Research Papers

AI Generated Content (AIGC) has received tremendous attention within the past few years, with content generated in the format of image, text, audio, video, etc. Meanwhile, AIGC has become a double-edged sword and recently received much criticism regarding its responsible usage. In this article, we focus on 8 main concerns that may hinder the healthy development and deployment of AIGC in practice, including risks from (1) privacy; (2) bias, toxicity, misinformation; (3) intellectual property (IP); (4) robustness; (5) open source and explanation; (6) technology abuse; (7) consent, credit, and compensation; (8) environment. Additionally, we provide insights into the promising directions for tackling these risks while constructing generative models, enabling AIGC to be used more responsibly to truly benefit society.

With the advent of 5G commercialization, the need for more reliable, faster, and intelligent telecommunication systems is envisaged for the next generation beyond 5G (B5G) radio access technologies. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) are immensely popular in service layer applications and have been proposed as essential enablers in many aspects of 5G and beyond networks, from IoT devices and edge computing to cloud-based infrastructures. However, existing 5G ML-based security surveys tend to emphasize AI/ML model performance and accuracy more than the models' accountability and trustworthiness. In contrast, this paper explores the potential of Explainable AI (XAI) methods, which would allow stakeholders in 5G and beyond to inspect intelligent black-box systems used to secure next-generation networks. The goal of using XAI in the security domain of 5G and beyond is to allow the decision-making processes of ML-based security systems to be transparent and comprehensible to 5G and beyond stakeholders, making the systems accountable for automated actions. In every facet of the forthcoming B5G era, including B5G technologies such as ORAN, zero-touch network management, and end-to-end slicing, this survey emphasizes the role of XAI in them that the general users would ultimately enjoy. Furthermore, we presented the lessons from recent efforts and future research directions on top of the currently conducted projects involving XAI.

Knowledge Graph Embeddings and Explainable AI

Federico Bianchi, Gaetano Rossiello, Luca Costabello +2

Knowledge graph embeddings are now a widely adopted approach to knowledge representation in which entities and relationships are embedded in vector spaces. In this chapter, we introduce the reader to the concept of knowledge graph embeddings by explaining what they are, how they can be generated and how they can be evaluated. We summarize the state-of-the-art in this field by describing the approaches that have been introduced to represent knowledge in the vector space. In relation to knowledge representation, we consider the problem of explainability, and discuss models and methods for explaining predictions obtained via knowledge graph embeddings.

Contrastive Explanations with Local Foil Trees

Jasper van der Waa, Marcel Robeer, Jurriaan van Diggelen +2

Recent advances in interpretable Machine Learning (iML) and eXplainable AI (XAI) construct explanations based on the importance of features in classification tasks. However, in a high-dimensional feature space this approach may become unfeasible without restraining the set of important features. We propose to utilize the human tendency to ask questions like "Why this output (the fact) instead of that output (the foil)?" to reduce the number of features to those that play a main role in the asked contrast. Our proposed method utilizes locally trained one-versus-all decision trees to identify the disjoint set of rules that causes the tree to classify data points as the foil and not as the fact. In this study we illustrate this approach on three benchmark classification tasks.

