pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16278 · v1 · pith:477IG3IAnew · submitted 2026-04-09 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.AI· cs.HC

Keeping an Eye on AI: A Framework for Effective Human Oversight of AI Systems

Susanne Gaube , Markus Langer , Tim Miller , Kevin Baum , Raimund Dachselt , Anna Maria Feit , Ujwal Gadiraju , Harmanpreet Kaur
show 12 more authors
Mark T. Keane Richard Landers Johann Laux Q. Vera Liao Brian Lim Linda Onnasch Tim Schrills Liz Sonenberg Chenhao Tan Nava Tintarev Ziang Xiao Hanwei Zhang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 09:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.AIcs.HC
keywords human oversightAI systemsoversight frameworkhigh-risk decisionshuman-AI collaborationAI governancecross-disciplinary approach
0
0 comments X

The pith

A cross-disciplinary framework supplies the missing common foundation for effective human oversight of AI in high-risk decisions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Current ideas about watching over AI systems in important decisions remain vague, leaving designers unsure how to build and test oversight. The paper puts forward a single practical framework that gives a working definition, sketches the main architecture of roles and components, and lays out step-by-step processes. This structure draws together computer science, psychology, law, and related fields to make oversight concrete rather than abstract. If the framework holds, teams could document their oversight setups the same way across domains, evaluate them more reliably, and focus research on the gaps that still need work.

Core claim

The paper establishes a foundational framework for effective human oversight of AI systems that includes a working definition, an explicit architecture of components and roles, and repeatable processes for design, implementation, and evaluation, all derived from a synthesis across computer science, human-computer interaction, psychology, philosophy, and law.

What carries the argument

The foundational framework that supplies a working definition, architecture, and processes for human oversight of AI.

If this is right

  • Oversight setups in different domains can be recorded and compared using one standard documentation template.
  • Designers gain explicit steps for choosing which parts of an AI decision process should involve humans and when.
  • Evaluation of oversight can move from informal checks to structured assessment against the defined processes.
  • Open research questions in the field become easier to organize and prioritize once the basic architecture is fixed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Regulators could adapt the template to create sector-specific reporting requirements for AI oversight.
  • Training programs for AI operators might be redesigned around the roles and processes described in the framework.
  • Tool builders could develop software that directly supports the architecture, such as interfaces for the defined oversight steps.

Load-bearing premise

The premise that current notions of human oversight lack a shared foundation and that a cross-disciplinary synthesis can supply one that actually works in practice.

What would settle it

A controlled deployment study in which oversight systems built with the framework are compared against current ad-hoc oversight on the same high-risk AI task, measuring whether error rates, compliance with norms, or operator workload improve measurably.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16278 by Anna Maria Feit, Brian Lim, Chenhao Tan, Hanwei Zhang, Harmanpreet Kaur, Johann Laux, Kevin Baum, Linda Onnasch, Liz Sonenberg, Mark T. Keane, Markus Langer, Nava Tintarev, Q. Vera Liao, Raimund Dachselt, Richard Landers, Susanne Gaube, Tim Miller, Tim Schrills, Ujwal Gadiraju, Ziang Xiao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An architecture for human oversight. The two components of the architecture are the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: An Oversight Layer may need to be unpacked into different layers of oversight; there may be a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Human Oversight Process. Oversight layer with an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in high-risk, decision-making scenarios presents technical, safety, and normative challenges; problems that may only be ameliorated by human oversight. However, notions of human oversight lack a common foundational understanding: oversight architectures are not well defined, the roles involved remain unclear, and implementation steps are opaque. Hence, researchers and practitioners struggle to determine how to design, implement, and evaluate systems that enable effective human oversight. This paper advances a practical framework for effective human oversight of AI systems, based on a cross-disciplinary perspective that draws on insights from computer science, human-computer interaction, psychology, philosophy, and law. The core contributions are: (1) a foundational framework, with a working definition, architecture and processes for effective human oversight of AI systems; (2) an initial template for documenting oversight architectures and processes, applied to diverse domains; and (3) a synthesis of open research challenges that need to be considered in the emerging field of effective human oversight of AI systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a cross-disciplinary framework for effective human oversight of AI systems in high-risk decision-making scenarios. Drawing on computer science, HCI, psychology, philosophy, and law, it advances a working definition, architecture and processes for oversight, an initial documentation template applied to diverse domains, and a synthesis of open research challenges. The central claim is that this synthesis resolves the lack of common foundational understanding in existing notions of human oversight.

