对社交媒体平台上的不诚实传播对社会有害。这种伤害可能表现为公众话语的逐步退化;但它也可以采取突然戏剧性事件的形式，如最近在国会山上的起义。该平台本身处于最佳位置，以防止伪造的传播，因为它们具有对相关数据的最佳访问和使用它的专业知识。然而，缓解消毒是昂贵的，不仅用于实施检测算法或采用手动努力，而且因为限制了这种高病毒内容会影响用户参与，从而影响潜在的广告收入。由于其他实体所承担有害内容的成本，因此该平台将不会激励行使社会最佳的努力水平。这个问题类似于环境监管，其中不良事件的成本不是由公司直接承担的，公司的缓解努力不是可观察到的，并且有害后果与特定失败之间的因果关系很难证明。对于环境监管，一种解决方案是执行昂贵的监控，以确保该公司根据规定的规则采取足够的预防措施。但是，随着时间的推移，用于分类虚拟信息的固定规则变得较低，因为坏行动者可以学会顺序和战略性地绕过它。将我们的域名编码为马尔可夫决策过程，我们证明没有基于静态规则的惩罚，无论多大，都可以激励充分的努力。仅基于自适应规则的处罚可以激励最佳努力，而是违反直接的努力，只有通过要求更高的努力水平充分地反应有害事件。我们规定了引发平台的机制设计，这些机制是与控制不控制的预防努力成本。

The optimal liability framework for AI systems remains an unsolved problem across the globe. In a much-anticipated move, the European Commission advanced two proposals outlining the European approach to AI liability in September 2022: a novel AI Liability Directive and a revision of the Product Liability Directive. They constitute the final, and much-anticipated, cornerstone of AI regulation in the EU. Crucially, the liability proposals and the EU AI Act are inherently intertwined: the latter does not contain any individual rights of affected persons, and the former lack specific, substantive rules on AI development and deployment. Taken together, these acts may well trigger a Brussels effect in AI regulation, with significant consequences for the US and other countries. This paper makes three novel contributions. First, it examines in detail the Commission proposals and shows that, while making steps in the right direction, they ultimately represent a half-hearted approach: if enacted as foreseen, AI liability in the EU will primarily rest on disclosure of evidence mechanisms and a set of narrowly defined presumptions concerning fault, defectiveness and causality. Hence, second, the article suggests amendments, which are collected in an Annex at the end of the paper. Third, based on an analysis of the key risks AI poses, the final part of the paper maps out a road for the future of AI liability and regulation, in the EU and beyond. This includes: a comprehensive framework for AI liability; provisions to support innovation; an extension to non-discrimination/algorithmic fairness, as well as explainable AI; and sustainability. I propose to jump-start sustainable AI regulation via sustainability impact assessments in the AI Act and sustainable design defects in the liability regime. In this way, the law may help spur not only fair AI and XAI, but potentially also sustainable AI (SAI).

社交媒体的回声室是一个重要的问题，可以引起许多负面后果，最近影响对Covid-19的响应。回声室促进病毒的阴谋理论，发现与疫苗犹豫不决，较少遵守面具授权，以及社会疏散的实践。此外，回声室的问题与政治极化等其他相关问题相连，以及误导的传播。回声室被定义为用户网络，用户只与支持其预先存在的信仰和意见的意见相互作用，并且他们排除和诋毁其他观点。本调查旨在从社会计算的角度检查社交媒体上的回声室现象，并为可能的解决方案提供蓝图。我们调查了相关文献，了解回声室的属性以及它们如何影响个人和社会。此外，我们展示了算法和心理的机制，这导致了回声室的形成。这些机制可以以两种形式表现出：（1）社交媒体推荐系统的偏见和（2）内部偏见，如确认偏见和精梳性。虽然减轻内部偏见是非常挑战的，但努力消除推荐系统的偏见。这些推荐系统利用我们自己的偏见来个性化内容建议，以使我们参与其中才能观看更多广告。因此，我们进一步研究了回声室检测和预防的不同计算方法，主要基于推荐系统。

Advocates of algorithmic techniques like data mining argue that these techniques eliminate human biases from the decision-making process. But an algorithm is only as good as the data it works with. Data is frequently imperfect in ways that allow these algorithms to inherit the prejudices of prior decision makers. In other cases, data may simply reflect the widespread biases that persist in society at large. In still others, data mining can discover surprisingly useful regularities that are really just preexisting patterns of exclusion and inequality. Unthinking reliance on data mining can deny historically disadvantaged and vulnerable groups full participation in society. Worse still, because the resulting discrimination is almost always an unintentional emergent property of the algorithm's use rather than a conscious choice by its programmers, it can be unusually hard to identify the source of the problem or to explain it to a court. This Essay examines these concerns through the lens of American antidiscrimination law-more particularly, through Title

