With the ongoing rapid adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based systems in high-stakes domains, ensuring the trustworthiness, safety, and observability of these systems has become crucial. It is essential to evaluate and monitor AI systems not only for accuracy and quality-related metrics but also for robustness, bias, security, interpretability, and other responsible AI dimensions. We focus on large language models (LLMs) and other generative AI models, which present additional challenges such as hallucinations, harmful and manipulative content, and copyright infringement. In this survey article accompanying our tutorial, we highlight a wide range of harms associated with generative AI systems, and survey state of the art approaches (along with open challenges) to address these harms.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly playing an integral role in determining our day-to-day experiences. Increasingly, the applications of AI are no longer limited to search and recommendation systems, such as web search and movie and product recommendations, but AI is also being used in decisions and processes that are critical for individuals, businesses, and society. With AI based solutions in high-stakes domains such as hiring, lending, criminal justice, healthcare, and education, the resulting personal and professional implications of AI are far-reaching. Consequently, it becomes critical to ensure that these models are making accurate predictions, are robust to shifts in the data, are not relying on spurious features, and are not unduly discriminating against minority groups. To this end, several approaches spanning various areas such as explainability, fairness, and robustness have been proposed in recent literature, and many papers and tutorials on these topics have been presented in recent computer science conferences. However, there is relatively less attention on the need for monitoring machine learning (ML) models once they are deployed and the associated research challenges.

The use of machine learning (ML) based systems has become ubiquitous including their usage in critical applications like medicine and assistive technologies. Therefore, it is important to determine the trustworthiness of these ML models and tasks. A key component in this determination is the development of task specific datasets, metrics, and best practices which are able to measure the various aspects of responsible model development and deployment including robustness, interpretability and fairness. Further, datasets are also key when training for a given task, be it coreference resolution in language modeling or facial recognition in computer vision. Imbalances and inadequate representation in datasets can have repercussions of an undesirable nature. Some common examples include how coreference resolution systems in NLU are often not all gender inclusive, discrepancies in the measurement of how robust and trustworthy machine predictions are in domains where the selective labels problem is prevalent, and discriminatory determination of pain or care levels of people belonging to different demographics in health science applications. Development of task specific datasets which do better in this regard is also extremely vital. In this workshop, we invite contributions towards different (i) datasets which help enhance task performance and inclusivity, (ii) measures and metrics which help in determining the trustworthiness of a model/dataset, (iii) assessment or remediation tools for fairer, more transparent, robust, and reliable models, and (iv) case studies describing responsible development and deployment of AI systems across fields such as healthcare, financial services, insurance, etc. The datasets, measures, mitigation techniques, and best practices could focus on different areas including (but not restricted to) the following: Fairness and Bias Robustness Reliability and Safety Interpretability Explainability Ethical AI Causal Inference Counterfactual Example Analysis They could also be focussed on the applications in diverse fields such as industry, finance, healthcare and beyond. Text based datasets can be in languages other than English as well.

Social media platforms have been criticized for promoting false information during the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign. Our work is motivated by the idea that a platform could reduce the circulation of false information if it could estimate whether its users are vulnerable to believing political claims. We here explore whether such a vulnerability could be measured in a crowdsourcing setting. We propose Crowd-O-Meter, a framework that automatically predicts if a crowd worker will be consistent in his/her beliefs about political claims; i.e., consistently believes the claims are true or consistently believes the claims are not true. Crowd-O-Meter is a user-centered approach which interprets a combination of cues characterizing the user's implicit and explicit opinion bias. Experiments on 580 quotes from PolitiFact's fact checking corpus of 2016 U.S. presidential candidates show that Crowd-O-Meter is precise and accurate for two news modalities: text and video. Our analysis also reveals which are the most informative cues of a person's vulnerability.

Crowdsourced demarcations of object boundaries in images (segmentations) are important for many vision-based applications. A commonly reported challenge is that a large percentage of crowd results are discarded due to concerns about quality. We conducted three studies to examine (1) how does the quality of crowdsourced segmentations differ for familiar everyday images versus unfamiliar biomedical images?, (2) how does making familiar images less recognizable (rotating images upside down) influence crowd work with respect to the quality of results, segmentation time, and segmentation detail?, and (3) how does crowd workers’ judgments of the ambiguity of the segmentation task, collected by voting, differ for familiar everyday images and unfamiliar biomedical images? We analyzed a total of 2,525 segmentations collected from 121 crowd workers and 1,850 votes from 55 crowd workers. Our results illustrate the potential benefit of explicitly accounting for human familiarity with the data when designing computer interfaces for human interaction.

Quality control (QC) is an integral part of many crowd- sourcing systems. However, popular QC methods, such as aggregating multiple annotations, filtering workers, or verifying the quality of crowd work, introduce additional costs and delays. We propose a complementary paradigm to these QC methods based on predicting the quality of submitted crowd work. In particular, we pro- pose to predict the quality of a given crowd drawing directly from a crowd worker’s drawing time, number of user clicks, and average time per user click. We focus on the task of drawing the boundary of a single object in an image. To train and test our prediction models, we collected a total of 2,025 crowd-drawn segmentations for 405 familiar everyday images and unfamiliar biomedical images from 90 unique crowd workers. We first evaluated five prediction models learned using different combinations of the three worker behavior cues for all images. Experiments revealed that time per number of user clicks was the most effective cue for predicting segmentation quality. We next inspected the predictive power of models learned using crowd annotations collected for familiar and unfamiliar data independently. Prediction models were significantly more effective for estimating the segmentation quality from crowd worker behavior for familiar image content than unfamiliar image content.