Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Daniel Atherton

dblp:387/9187 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computational social science and digital humanities · 100%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computational social science and digital humanities
AI governance
0.312025
Lessons for Editors of AI Incidents from the AI Incident Database · AAAI 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

taxonomy analysis · 1.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Lessons for Editors of AI Incidents from the AI Incident Database
abstract
As artificial intelligence (AI) systems become increasingly deployed across the world, they are also increasingly implicated in AI incidents – harm events to individuals and society. As a result, industry, civil society, and governments worldwide are developing best practices and regulations for monitoring and analyzing AI incidents. The AI Incident Database (AIID) is a project that catalogs AI incidents and supports further research by providing a platform to classify incidents for different operational and research-oriented goals. This study reviews the AIID’s dataset of 750+ AI incidents and two independent taxonomies applied to these incidents to identify common challenges to indexing and analyzing AI incidents. We find that certain patterns of AI incidents present structural ambiguities that challenge incident databasing and explore how epistemic uncertainty in AI incident reporting is unavoidable. We therefore report mitigations to make incident processes more robust to uncertainty related to cause, extent of harm, severity, or technical details of implicated systems. With these findings, we discuss how to develop future AI incident reporting practices.
Kevin Paeth, Daniel Atherton, Nikiforos Pittaras, Heather Frase, Sean McGregor
AAAI2