LLM Unlearning via Loss Adjustment with Only Forget Data

Yaxuan Wang, Jiaheng Wei, Chris Yuhao Liu +6

Unlearning in Large Language Models (LLMs) is essential for ensuring ethical and responsible AI use, especially in addressing privacy leak, bias, safety, and evolving regulations. Existing approaches to LLM unlearning often rely on retain data or a reference LLM, yet they struggle to adequately balance unlearning performance with overall model utility. This challenge arises because leveraging explicit retain data or implicit knowledge of retain data from a reference LLM to fine-tune the model tends to blur the boundaries between the forgotten and retain data, as different queries often elicit similar responses. In this work, we propose eliminating the need to retain data or the reference LLM for response calibration in LLM unlearning. Recognizing that directly applying gradient ascent on the forget data often leads to optimization instability and poor performance, our method guides the LLM on what not to respond to, and importantly, how to respond, based on the forget data. Hence, we introduce Forget data only Loss AjustmenT (FLAT), a "flat" loss adjustment approach which addresses these issues by maximizing f-divergence between the available template answer and the forget answer only w.r.t. the forget data. The variational form of the defined f-divergence theoretically provides a way of loss adjustment by assigning different importance weights for the learning w.r.t. template responses and the forgetting of responses subject to unlearning. Empirical results demonstrate that our approach not only achieves superior unlearning performance compared to existing methods but also minimizes the impact on the model's retained capabilities, ensuring high utility across diverse tasks, including copyrighted content unlearning on Harry Potter dataset and MUSE Benchmark, and entity unlearning on the TOFU dataset.

Safetywashing: Do AI Safety Benchmarks Actually Measure Safety Progress?

Richard Ren, Steven Basart, Adam Khoja +9

As artificial intelligence systems grow more powerful, there has been increasing interest in "AI safety" research to address emerging and future risks. However, the field of AI safety remains poorly defined and inconsistently measured, leading to confusion about how researchers can contribute. This lack of clarity is compounded by the unclear relationship between AI safety benchmarks and upstream general capabilities (e.g., general knowledge and reasoning). To address these issues, we conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis of AI safety benchmarks, empirically analyzing their correlation with general capabilities across dozens of models and providing a survey of existing directions in AI safety. Our findings reveal that many safety benchmarks highly correlate with both upstream model capabilities and training compute, potentially enabling "safetywashing"--where capability improvements are misrepresented as safety advancements. Based on these findings, we propose an empirical foundation for developing more meaningful safety metrics and define AI safety in a machine learning research context as a set of clearly delineated research goals that are empirically separable from generic capabilities advancements. In doing so, we aim to provide a more rigorous framework for AI safety research, advancing the science of safety evaluations and clarifying the path towards measurable progress.

Emerging Distributed AI systems are revolutionizing big data computing and data processing capabilities with growing economic and societal impact. However, recent studies have identified new attack surfaces and risks caused by security, privacy, and fairness issues in AI systems. In this paper, we review representative techniques, algorithms, and theoretical foundations for trustworthy distributed AI through robustness guarantee, privacy protection, and fairness awareness in distributed learning. We first provide a brief overview of alternative architectures for distributed learning, discuss inherent vulnerabilities for security, privacy, and fairness of AI algorithms in distributed learning, and analyze why these problems are present in distributed learning regardless of specific architectures. Then we provide a unique taxonomy of countermeasures for trustworthy distributed AI, covering (1) robustness to evasion attacks and irregular queries at inference, and robustness to poisoning attacks, Byzantine attacks, and irregular data distribution during training; (2) privacy protection during distributed learning and model inference at deployment; and (3) AI fairness and governance with respect to both data and models. We conclude with a discussion on open challenges and future research directions toward trustworthy distributed AI, such as the need for trustworthy AI policy guidelines, the AI responsibility-utility co-design, and incentives and compliance.

Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress

Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, Andrew Yao +22

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is progressing rapidly, and companies are shifting their focus to developing generalist AI systems that can autonomously act and pursue goals. Increases in capabilities and autonomy may soon massively amplify AI's impact, with risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and an irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. Although researchers have warned of extreme risks from AI, there is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Society's response, despite promising first steps, is incommensurate with the possibility of rapid, transformative progress that is expected by many experts. AI safety research is lagging. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems. In this short consensus paper, we describe extreme risks from upcoming, advanced AI systems. Drawing on lessons learned from other safety-critical technologies, we then outline a comprehensive plan combining technical research and development with proactive, adaptive governance mechanisms for a more commensurate preparation.

