Collect, Measure, Repeat: Reliability Factors for Responsible AI Data Collection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The rapid entry of machine learning approaches in our daily activities and high-stakes domains demands transparency and scrutiny of their fairness and reliability. To help gauge machine learning models' robustness, research typically focuses on the massive datasets used for their deployment, e.g., creating and maintaining documentation for understanding their origin, process of development, and ethical considerations. However, data collection for AI is still typically a one-off practice, and oftentimes datasets collected for a certain purpose or application are reused for a different problem. Additionally, dataset annotations may not be representative over time, contain ambiguous or erroneous annotations, or be unable to generalize across issues or domains. Recent research has shown these practices might lead to unfair, biased, or inaccurate outcomes. We argue that data collection for AI should be performed in a responsible manner where the quality of the data is thoroughly scrutinized and measured through a systematic set of appropriate metrics. In this paper, we propose a Responsible AI (RAI) methodology designed to guide the data collection with a set of metrics for an iterative in-depth analysis of the factors influencing the quality and reliability} of the generated data. We propose a granular set of measurements to inform on the internal reliability of a dataset and its external stability over time. We validate our approach across nine existing datasets and annotation tasks and four content modalities. This approach impacts the assessment of data robustness used for AI applied in the real world, where diversity of users and content is eminent. Furthermore, it deals with fairness and accountability aspects in data collection by providing systematic and transparent quality analysis for data collections.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 28 of its 108 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Aug 2023.
Builds on
28 of 108 references.
References · 28
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
- 2016Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Informationcited by 1,583
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,386
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,080
- 2017Men Also Like Shopping: Reducing Gender Bias Amplification using Corpus-level Constraintscited by 420
- 2020Data and its (dis)contents: A survey of dataset development and use in machine learning researchcited by 260
- 2018Women also Snowboard: Overcoming Bias in Captioning Modelscited by 236
- 2022Data Cards: Purposeful and Transparent Dataset Documentation for Responsible AIcited by 171
- 2018Aequitas: A Bias and Fairness Audit Toolkitcited by 147
- 2021Toward a Perspectivist Turn in Ground Truthing for Predictive Computingcited by 130
- 2021Re-labeling ImageNet: from Single to Multi-Labels, from Global to Localized Labelscited by 118
- 2019Garbage In, Garbage Out? Do Machine Learning Application Papers in Social Computing Report Where Human-Labeled Training Data Comes From?cited by 64
16 more
- 2022CrowdWorkSheets: Accounting for Individual and Collective Identities Underlying Crowdsourced Dataset Annotationcited by 59
- 2016Twitter as a Lifeline: Human-annotated Twitter Corpora for NLP of Crisis-related Messagescited by 44
- 2021Cross-replication Reliability -- An Empirical Approach to Interpreting Inter-rater Reliabilitycited by 31
- 2018CrowdTruth 2.0: Quality Metrics for Crowdsourcing with Disagreementcited by 27
- 2013Sentiment Analysis in the Newscited by 20
- 2022Measuring Annotator Agreement Generally across Complex Structured, Multi-object, and Free-text Annotation Taskscited by 17
- 2015Incentivizing High Quality Crowdworkcited by 12
- 2019Metrology for AI: From Benchmarks to Instrumentscited by 12
- 2020Studying the Effects of Cognitive Biases in Evaluation of Conversational Agentscited by 8
- 2022Quantified Reproducibility Assessment of NLP Resultscited by 8
- 2017Evaluation of Automatic Video Captioning Using Direct Assessmentcited by 7
- 2018Empirical Methodology for Crowdsourcing Ground Truthcited by 7
- 2016Much Ado About Time: Exhaustive Annotation of Temporal Datacited by 6
- 2021On the state of reporting in crowdsourcing experiments and a checklist to aid current practicescited by 6
- 2018Crowd-Labeling Fashion Reviews with Quality Controlcited by 1
- 2020Eliciting User Preferences for Personalized Explanations for Video Summariescited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
5 papers.
- 2023Large language models can accurately predict searcher preferencescited by 131
- 2024Towards Estimating Personal Values in Song Lyricscited by 1
- 2025Bridging the Data Gap in AI Reliability Research and Establishing DR-AIR, a Comprehensive Data Repository for AI Reliabilitycited by 1
- 2026Key Considerations for Domain Expert Involvement in LLM Design and Evaluation: An Ethnographic Studycited by 1
- 2026Toward Trustworthy Evaluation of Sustainability Rating Methodologies: A Human-AI Collaborative Framework for Benchmark Dataset Constructioncited by 1
- 2026Toward Trustworthy Evaluation of Sustainability Rating Methodologies: A Human-AI Collaborative Framework for Benchmark Dataset Construction19 Feb 2026
- 2026Key Considerations for Domain Expert Involvement in LLM Design and Evaluation: An Ethnographic Study16 Feb 2026
- 2025Bridging the Data Gap in AI Reliability Research and Establishing DR-AIR, a Comprehensive Data Repository for AI Reliability17 Feb 2025
- 2024Towards Estimating Personal Values in Song Lyrics22 Aug 2024
- 2023Large language models can accurately predict searcher preferences19 Sep 2023