Significance. If the framework holds, it could provide a shared reference for designing and evaluating human oversight mechanisms, helping standardize practices across technical and normative domains. The documentation template and challenge synthesis are practical strengths that could guide implementation and future work. As a conceptual contribution without empirical validation or tests, its significance will depend on adoption and follow-up studies demonstrating effectiveness.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The premise that 'notions of human oversight lack a common foundational understanding' with 'oversight architectures not well defined' and 'implementation steps opaque' is asserted without specific examples or citations of divergent definitions or architectures from the referenced disciplines; this motivation is load-bearing for the need for the new synthesis and should be evidenced in the related work or introduction.
minor comments (2)
  1. The application of the documentation template to domains would benefit from additional concrete illustrations or pseudocode to improve clarity for practitioners.
  2. Consider expanding the open research challenges section with prioritized or testable questions to better guide the emerging field.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and the recommendation of minor revision. The feedback on strengthening the motivation for the framework is well-taken, and we address it directly below by committing to targeted revisions that add concrete examples and citations without altering the core contributions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The premise that 'notions of human oversight lack a common foundational understanding' with 'oversight architectures not well defined' and 'implementation steps opaque' is asserted without specific examples or citations of divergent definitions or architectures from the referenced disciplines; this motivation is load-bearing for the need for the new synthesis and should be evidenced in the related work or introduction.

    Authors: We agree that the motivation would be strengthened by explicit examples and citations illustrating divergent notions across disciplines. In the revised manuscript we will expand the introduction and related work section to include: (1) contrasting definitions from computer science literature on human-in-the-loop versus human-on-the-loop architectures; (2) HCI references to supervisory control models that differ in role allocation; (3) psychological studies on cognitive load in oversight tasks; (4) philosophical accounts of responsibility attribution; and (5) legal analyses of oversight requirements in the EU AI Act and similar frameworks. These additions will be placed before the presentation of our unifying definition and architecture, thereby evidencing the fragmentation claim while preserving the paper's conceptual focus. The abstract will be lightly revised to foreshadow these references if length permits. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in conceptual framework synthesis

full rationale

The paper advances a conceptual framework for human oversight of AI by synthesizing insights across computer science, HCI, psychology, philosophy, and law. It offers a working definition, high-level architecture, processes, and a documentation template without any mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or predictions that could reduce to inputs by construction. The central claim rests on cross-disciplinary integration rather than self-referential definitions or load-bearing self-citations; the work explicitly positions itself as an initial synthesis and open research agenda rather than a closed-form result derived from its own premises.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that human oversight can address AI challenges and that cross-disciplinary insights can create a common foundation; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Notions of human oversight lack a common foundational understanding, making architectures undefined and roles unclear.
    Directly stated in the abstract as the motivation for the framework.
  • domain assumption Insights from computer science, HCI, psychology, philosophy, and law can be synthesized into a practical oversight framework.
    Invoked as the basis for the core contributions in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5786 in / 1398 out tokens · 43983 ms · 2026-05-21T09:09:21.360654+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 103 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cognitive science , volume=

    The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth , author=. Cognitive science , volume=. 2002 , publisher=

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Explanation and Abductive Inference , booktitle =

    Lombrozo, Tanya , isbn =. Explanation and Abductive Inference , booktitle =

    work page

  3. [3]

    2020 , institution=

    Human systems integration for meaningful human control over AI-based systems , author=. 2020 , institution=

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    ECAI 2025 , pages=

    Measuring Explanation Quality--A Path Forward , author=. ECAI 2025 , pages=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Harvard Data Science Review , number=

    AI Transparency in the Age of LLMs: A Human-Centered Research Roadmap , author=. Harvard Data Science Review , number=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Ergonomics , volume =

    Neelam Naikar and Ashleigh Brady and Glennn Moy and Hing-Wah Kwok , title =. Ergonomics , volume =

    work page

  7. [7]

    Ergonomics , volume =

    Gudela Grote , title =. Ergonomics , volume =

    work page

  8. [8]

    Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making , volume=

    Things go wrong and the captain has to handle it , author=. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Ergonomics , volume=

    Ironies of artificial intelligence , author=. Ergonomics , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    , TITLE=

    Cummings, Mary L. , TITLE=. Frontiers in Neuroergonomics , VOLUME=

    work page

  11. [11]

