Research Papers

Evaluating Language Models on Grooming Risk Estimation Using Fuzzy Theory

Geetanjali Bihani, Tatiana Ringenberg, Julia Rayz

Encoding implicit language presents a challenge for language models, especially in high-risk domains where maintaining high precision is important. Automated detection of online child grooming is one such critical domain, where predators manipulate victims using a combination of explicit and implicit language to convey harmful intentions. While recent studies have shown the potential of Transformer language models like SBERT for preemptive grooming detection, they primarily depend on surface-level features and approximate real victim grooming processes using vigilante and law enforcement conversations. The question of whether these features and approximations are reasonable has not been addressed thus far. In this paper, we address this gap and study whether SBERT can effectively discern varying degrees of grooming risk inherent in conversations, and evaluate its results across different participant groups. Our analysis reveals that while fine-tuning aids language models in learning to assign grooming scores, they show high variance in predictions, especially for contexts containing higher degrees of grooming risk. These errors appear in cases that 1) utilize indirect speech pathways to manipulate victims and 2) lack sexually explicit content. This finding underscores the necessity for robust modeling of indirect speech acts by language models, particularly those employed by predators.

GitHub Copilot is transforming software development by automating tasks and boosting productivity through AI driven code generation. In this paper, we conduct a literature survey to synthesize insights on Copilot's impact on productivity and security. We review academic journal databases, industry reports, and official documentation to highlight key findings and challenges. While Copilot accelerates coding and prototyping, concerns over security vulnerabilities and intellectual property risks persist. Drawing from the literature, we provide a perspective on best practices and future directions for responsible AI adoption in software engineering, offering actionable insights for developers and organizations to integrate Copilot effectively while maintaining high standards of quality and security.

Housing and household characteristics are key determinants of social and economic well-being, yet our understanding of their interrelationships remains limited. This study addresses this knowledge gap by developing a deep contrastive learning (DCL) model to infer housing-household relationships using the American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS). More broadly, the proposed model is suitable for a class of problems where the goal is to learn joint relationships between two distinct entities without explicitly labeled ground truth data. Our proposed dual-encoder DCL approach leverages co-occurrence patterns in PUMS and introduces a bisect K-means clustering method to overcome the absence of ground truth labels. The dual-encoder DCL architecture is designed to handle the semantic differences between housing (building) and household (people) features while mitigating noise introduced by clustering. To validate the model, we generate a synthetic ground truth dataset and conduct comprehensive evaluations. The model further demonstrates its superior performance in capturing housing-household relationships in Delaware compared to state-of-the-art methods. A transferability test in North Carolina confirms its generalizability across diverse sociodemographic and geographic contexts. Finally, the post-hoc explainable AI analysis using SHAP values reveals that tenure status and mortgage information play a more significant role in housing-household matching than traditionally emphasized factors such as the number of persons and rooms.

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly used in ethically sensitive domains such as education, healthcare, and transportation, balancing accuracy and interpretability has become a central concern. Coarse ethics (CE) motivates coarse-grained evaluations under cognitive, institutional, and contextual constraints, but it still lacks a simple mathematical formalization of admissible coarse-graining and its informational consequences. This paper introduces coarse-grained partitions (CGPs) as a discrete framework for modeling coarse evaluation on a finite totally ordered score scale. A CGP represents coarse evaluation as a partition into grains with an index assignment, and induces a coarse-grained distribution by pushforward. To compare admissible coarse-grainings, we introduce categorical unification (CU), which constructs a canonical fine-scale reconstruction from the coarse representation under minimal assumptions. On this basis, we define a KL-based measure of information loss, $D_{\mathrm{KL\text{-}CU}}$, as the divergence between the original fine-grained distribution and its CU-based reconstruction. We prove that $D_{\mathrm{KL\text{-}CU}}=0$ if and only if the original distribution is already uniform within each grain. This shows that zero loss, in the sense of the proposed measure, is a highly exceptional limiting case rather than a realistic benchmark for ordinary evaluative practice. We also show that the framework leads naturally to an optimization problem for comparing alternative admissible CGPs. Applications to educational grading and explainable AI (XAI) illustrate how the framework clarifies trade-offs among informational fidelity, interpretability, and coarsening cost.