Social media has been one of the main information consumption sources for the public, allowing people to seek and spread information more quickly and easily. However, the rise of various social media platforms also enables the proliferation of online misinformation. In particular, misinformation in the health domain has significant impacts on our society such as the COVID-19 infodemic. Therefore, health misinformation in social media has become an emerging research direction that attracts increasing attention from researchers of different disciplines. Compared to misinformation in other domains, the key differences of health misinformation include the potential of causing actual harm to humans' bodies and even lives, the hardness to identify for normal people, and the deep connection with medical science. In addition, health misinformation on social media has distinct characteristics from conventional channels such as television on multiple dimensions including the generation, dissemination, and consumption paradigms. Because of the uniqueness and importance of combating health misinformation in social media, we conduct this survey to further facilitate interdisciplinary research on this problem. In this survey, we present a comprehensive review of existing research about online health misinformation in different disciplines. Furthermore, we also systematically organize the related literature from three perspectives: characterization, detection, and intervention. Lastly, we conduct a deep discussion on the pressing open issues of combating health misinformation in social media and provide future directions for multidisciplinary researchers.

We are currently unable to specify human goals and societal values in a way that reliably directs AI behavior. Law-making and legal interpretation form a computational engine that converts opaque human values into legible directives. "Law Informs Code" is the research agenda capturing complex computational legal processes, and embedding them in AI. Similar to how parties to a legal contract cannot foresee every potential contingency of their future relationship, and legislators cannot predict all the circumstances under which their proposed bills will be applied, we cannot ex ante specify rules that provably direct good AI behavior. Legal theory and practice have developed arrays of tools to address these specification problems. For instance, legal standards allow humans to develop shared understandings and adapt them to novel situations. In contrast to more prosaic uses of the law (e.g., as a deterrent of bad behavior through the threat of sanction), leveraged as an expression of how humans communicate their goals, and what society values, Law Informs Code. We describe how data generated by legal processes (methods of law-making, statutory interpretation, contract drafting, applications of legal standards, legal reasoning, etc.) can facilitate the robust specification of inherently vague human goals. This increases human-AI alignment and the local usefulness of AI. Toward society-AI alignment, we present a framework for understanding law as the applied philosophy of multi-agent alignment. Although law is partly a reflection of historically contingent political power - and thus not a perfect aggregation of citizen preferences - if properly parsed, its distillation offers the most legitimate computational comprehension of societal values available. If law eventually informs powerful AI, engaging in the deliberative political process to improve law takes on even more meaning.

社交媒体平台（SMP）利用算法过滤（AF）作为选择构成用户供稿的内容的一种手段，以最大程度地提高其奖励。与自然/公平内容选择相比，选择性选择要在用户供稿上显示的内容可能会产生一定程度的影响，无论是对用户决策制定的影响，无论是次要的还是主要的，对用户的决策制定。正如我们在过去十年中所见证的那样，算法过滤可能会引起有害的副作用，从偏见的个人决定到整个社会的决定，例如，将用户的注意力转移到了是否获得COVID-19公众选择总统候选人。由于官僚主义，法律事务和财务考虑，政府不断地试图调节AF的不良影响通常很复杂。另一方面，SMP试图监视自己的算法活动，以避免因超过允许阈值而被罚款。在本文中，我们可以数学上对该框架进行形式化，并利用它来构建数据驱动的统计算法，以调节AF随着时间的流逝而偏向用户的信念，以及样本和复杂性保证。我们表明，我们的算法对潜在的对抗用户具有强大的功能。该最先进的算法可以由当局用作外部监管机构，也可以由SMP用于自我调节。

人工智能（AI）的价值分配问题询问我们如何确保人造系统的“价值”（即，客观函数）与人类的价值一致。在本文中，我认为语言交流（自然语言）是稳健价值对齐的必要条件。我讨论了这一主张的真相对试图确保AI系统价值一致的研究计划所带来的后果；或者，更谨慎地设计强大的有益或道德人造代理。