    Ethics guidelines for trustworthy

    ECHLEG , year = 2019, howpublished =. Ethics guidelines for trustworthy

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    doi:10.1017/cfl.2025.10010 , journal=

    Corrêa, Ana Maria and Garsia, Sara and Elbi, Abdullah , year=. doi:10.1017/cfl.2025.10010 , journal=

    work page doi:10.1017/cfl.2025.10010 2025

  13. [13]

    Handbook of self-regulation , pages=

    On the structure of behavioral self-regulation , author=. Handbook of self-regulation , pages=. 2000 , publisher=

    work page 2000

  14. [14]

    McBride and Wendy A

    Sara E. McBride and Wendy A. Rogers and Arthur D. Fisk , title =. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science , volume =

    work page

  15. [15]

    Frontiers in Human Dynamics , VOLUME=

    Cheong, Ben Chester , TITLE=. Frontiers in Human Dynamics , VOLUME=. 2024 , ABSTRACT=

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Digital Health , volume=

    Challenges and limitations of human oversight in ethical artificial intelligence implementation in health care: Balancing digital literacy and professional strain , author=. Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Digital Health , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Moral crumple zones: Cautionary tales in human-robot interaction

    Elish, M C. Moral crumple zones: Cautionary tales in human-robot interaction. Engaging science, technology, and society. doi:10.17351/ESTS2019.260

    work page doi:10.17351/ests2019.260

  18. [18]

    Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work

    Sambasivan, Nithya and Kapania, Shivani and Highfill, Hannah and Akrong, Diana and Paritosh, Praveen and Aroyo, Lora M , booktitle=. “Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work”: Data Cascades in High-Stakes

    work page

  19. [19]

    Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    Unpacking Trust Dynamics in the LLM Supply Chain: An Empirical Exploration to Foster Trustworthy LLM Production & Use , author=. Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Knowing about knowing: An illusion of human competence can hinder appropriate reliance on

    He, Gaole and Kuiper, Lucie and Gadiraju, Ujwal , booktitle=. Knowing about knowing: An illusion of human competence can hinder appropriate reliance on

    work page

  21. [21]

    Roth and Amy R

    Emilie M. Roth and Amy R. Pritchett , title =. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making , volume =

    work page

  22. [22]

    From Automation to Autonomy Through AI : Enabling and Retaining Human Controllability

    Kaber, David. From Automation to Autonomy Through AI : Enabling and Retaining Human Controllability. Handbook of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. 2025. doi:10.1007/978-981-97-8440-0_5-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-97-8440-0_5-1 2025

  23. [23]

    Responsible Use of

    Schraagen, Jan Maarten , title =. Responsible Use of. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Minds and Machines , volume=

    Algorithmic decision-making and the control problem , author=. Minds and Machines , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    Human performance in automated and autonomous systems , pages=

    Humans and automated decision aids: A match made in heaven? , author=. Human performance in automated and autonomous systems , pages=. 2019 , publisher=

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Philosophical Journal of Conflict and Violence , year=

    Elke Schwarz , title=. Philosophical Journal of Conflict and Violence , year=

    work page

  27. [27]

    Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency , pages=

    On human predictions with explanations and predictions of machine learning models: A case study on deception detection , author=. Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency , pages=

    work page

  28. [28]

    , publisher =

    Sheridan, Thomas B. , publisher =. Human Supervisory Control of Automation , booktitle =. 2021 , abstract =

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Safety science , volume=

    Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem , author=. Safety science , volume=. 1997 , publisher=

    work page 1997

  30. [30]

    Proceedings of the 3rd European conference on European working session on learning , pages=

    Machine learning in the next five years , author=. Proceedings of the 3rd European conference on European working session on learning , pages=

    work page

  31. [31]

    Paramythis and S

    A. Paramythis and S. Weibelzahl and J. Masthoff , title =. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction , year =

    work page

  32. [32]

    Computer , volume=

    A root cause analysis of a self-driving car dragging a pedestrian , author=. Computer , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    2022 , publisher=

    Green, Ben , journal=. 2022 , publisher=

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    Sterz, Sarah and Baum, Kevin and Biewer, Sebastian and Hermanns, Holger and Lauber-R. Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    2023 , publisher=

    Enqvist, Lena , journal=. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    2024 , publisher=

    Langer, Markus and Baum, Kevin and Schlicker, Nadine , journal=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    2024 , publisher=

    Laux, Johann , journal=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Bridging the Gap Between