Explainability techniques are rapidly being developed to improve human-AI decision-making across various cooperative work settings. Consequently, previous research has evaluated how decision-makers collaborate with imperfect AI by investigating appropriate reliance and task performance with the aim of designing more human-centered computer-supported collaborative tools. Several human-centered explainable AI (XAI) techniques have been proposed in hopes of improving decision-makers' collaboration with AI; however, these techniques are grounded in findings from previous studies that primarily focus on the impact of incorrect AI advice. Few studies acknowledge the possibility of the explanations being incorrect even if the AI advice is correct. Thus, it is crucial to understand how imperfect XAI affects human-AI decision-making. In this work, we contribute a robust, mixed-methods user study with 136 participants to evaluate how incorrect explanations influence humans' decision-making behavior in a bird species identification task, taking into account their level of expertise and an explanation's level of assertiveness. Our findings reveal the influence of imperfect XAI and humans' level of expertise on their reliance on AI and human-AI team performance. We also discuss how explanations can deceive decision-makers during human-AI collaboration. Hence, we shed light on the impacts of imperfect XAI in the field of computer-supported cooperative work and provide guidelines for designers of human-AI collaboration systems.

With the increasing availability of structured and unstructured data and the swift progress of analytical techniques, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is bringing a revolution to the healthcare industry. With the increasingly indispensable role of AI in healthcare, there are growing concerns over the lack of transparency and explainability in addition to potential bias encountered by predictions of the model. This is where Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) comes into the picture. XAI increases the trust placed in an AI system by medical practitioners as well as AI researchers, and thus, eventually, leads to an increasingly widespread deployment of AI in healthcare. In this paper, we present different interpretability techniques. The aim is to enlighten practitioners on the understandability and interpretability of explainable AI systems using a variety of techniques available which can be very advantageous in the health-care domain. Medical diagnosis model is responsible for human life and we need to be confident enough to treat a patient as instructed by a black-box model. Our paper contains examples based on the heart disease dataset and elucidates on how the explainability techniques should be preferred to create trustworthiness while using AI systems in healthcare.

ExplAIn: Explanatory Artificial Intelligence for Diabetic Retinopathy Diagnosis

Gwenolé Quellec, Hassan Al Hajj, Mathieu Lamard +3

In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has proven its relevance for medical decision support. However, the "black-box" nature of successful AI algorithms still holds back their wide-spread deployment. In this paper, we describe an eXplanatory Artificial Intelligence (XAI) that reaches the same level of performance as black-box AI, for the task of classifying Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) severity using Color Fundus Photography (CFP). This algorithm, called ExplAIn, learns to segment and categorize lesions in images; the final image-level classification directly derives from these multivariate lesion segmentations. The novelty of this explanatory framework is that it is trained from end to end, with image supervision only, just like black-box AI algorithms: the concepts of lesions and lesion categories emerge by themselves. For improved lesion localization, foreground/background separation is trained through self-supervision, in such a way that occluding foreground pixels transforms the input image into a healthy-looking image. The advantage of such an architecture is that automatic diagnoses can be explained simply by an image and/or a few sentences. ExplAIn is evaluated at the image level and at the pixel level on various CFP image datasets. We expect this new framework, which jointly offers high classification performance and explainability, to facilitate AI deployment.

Explaining Deep Neural Networks and Beyond: A Review of Methods and Applications

Wojciech Samek, Grégoire Montavon, Sebastian Lapuschkin +2

With the broader and highly successful usage of machine learning in industry and the sciences, there has been a growing demand for Explainable AI. Interpretability and explanation methods for gaining a better understanding about the problem solving abilities and strategies of nonlinear Machine Learning, in particular, deep neural networks, are therefore receiving increased attention. In this work we aim to (1) provide a timely overview of this active emerging field, with a focus on 'post-hoc' explanations, and explain its theoretical foundations, (2) put interpretability algorithms to a test both from a theory and comparative evaluation perspective using extensive simulations, (3) outline best practice aspects i.e. how to best include interpretation methods into the standard usage of machine learning and (4) demonstrate successful usage of explainable AI in a representative selection of application scenarios. Finally, we discuss challenges and possible future directions of this exciting foundational field of machine learning.