大多数在线平台都在努力从与用户的互动中学习，许多人从事探索：为了获取新信息而做出潜在的次优选择。我们研究探索与竞争之间的相互作用：这样的平台如何平衡学习探索和用户的竞争。在这里，用户扮演三个不同的角色：他们是产生收入的客户，他们是学习的数据来源，并且是自私的代理商，可以在竞争平台中进行选择。我们考虑了一种风格化的双重垄断模型，其中两家公司面临着相同的多军强盗问题。用户一一到达，并在两家公司之间进行选择，因此，只有在选择它的情况下，每个公司都在其强盗问题上取得进展。通过理论结果和数值模拟的混合，我们研究了竞争是否会激发更好的Bandit算法的采用，以及它是否导致用户增加福利。我们发现，Stark竞争会导致公司致力于导致低福利的“贪婪”强盗算法。但是，通过向公司提供一些“免费”用户来激励更好的探索策略并增加福利来削弱竞争。我们调查了削弱竞争的两个渠道：放松用户的理性并为一家公司带来首次推广优势。我们的发现与“竞争与创新”关系密切相关，并阐明了数字经济中的第一步优势。

我们探索了一个新的强盗实验模型，其中潜在的非组织序列会影响武器的性能。上下文 - 统一算法可能会混淆，而那些执行正确的推理面部信息延迟的算法。我们的主要见解是，我们称之为Deconfounst Thompson采样的算法在适应性和健壮性之间取得了微妙的平衡。它的适应性在易于固定实例中带来了最佳效率，但是在硬性非平稳性方面显示出令人惊讶的弹性，这会导致其他自适应算法失败。

我们研究了一个决策者的问题，即当面对参与决策（随机）取决于他们获得的激励措施的代理商时，发现最佳的货币激励计划。我们的重点是限制的政策，以实现两种公平性能，这些公平性能排除了不同的代理人平均经历不同治疗的结果。我们将问题提出为高维的随机优化问题，并通过使用紧密相关的确定性变体进行研究。我们表明，该确定性变体的最佳静态解决方案对于在公平性约束下的动态问题均非最佳。尽管解决最佳静态解决方案会引起非凸优化问题，但我们发现了一个结构性属性，该属性使我们能够设计一种可拖延，快速的启发式策略。利益相关者保留的传统计划忽略公平限制；确实，这些目的是利用差异化激励与系统的反复互动。我们的工作（i）表明，即使没有明确的歧视，动态政策也可能通过改变系统的类型组成而无意间歧视不同类型的药物，并且（ii）提出了渐近的最佳政策，以避免这种歧视性局势。

本次调查绘制了用于分析社交媒体数据的生成方法的研究状态的广泛的全景照片（Sota）。它填补了空白，因为现有的调查文章在其范围内或被约会。我们包括两个重要方面，目前正在挖掘和建模社交媒体的重要性：动态和网络。社会动态对于了解影响影响或疾病的传播，友谊的形成，友谊的形成等，另一方面，可以捕获各种复杂关系，提供额外的洞察力和识别否则将不会被注意的重要模式。

如果未来的AI系统在新的情况下是可靠的安全性，那么他们将需要纳入指导它们的一般原则，以便强烈地认识到哪些结果和行为将是有害的。这样的原则可能需要得到约束力的监管制度的支持，该法规需要广泛接受的基本原则。它们还应该足够具体用于技术实施。本文从法律中汲取灵感，解释了负面的人权如何履行此类原则的作用，并为国际监管制度以及为未来的AI系统建立技术安全限制的基础。

业务分析（BA）的广泛采用带来了财务收益和提高效率。但是，当BA以公正的影响为决定时，这些进步同时引起了人们对法律和道德挑战的不断增加。作为对这些关注的回应，对算法公平性的新兴研究涉及算法输出，这些算法可能会导致不同的结果或其他形式的对人群亚组的不公正现象，尤其是那些在历史上被边缘化的人。公平性是根据法律合规，社会责任和效用是相关的；如果不充分和系统地解决，不公平的BA系统可能会导致社会危害，也可能威胁到组织自己的生存，其竞争力和整体绩效。本文提供了有关算法公平的前瞻性，注重BA的评论。我们首先回顾有关偏见来源和措施的最新研究以及偏见缓解算法。然后，我们对公用事业关系的详细讨论进行了详细的讨论，强调经常假设这两种构造之间经常是错误的或短视的。最后，我们通过确定企业学者解决有效和负责任的BA的关键的有影响力的公开挑战的机会来绘制前进的道路。

This paper studies systematic exploration for reinforcement learning with rich observations and function approximation. We introduce a new model called contextual decision processes, that unifies and generalizes most prior settings. Our first contribution is a complexity measure, the Bellman rank , that we show enables tractable learning of near-optimal behavior in these processes and is naturally small for many well-studied reinforcement learning settings. Our second contribution is a new reinforcement learning algorithm that engages in systematic exploration to learn contextual decision processes with low Bellman rank. Our algorithm provably learns near-optimal behavior with a number of samples that is polynomial in all relevant parameters but independent of the number of unique observations. The approach uses Bellman error minimization with optimistic exploration and provides new insights into efficient exploration for reinforcement learning with function approximation.