Existing network paradigms have achieved lower downtime as well as a higher Quality of Experience (QoE) through the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based network management tools. These AI management systems, allow for automatic responses to changes in network conditions, lowering operation costs for operators, and improving overall performance. While adopting AI-based management tools enhance the overall network performance, it also introduce challenges such as removing human supervision, privacy violations, algorithmic bias, and model inaccuracies. Furthermore, AI-based agents that fail to address these challenges should be culpable themselves rather than the network as a whole. To address this accountability gap, a framework consisting of a Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) model and a Machine Learning (ML) model is proposed to identify and assign numerical values of responsibility to the AI-based management agents involved in any decision-making regarding the network conditions, which eventually affects the end-user. A simulation environment was created for the framework to be trained using simulated network operation parameters. The DRL model had a 96% accuracy during testing for identifying the AI-based management agents, while the ML model using gradient descent learned the network conditions at an 83% accuracy during testing.

The development of robust safety benchmarks for large language models requires open, reproducible datasets that can measure both appropriate refusal of harmful content and potential over-restriction of legitimate scientific discourse. We present an open-source dataset and testing framework for evaluating LLM safety mechanisms across mainly controlled substance queries, analyzing four major models' responses to systematically varied prompts. Our results reveal distinct safety profiles: Claude-3.5-sonnet demonstrated the most conservative approach with 73% refusals and 27% allowances, while Mistral attempted to answer 100% of queries. GPT-3.5-turbo showed moderate restriction with 10% refusals and 90% allowances, and Grok-2 registered 20% refusals and 80% allowances. Testing prompt variation strategies revealed decreasing response consistency, from 85% with single prompts to 65% with five variations. This publicly available benchmark enables systematic evaluation of the critical balance between necessary safety restrictions and potential over-censorship of legitimate scientific inquiry, while providing a foundation for measuring progress in AI safety implementation. Chain-of-thought analysis reveals potential vulnerabilities in safety mechanisms, highlighting the complexity of implementing robust safeguards without unduly restricting desirable and valid scientific discourse.

Tree-based and rule-based machine learning models play pivotal roles in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) due to their unique ability to provide explanations in the form of tree or rule sets that are easily understandable and interpretable, making them essential for applications in which trust in model decisions is necessary. These transparent models are typically used in surrogate modeling, a post-hoc XAI approach for explaining the logic of black-box models, enabling users to comprehend and trust complex predictive systems while maintaining competitive performance. This study proposes the Cost-Sensitive Rule and Tree Extraction (CORTEX) method, a novel rule-based XAI algorithm grounded in the multi-class cost-sensitive decision tree (CSDT) method. The original version of the CSDT is extended to classification problems with more than two classes by inducing the concept of an n-dimensional class-dependent cost matrix. The performance of CORTEX as a rule-extractor XAI method is compared to other post-hoc tree and rule extraction methods across several datasets with different numbers of classes. Several quantitative evaluation metrics are employed to assess the explainability of generated rule sets. Our findings demonstrate that CORTEX is competitive with other tree-based methods and can be superior to other rule-based methods across different datasets. The extracted rule sets suggest the advantages of using the CORTEX method over other methods by producing smaller rule sets with shorter rules on average across datasets with a diverse number of classes. Overall, the results underscore the potential of CORTEX as a powerful XAI tool for scenarios that require the generation of clear, human-understandable rules while maintaining good predictive performance.

This white paper underscores the critical importance of responsibly deploying Artificial Intelligence (AI) in military contexts, emphasizing a commitment to ethical and legal standards. The evolving role of AI in the military goes beyond mere technical applications, necessitating a framework grounded in ethical principles. The discussion within the paper delves into ethical AI principles, particularly focusing on the Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, and Ethics (FATE) guidelines. Noteworthy considerations encompass transparency, justice, non-maleficence, and responsibility. Importantly, the paper extends its examination to military-specific ethical considerations, drawing insights from the Just War theory and principles established by prominent entities. In addition to the identified principles, the paper introduces further ethical considerations specifically tailored for military AI applications. These include traceability, proportionality, governability, responsibility, and reliability. The application of these ethical principles is discussed on the basis of three use cases in the domains of sea, air, and land. Methods of automated sensor data analysis, eXplainable AI (XAI), and intuitive user experience are utilized to specify the use cases close to real-world scenarios. This comprehensive approach to ethical considerations in military AI reflects a commitment to aligning technological advancements with established ethical frameworks. It recognizes the need for a balance between leveraging AI's potential benefits in military operations while upholding moral and legal standards. The inclusion of these ethical principles serves as a foundation for responsible and accountable use of AI in the complex and dynamic landscape of military scenarios.

