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

Sven Cattell

dblp:192/1817 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 since 2021Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 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 · 50% Language models and text generation · 50%
Network and information security
1 paper
Systems and software security · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
AI safety
0.912025
To Err Is AI: A Case Study Informing LLM Flaw Reporting Practices · AAAI 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model safety
0.912025
To Err Is AI: A Case Study Informing LLM Flaw Reporting Practices · AAAI 2025
Systems and software security › vulnerability management
bug bounty programs
0.312025
To Err Is AI: A Case Study Informing LLM Flaw Reporting Practices · AAAI 2025
Systems and software security › vulnerability management
vulnerability disclosure
0.312025
To Err Is AI: A Case Study Informing LLM Flaw Reporting Practices · AAAI 2025

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

bug bounty · 1.7red-teaming · 0.9red teaming · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 To Err Is AI: A Case Study Informing LLM Flaw Reporting Practices
abstract
In August of 2024, 495 hackers generated evaluations in an open-ended bug bounty targeting the Open Language Model (OLMo) from The Allen Institute for AI. A vendor panel staffed by representatives of OLMo's safety program adjudicated changes to OLMo's documentation and awarded cash bounties to participants who successfully demonstrated a need for public disclosure clarifying the intent, capacities, and hazards of model deployment. This paper presents a collection of lessons learned, illustrative of flaw reporting best practices intended to reduce the likelihood of incidents and produce safer large language models (LLMs). These include best practices for safety reporting processes, their artifacts, and safety program staffing.
Sean McGregor, Allyson Ettinger, Nick Judd, Paul Albee, Kavel Rao, William H. Smith, Shayne Longpre, Avijit Ghosh, Christopher Fiorelli, Michelle Hoang, Sven Cattell, Nouha Dziri
AAAI12
2024 Coordinated Flaw Disclosure for AI: Beyond Security Vulnerabilities
abstract
Harm reporting in Artificial Intelligence (AI) currently lacks a structured process for disclosing and addressing algorithmic flaws, relying largely on an ad-hoc approach. This contrasts sharply with the well-established Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CVD) ecosystem in software security. While global efforts to establish frameworks for AI transparency and collaboration are underway, the unique challenges presented by machine learning (ML) models demand a specialized approach. To address this gap, we propose implementing a Coordinated Flaw Disclosure (CFD) framework tailored to the complexities of ML and AI issues. This paper reviews the evolution of ML disclosure practices, from ad hoc reporting to emerging participatory auditing methods, and compares them with cybersecurity norms. Our framework introduces innovations such as extended model cards, dynamic scope expansion, an independent adjudication panel, and an automated verification process. We also outline a forthcoming real-world pilot of CFD. We argue that CFD could significantly enhance public trust in AI systems. By balancing organizational and community interests, CFD aims to improve AI accountability in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.
Sven Cattell, Avijit Ghosh, Lucie-Aimée Kaffee
AIES (1)1