Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Can Machines Help Us Answering Question 16 in Datasheets, and In Turn Reflecting on Inappropriate Content?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2202.06675 v2 pith:TCTILIFF submitted 2022-02-14 cs.AI cs.CVcs.CY

classification cs.AIcs.CVcs.CY
keywords inappropriatecontentdatasetsquestiondatasetdatasheetsdocumentationhelp
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large datasets underlying much of current machine learning raise serious issues concerning inappropriate content such as offensive, insulting, threatening, or might otherwise cause anxiety. This calls for increased dataset documentation, e.g., using datasheets. They, among other topics, encourage to reflect on the composition of the datasets. So far, this documentation, however, is done manually and therefore can be tedious and error-prone, especially for large image datasets. Here we ask the arguably "circular" question of whether a machine can help us reflect on inappropriate content, answering Question 16 in Datasheets. To this end, we propose to use the information stored in pre-trained transformer models to assist us in the documentation process. Specifically, prompt-tuning based on a dataset of socio-moral values steers CLIP to identify potentially inappropriate content, therefore reducing human labor. We then document the inappropriate images found using word clouds, based on captions generated using a vision-language model. The documentations of two popular, large-scale computer vision datasets -- ImageNet and OpenImages -- produced this way suggest that machines can indeed help dataset creators to answer Question 16 on inappropriate image content.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. PRJ: Perception-Retrieval-Judgement for Generated Images

    cs.CV 2025-06 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A new safety checker for AI-generated images, built from a vision-language model, retrieval-augmented knowledge lookup, and an LLM judge, reports higher detection rates and category-level toxicity scores than three ex...

Pith tools