Safety has become the central value around which dominant AI governance efforts are being shaped. Recently, this culminated in the publication of the International AI Safety Report, written by 96 experts of which 30 nominated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the European Union (EU), and the United Nations (UN). The report focuses on the safety risks of general-purpose AI and available technical mitigation approaches. In this response, informed by a system safety perspective, I refl ect on the key conclusions of the report, identifying fundamental issues in the currently dominant technical framing of AI safety and how this frustrates meaningful discourse and policy efforts to address safety comprehensively. The system safety discipline has dealt with the safety risks of software-based systems for many decades, and understands safety risks in AI systems as sociotechnical and requiring consideration of technical and non-technical factors and their interactions. The International AI Safety report does identify the need for system safety approaches. Lessons, concepts and methods from system safety indeed provide an important blueprint for overcoming current shortcomings in technical approaches by integrating rather than adding on non-technical factors and interventions. I conclude with why building a system safety discipline can help us overcome limitations in the European AI Act, as well as how the discipline can help shape sustainable investments into Public Interest AI.

Functionality or proxy-based approach is one of the used approaches to evaluate the quality of explainable artificial intelligence methods. It uses statistical methods, definitions and new developed metrics for the evaluation without human intervention. Among them, Selectivity or RemOve And Retrain (ROAR), and Permutation Importance (PI) are the most commonly used metrics to evaluate the quality of explainable artificial intelligence methods to highlight the most significant features in machine learning models. They state that the model performance should experience a sharp reduction if the most informative feature is removed from the model or permuted. However, the efficiency of both metrics is significantly affected by multicollinearity, number of significant features in the model and the accuracy of the model. This paper shows with empirical examples that both metrics suffer from the aforementioned limitations. Accordingly, we propose expected accuracy interval (EAI), a metric to predict the upper and lower bounds of the the accuracy of the model when ROAR or IP is implemented. The proposed metric found to be very useful especially with collinear features.

Artificial intelligence (AI) ethics has gained significant momentum, evidenced by the growing body of published literature, policy guidelines, and public discourse. However, the practical implementation and adoption of AI ethics principles among practitioners has not kept pace with this theoretical development. Common barriers to adoption include overly abstract language, poor accessibility, and insufficient practical guidance for implementation. Through participatory design with industry practitioners, we developed an open-source tool that bridges this gap. Our tool is firmly grounded in normative ethical frameworks while offering concrete, actionable guidance in an intuitive format that aligns with established software development workflows. We validated this approach through a proof of concept study in the United States autonomous driving industry.

This paper examines the state of affairs on Frontier Safety Policies in light of capability progress and growing expectations held by government actors and AI safety researchers from these safety policies. It subsequently argues that FSPs should evolve to a more granular version, which this paper calls FSPs Plus. Compared to the first wave of FSPs led by a subset of frontier AI companies, FSPs Plus should be built around two main pillars. First, FSPs Plus should adopt precursory capabilities as a new, clearer, and more comprehensive set of metrics. In this respect, this paper recommends that international or domestic standardization bodies develop a standardized taxonomy of precursory components to high-impact capabilities that FSPs Plus could then adopt by reference. The Frontier Model Forum could lead the way by establishing preliminary consensus amongst frontier AI developers on this topic. Second, FSPs Plus should expressly incorporate AI safety cases and establish a mutual feedback mechanism between FSPs Plus and AI safety cases. To establish such a mutual feedback mechanism, FSPs Plus could be updated to include a clear commitment to make AI safety cases at different milestones during development and deployment, to build and adopt safety measures based on the content and confidence of AI safety cases, and, also on this basis, to keep updating and adjusting FSPs Plus.