Safe Reinforcement Learning can be defined as the process of learning policies that maximize the expectation of the return in problems in which it is important to ensure reasonable system performance and/or respect safety constraints during the learning and/or deployment processes. We categorize and analyze two approaches of Safe Reinforcement Learning. The first is based on the modification of the optimality criterion, the classic discounted finite/infinite horizon, with a safety factor. The second is based on the modification of the exploration process through the incorporation of external knowledge or the guidance of a risk metric. We use the proposed classification to survey the existing literature, as well as suggesting future directions for Safe Reinforcement Learning.

当他们更喜欢$ \ texit {exploit} $时，您如何激励自我兴趣的代理到$ \ texit {探索} $？我们考虑复杂的探索问题，其中每个代理面临相同（但未知）MDP。与传统的加固学习配方相比，代理商控制了政策的选择，而算法只能发出建议。然而，该算法控制信息流，并且可以通过信息不对称激励代理探索。我们设计一种算法，探讨MDP中的所有可达状态。我们达到了类似于先前研究的静态，无国籍探索问题中激励探索的保证担保。据我们所知，这是第一个考虑在有状态，强化学习环境中设计的工作。

数字化和远程连接扩大了攻击面，使网络系统更脆弱。由于攻击者变得越来越复杂和资源丰富，仅仅依赖传统网络保护，如入侵检测，防火墙和加密，不足以保护网络系统。网络弹性提供了一种新的安全范式，可以使用弹性机制来补充保护不足。一种网络弹性机制（CRM）适应了已知的或零日威胁和实际威胁和不确定性，并对他们进行战略性地响应，以便在成功攻击时保持网络系统的关键功能。反馈架构在启用CRM的在线感应，推理和致动过程中发挥关键作用。强化学习（RL）是一个重要的工具，对网络弹性的反馈架构构成。它允许CRM提供有限或没有事先知识和攻击者的有限攻击的顺序响应。在这项工作中，我们审查了Cyber​​恢复力的RL的文献，并讨论了对三种主要类型的漏洞，即姿势有关，与信息相关的脆弱性的网络恢复力。我们介绍了三个CRM的应用领域：移动目标防御，防守网络欺骗和辅助人类安全技术。 RL算法也有漏洞。我们解释了RL的三个漏洞和目前的攻击模型，其中攻击者针对环境与代理商之间交换的信息：奖励，国家观察和行动命令。我们展示攻击者可以通过最低攻击努力来欺骗RL代理商学习邪恶的政策。最后，我们讨论了RL为基于RL的CRM的网络安全和恢复力和新兴应用的未来挑战。

许多收集行为大数据的互联网平台都使用它来预测内部目的的用户行为及其业务客户（例如广告商，保险公司，安全部队，政府，政治咨询公司），他们利用了个性化，定位和其他决策的预测-制造。因此，提高预测精度非常有价值。数据科学研究人员设计了改善预测的算法，模型和方法。通过更大，更丰富的数据，还可以改善预测。除了改进算法和数据外，平台还可以通过使用行为修改技术将用户的行为推向其预测值，从而偷偷摸摸地实现更好的预测准确性，从而证明了更多的某些预测。这种明显的“改进”预测可能是通过使用强化学习算法结合预测和行为修改的。机器学习和统计文献中没有这种策略。研究其特性需要将因果关系与预测符号整合在一起。为此，我们将Pearl的因果Do（。）操作员纳入预测词汇中。然后，我们分解给定行为修改的预期预测误差，并确定影响预测能力的组件。我们的派生阐明了这种行为修改对数据科学家，平台，客户和行为被操纵的人类的影响。行为修改可以使用户的行为更加可预测，甚至更均匀；然而，当业务客户在实践中使用预测时，这种明显的可预测性可能不会推广。朝着他们的预测推动的结果可能与客户的意图矛盾，并且对操纵用户有害。

The reward hypothesis posits that, "all of what we mean by goals and purposes can be well thought of as maximization of the expected value of the cumulative sum of a received scalar signal (reward)." We aim to fully settle this hypothesis. This will not conclude with a simple affirmation or refutation, but rather specify completely the implicit requirements on goals and purposes under which the hypothesis holds.