    Markus Langer and Veronika Lazar and Kevin Baum , editor =. Bridging the Gap Between. 2026 , doi =

    work page 2026

  39. [39]

    Secure human oversight of ai: Exploring the attack surface of human oversight

    Ditz, Jonas C and Lazar, Veronika and Lichtme. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.12290 , year=

    work page arXiv

  40. [40]

    Rigor in

    Olteanu, Alexandra and Blodgett, Su Lin and Balayn, Agathe and Wang, Angelina and Diaz, Fernando and Calmon, Flavio du Pin and Mitchell, Margaret and Ekstrand, Michael and Binns, Reuben and Barocas, Solon , journal=. Rigor in

    work page

  41. [41]

    ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) , volume=

    Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research , author=. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) , volume=. 2000 , publisher=

    work page 2000

  42. [42]

    Transparency and accountability: unpacking the real problems of explainable

    Hussain, Afzal and Hussain, Ashfaq , journal=. Transparency and accountability: unpacking the real problems of explainable. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Designerly understanding: Information needs for model transparency to support design ideation for

    Liao, Q Vera and Subramonyam, Hariharan and Wang, Jennifer and Wortman Vaughan, Jennifer , booktitle=. Designerly understanding: Information needs for model transparency to support design ideation for

    work page

  44. [44]

    Sensible

    Kaur, Harmanpreet and Adar, Eytan and Gilbert, Eric and Lampe, Cliff , booktitle=. Sensible

    work page

  45. [45]

    Explainable

    Miller, Tim , booktitle=. Explainable

    work page

  46. [46]

    The lancet digital health , volume=

    Randomised controlled trials evaluating artificial intelligence in clinical practice: a scoping review , author=. The lancet digital health , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Journal of the Association for Information Systems , volume=

    The vicious circles of skill erosion: A case study of cognitive automation , author=. Journal of the Association for Information Systems , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Preserving clinical skills in the age of

    Berzin, Tyler M and Topol, Eric J , journal=. Preserving clinical skills in the age of. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology , volume=

    Endoscopist deskilling risk after exposure to artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: a multicentre, observational study , author=. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    Scapegoat-in-the-loop? Human control over medical

    Ranisch, Robert , journal=. Scapegoat-in-the-loop? Human control over medical. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    PLOS digital health , volume=

    Sources of bias in artificial intelligence that perpetuate healthcare disparities—A global review , author=. PLOS digital health , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    The Lancet Digital Health , volume=

    Tackling algorithmic bias and promoting transparency in health datasets: the STANDING Together consensus recommendations , author=. The Lancet Digital Health , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    BMC medical ethics , volume=

    Privacy and artificial intelligence: challenges for protecting health information in a new era , author=. BMC medical ethics , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    JAMA Network Open , volume=

    Patient care technology disruptions associated with the CrowdStrike outage , author=. JAMA Network Open , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    2025 , publisher=

    Brohi, Sarfraz and Mastoi, Qurat-ul-ain , journal=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    AI and Ethics , volume=

    The ethical issues of the application of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic scoping review , author=. AI and Ethics , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    Temporal quality degradation in

    Vela, Daniel and Sharp, Andrew and Zhang, Richard and Nguyen, Trang and Hoang, An and Pianykh, Oleg S , journal=. Temporal quality degradation in. 2022 , publisher=

    work page 2022

  58. [58]

    The limits of fair medical imaging

    Yang, Yuzhe and Zhang, Haoran and Gichoya, Judy W and Katabi, Dina and Ghassemi, Marzyeh , journal=. The limits of fair medical imaging. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    Robustness in deep learning models for medical diagnostics: security and adversarial challenges towards robust

    Javed, Haseeb and El-Sappagh, Shaker and Abuhmed, Tamer , journal=. Robustness in deep learning models for medical diagnostics: security and adversarial challenges towards robust. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    NPJ Digital Medicine , volume=

    Why do probabilistic clinical models fail to transport between sites , author=. NPJ Digital Medicine , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems , year=

    Why highly reliable decision support systems often lead to suboptimal performance and what we can do about it , author=. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems , year=

    work page

  62. [62]

    When combinations of humans and

    Vaccaro, Michelle and Almaatouq, Abdullah and Malone, Thomas , journal=. When combinations of humans and. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    Be careful what you explain: Benefits and costs of explainable

