Data Readiness for AI: A 360-Degree Survey

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05779v1
• Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 15:19:57 GMT
• Title: Data Readiness for AI: A 360-Degree Survey
• Authors: Kaveen Hiniduma, Suren Byna, Jean Luca Bez,
• Abstract summary: Poor quality data produces inaccurate and ineffective AI models. Numerous R&D efforts have been spent on improving data quality. We propose a taxonomy of data readiness for AI (DRAI) metrics for structured and unstructured datasets.
• Score: 0.9343816282846432
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Data are the critical fuel for Artificial Intelligence (AI) models. Poor quality data produces inaccurate and ineffective AI models that may lead to incorrect or unsafe use. Checking for data readiness is a crucial step in improving data quality. Numerous R&D efforts have been spent on improving data quality. However, standardized metrics for evaluating data readiness for use in AI training are still evolving. In this study, we perform a comprehensive survey of metrics used for verifying AI's data readiness. This survey examines more than 120 papers that are published by ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, other reputable journals, and articles published on the web by prominent AI experts. This survey aims to propose a taxonomy of data readiness for AI (DRAI) metrics for structured and unstructured datasets. We anticipate that this taxonomy can lead to new standards for DRAI metrics that would be used for enhancing the quality and accuracy of AI training and inference.

Related papers

• Are AI Detectors Good Enough? A Survey on Quality of Datasets With Machine-Generated Texts [0.0]
  A huge number of detectors and collections with AI fragments have emerged, and several detection methods even showed recognition quality up to 99.9%. Are detectors actually highly trustworthy or do their high benchmark scores come from the poor quality of evaluation datasets? We present a systematic review of datasets from competitions dedicated to AI-generated content detection and propose methods for evaluating the quality of datasets containing AI-generated fragments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:59:57Z)
• AI Data Readiness Inspector (AIDRIN) for Quantitative Assessment of Data Readiness for AI [0.8553254686016967]
  "Garbage in Garbage Out" is a universally agreed quote by computer scientists from various domains, including Artificial Intelligence (AI) There are no standard methods or frameworks for assessing the "readiness" of data for AI. AIDRIN is a framework covering a broad range of readiness dimensions available in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-27T15:26:39Z)
• AI-Driven Frameworks for Enhancing Data Quality in Big Data Ecosystems: Error_Detection, Correction, and Metadata Integration [0.0]
  This thesis proposes a novel set of interconnected frameworks aimed at enhancing big data quality comprehensively. Firstly, we introduce new quality metrics and a weighted scoring system for precise data quality assessment. Thirdly, we present a generic framework for detecting various quality anomalies using AI models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-06T21:36:45Z)
• The Frontier of Data Erasure: Machine Unlearning for Large Language Models [56.26002631481726]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are foundational to AI advancements. LLMs pose risks by potentially memorizing and disseminating sensitive, biased, or copyrighted information. Machine unlearning emerges as a cutting-edge solution to mitigate these concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-23T09:26:15Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• Reimagining Synthetic Tabular Data Generation through Data-Centric AI: A Comprehensive Benchmark [56.8042116967334]
  Synthetic data serves as an alternative in training machine learning models. ensuring that synthetic data mirrors the complex nuances of real-world data is a challenging task. This paper explores the potential of integrating data-centric AI techniques to guide the synthetic data generation process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-25T20:32:02Z)
• On Responsible Machine Learning Datasets with Fairness, Privacy, and Regulatory Norms [56.119374302685934]
  There have been severe concerns over the trustworthiness of AI technologies. Machine and deep learning algorithms depend heavily on the data used during their development. We propose a framework to evaluate the datasets through a responsible rubric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T14:01:53Z)
• RLBoost: Boosting Supervised Models using Deep Reinforcement Learning [0.0]
  We present RLBoost, an algorithm that uses deep reinforcement learning strategies to evaluate a particular dataset and obtain a model capable of estimating the quality of any new data. The results of the article show that this model obtains better and more stable results than other state-of-the-art algorithms such as LOO, DataShapley or DVRL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T14:38:33Z)
• Data-centric Artificial Intelligence: A Survey [47.24049907785989]
  Recently, the role of data in AI has been significantly magnified, giving rise to the emerging concept of data-centric AI. In this survey, we discuss the necessity of data-centric AI, followed by a holistic view of three general data-centric goals. We believe this is the first comprehensive survey that provides a global view of a spectrum of tasks across various stages of the data lifecycle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-17T17:44:56Z)
• Evaluation Toolkit For Robustness Testing Of Automatic Essay Scoring Systems [64.4896118325552]
  We evaluate the current state-of-the-art AES models using a model adversarial evaluation scheme and associated metrics. We find that AES models are highly overstable. Even heavy modifications(as much as 25%) with content unrelated to the topic of the questions do not decrease the score produced by the models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-14T03:49:43Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.