example, among the ten existing datasets that we evaluated, tests for refusals of self-harm instructions are over 3x less represented than tests for fraudulent activities. SORRY-Bench improves on this by using a fine-grained taxonomy of 45 potentially unsafe topics, and 450 class-balanced unsafe instructions, compiled through human-in-the-loop methods. Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations. We supplement SORRY-Bench with 20 diverse linguistic augmentations to systematically examine these effects. Third, existing evaluations rely on large LLMs (e.g., GPT-4) for evaluation, which can be computationally expensive. We investigate design choices for creating a fast, accurate automated safety evaluator. By collecting 7K+ human annotations and conducting a meta-evaluation of diverse LLM-as-a-judge designs, we show that fine-tuned 7B LLMs can achieve accuracy comparable to GPT-4 scale LLMs, with lower computational cost. Putting these together, we evaluate over 40 proprietary and open-source LLMs on SORRY-Bench, analyzing their distinctive refusal behaviors. We hope our effort provides a building block for systematic evaluations of LLMs' safety refusal capabilities, in a balanced, granular, and efficient manner.

Machine unlearning facilitates personal data ownership, including the ``right to be forgotten''. The proliferation of applications of \emph{neural networks} (NNs) trained on users' personal data calls for the need to develop algorithms to unlearn an NN. Since retraining is costly, efficiency is often achieved through approximate unlearning which aims to unlearn a trained NN to be close to the retrained one (in distribution). Though the Newton's method has been used by previous works to approximately unlearn linear models, adapting it for unlearning an NN often encounters degenerate Hessians that make computing the Newton's update impossible. In this paper, we will first show that when coupled with naive yet often effective solutions to mitigate the degeneracy issue for unlearning, the Newton's method surprisingly suffers from catastrophic forgetting. To overcome this difficulty, we revise the Newton's method to include a theoretically justified regularizer and propose a cubic-regularized Newton's method for unlearning an NN. The cubic regularizer comes with the benefits of not requiring manual finetuning and affording a natural interpretation. Empirical evaluation on several models and real-world datasets shows that our method is more resilient to catastrophic forgetting and performs better than the baselines, especially in sequential unlearning.

Document collections of various domains, e.g., legal, medical, or financial, often share some underlying collection-wide structure, which captures information that can aid both human users and structure-aware models. We propose to identify the typical structure of document within a collection, which requires to capture recurring topics across the collection, while abstracting over arbitrary header paraphrases, and ground each topic to respective document locations. These requirements pose several challenges: headers that mark recurring topics frequently differ in phrasing, certain section headers are unique to individual documents and do not reflect the typical structure, and the order of topics can vary between documents. Subsequently, we develop an unsupervised graph-based method which leverages both inter- and intra-document similarities, to extract the underlying collection-wide structure. Our evaluations on three diverse domains in both English and Hebrew indicate that our method extracts meaningful collection-wide structure, and we hope that future work will leverage our method for multi-document applications and structure-aware models.

When data are right-censored, i.e. some outcomes are missing due to a limited period of observation, survival analysis can compute the "time to event". Multiple classes of outcomes lead to a classification variant: predicting the most likely event, known as competing risks, which has been less studied. To build a loss that estimates outcome probabilities for such settings, we introduce a strictly proper censoring-adjusted separable scoring rule that can be optimized on a subpart of the data because the evaluation is made independently of observations. It enables stochastic optimization for competing risks which we use to train gradient boosting trees. Compared to 11 state-of-the-art models, this model, MultiIncidence, performs best in estimating the probability of outcomes in survival and competing risks. It can predict at any time horizon and is much faster than existing alternatives.

As the artificial intelligence (AI) supply chain grows more complex, AI systems and models are increasingly likely to incorporate externally-sourced ingredients such as datasets and other models. In such cases, determining whether or not an AI system or model complies with the EU AI Act will require gathering compliance-related metadata about both the AI system or model at-large as well as those externally-supplied ingredients. There must then be an analysis that looks across all of this metadata to render a prediction about the compliance of the overall AI system or model. Up until now, this process has not been automated. Thus, it has not been possible to make real-time compliance determinations in scenarios where doing so would be advantageous, such as the iterative workflows of today's AI developers, search and acquisition of AI ingredients on communities like Hugging Face, federated and continuous learning, and more. To address this shortcoming, we introduce a highly automated system for AI Act compliance analysis. This system has two key elements. First is an interlocking set of computational artifacts that capture compliance-related metadata about both: (1) the AI system or model at-large; (2) any constituent ingredients such as datasets and models. Second is an automated analysis algorithm that operates across those computational artifacts to render a run-time prediction about whether or not the overall AI system or model complies with the AI Act. Working together, these elements promise to enhance and accelerate AI Act compliance assessments.