    Rieger, Tobias and Manzey, Dietrich and Meussling, Benigna and Onnasch, Linda and Roesler, Eileen , journal=. Be careful what you explain: Benefits and costs of explainable. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    Non-task expert physicians benefit from correct explainable

    Gaube, Susanne and Suresh, Harini and Raue, Martina and Lermer, Eva and Koch, Timo K and Hudecek, Matthias FC and Ackery, Alun D and Grover, Samir C and Coughlin, Joseph F and Frey, Dieter and others , journal=. Non-task expert physicians benefit from correct explainable. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

  65. [65]

    Explainability does not mitigate the negative impact of incorrect

    Cecil, Julia and Lermer, Eva and Hudecek, Matthias FC and Sauer, Jan and Gaube, Susanne , journal=. Explainability does not mitigate the negative impact of incorrect. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  66. [66]

    , journal=

    Cummings, Mary L. , journal=. A taxonomy for. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages=

    Sociotechnical harms of algorithmic systems: Scoping a taxonomy for harm reduction , author=. Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages=

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages =

    De-Arteaga, Maria and Fogliato, Riccardo and Chouldechova, Alexandra , title =. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages =. 2020 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376638 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376638 2020

  69. [69]

    Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages =

    Green, Ben and Chen, Yiling , title =. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages =. 2019 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3287560.3287563 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1145/3287560.3287563 2019

  70. [70]

    Acharya, Deepak Bhaskar and Kuppan, Karthigeyan and Divya, B. , year=. doi:10.1109/access.2025.3532853 , journal=

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2025.3532853 2025

  71. [71]

    BMJ Digital Health & AI , publisher=

    van der Vorst, Joris P and Smit, Jim M and van de Sande, Davy and van der Ster, Björn and Daams, Freek and Schasfoort, Renske and Gommers, Diederik and Verhoef, Cornelis and Grünhagen, Dirk J and van Genderen, Michel E and Hilling, Denise E , year=. BMJ Digital Health & AI , publisher=. doi:10.1136/bmjdhai-2025-000046 , number=

    work page doi:10.1136/bmjdhai-2025-000046 2025

  72. [72]

    Lewis Hammond and Alan Chan and Jesse Clifton and Jason Hoelscher-Obermaier and Akbir Khan and Euan McLean and Chandler Smith and Wolfram Barfuss and Jakob Foerster and Tomáš Gavenčiak and The Anh Han and Edward Hughes and Vojtěch Kovařík and Jan Kulveit and Joel Z. Leibo and Caspar Oesterheld and Christian Schroeder de Witt and Nisarg Shah and Michael We...

    work page arXiv

  73. [73]

    Science , publisher=

    Bengio, Yoshua and Hinton, Geoffrey and Yao, Andrew and Song, Dawn and Abbeel, Pieter and Darrell, Trevor and Harari, Yuval Noah and Zhang, Ya-Qin and Xue, Lan and Shalev-Shwartz, Shai and Hadfield, Gillian and Clune, Jeff and Maharaj, Tegan and Hutter, Frank and Baydin, Atılım Güneş and McIlraith, Sheila and Gao, Qiqi and Acharya, Ashwin and Krueger, Dav...

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adn0117

  74. [74]

    2021 , publisher=

    Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence , author=. 2021 , publisher=

    work page 2021

  75. [75]

    Frontiers in Cognition , volume=

    The vigilance decrement: its first 75 years , author=. Frontiers in Cognition , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  76. [76]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.14294 , year=

    Monitoring machine learning systems: A multivocal literature review , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.14294 , year=

    work page arXiv

  77. [77]

    We Have No Idea How Models will Behave in Production until Production

    "We Have No Idea How Models will Behave in Production until Production": How Engineers Operationalize Machine Learning , author=. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  78. [78]

    International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology , volume=

    Challenges, Solutions, and Best Practices in Post-Deployment Monitoring of Machine Learning Models , author=. International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    work page 2024

  79. [79]

    What Gets Measured Gets Improved: Monitoring Machine Learning Applications in Their Production Environments , year=

    Protschky, Dominik and Lämmermann, Luis and Hofmann, Peter and Urbach, Nils , journal=. What Gets Measured Gets Improved: Monitoring Machine Learning Applications in Their Production Environments , year=

    work page

  80. [80]

    Utility and probability , pages=

    Bounded rationality , author=. Utility and probability , pages=. 1990 , publisher=

    work page 1990

Showing first 80 references.