Test-takers have a say: understanding the implications of the use of AI in language tests

Language tests measure a person's ability to use a language in terms of listening, speaking, reading, or writing. Such tests play an integral role in academic, professional, and immigration domains, with entities such as educational institutions, professional accreditation bodies, and governments using them to assess candidate language proficiency. Recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the discipline of Natural Language Processing have prompted language test providers to explore AI's potential applicability within language testing, leading to transformative activity patterns surrounding language instruction and learning. However, with concerns over AI's trustworthiness, it is imperative to understand the implications of integrating AI into language testing. This knowledge will enable stakeholders to make well-informed decisions, thus safeguarding community well-being and testing integrity. To understand the concerns and effects of AI usage in language tests, we conducted interviews and surveys with English test-takers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first empirical study aimed at identifying the implications of AI adoption in language tests from a test-taker perspective. Our study reveals test-taker perceptions and behavioral patterns. Specifically, we identify that AI integration may enhance perceptions of fairness, consistency, and availability. Conversely, it might incite mistrust regarding reliability and interactivity aspects, subsequently influencing the behaviors and well-being of test-takers. These insights provide a better understanding of potential societal implications and assist stakeholders in making informed decisions concerning AI usage in language testing.

Right to be Forgotten in the Era of Large Language Models: Implications, Challenges, and Solutions

The Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) was first established as the result of the ruling of Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v AEPD, Mario Costeja Gonz\'alez, and was later included as the Right to Erasure under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of European Union to allow individuals the right to request personal data be deleted by organizations. Specifically for search engines, individuals can send requests to organizations to exclude their information from the query results. With the recent development of Large Language Models (LLMs) and their use in chatbots, LLM-enabled software systems have become popular. But they are not excluded from the RTBF. Compared with the indexing approach used by search engines, LLMs store, and process information in a completely different way. This poses new challenges for compliance with the RTBF. In this paper, we explore these challenges and provide our insights on how to implement technical solutions for the RTBF, including the use of machine unlearning, model editing, and prompting engineering.

To Be Forgotten or To Be Fair: Unveiling Fairness Implications of Machine Unlearning Methods

The right to be forgotten (RTBF) is motivated by the desire of people not to be perpetually disadvantaged by their past deeds. For this, data deletion needs to be deep and permanent, and should be removed from machine learning models. Researchers have proposed machine unlearning algorithms which aim to erase specific data from trained models more efficiently. However, these methods modify how data is fed into the model and how training is done, which may subsequently compromise AI ethics from the fairness perspective. To help software engineers make responsible decisions when adopting these unlearning methods, we present the first study on machine unlearning methods to reveal their fairness implications. We designed and conducted experiments on two typical machine unlearning methods (SISA and AmnesiacML) along with a retraining method (ORTR) as baseline using three fairness datasets under three different deletion strategies. Experimental results show that under non-uniform data deletion, SISA leads to better fairness compared with ORTR and AmnesiacML, while initial training and uniform data deletion do not necessarily affect the fairness of all three methods. These findings have exposed an important research problem in software engineering, and can help practitioners better understand the potential trade-offs on fairness when considering solutions for RTBF.