Charvi Rastogi

Mark Mazumder, Colby Banbury, Xiaozhe Yao et al.

Machine learning research has long focused on models rather than datasets, and prominent datasets are used for common ML tasks without regard to the breadth, difficulty, and faithfulness of the underlying problems. Neglecting the fundamental importance of data has given rise to inaccuracy, bias, and fragility in real-world applications, and research is hindered by saturation across existing dataset benchmarks. In response, we present DataPerf, a community-led benchmark suite for evaluating ML datasets and data-centric algorithms. We aim to foster innovation in data-centric AI through competition, comparability, and reproducibility. We enable the ML community to iterate on datasets, instead of just architectures, and we provide an open, online platform with multiple rounds of challenges to support this iterative development. The first iteration of DataPerf contains five benchmarks covering a wide spectrum of data-centric techniques, tasks, and modalities in vision, speech, acquisition, debugging, and diffusion prompting, and we support hosting new contributed benchmarks from the community. The benchmarks, online evaluation platform, and baseline implementations are open source, and the MLCommons Association will maintain DataPerf to ensure long-term benefits to academia and industry.

Charvi Rastogi, Ivan Stelmakh, Alina Beygelzimer et al. · cmu, microsoft-research

How do author perceptions match up to the outcomes of the peer-review process and perceptions of others? In a top-tier computer science conference (NeurIPS 2021) with more than 23,000 submitting authors and 9,000 submitted papers, we survey the authors on three questions: (i) their predicted probability of acceptance for each of their papers, (ii) their perceived ranking of their own papers based on scientific contribution, and (iii) the change in their perception about their own papers after seeing the reviews. The salient results are: (1) Authors have roughly a three-fold overestimate of the acceptance probability of their papers: The median prediction is 70% for an approximately 25% acceptance rate. (2) Female authors exhibit a marginally higher (statistically significant) miscalibration than male authors; predictions of authors invited to serve as meta-reviewers or reviewers are similarly calibrated, but better than authors who were not invited to review. (3) Authors' relative ranking of scientific contribution of two submissions they made generally agree (93%) with their predicted acceptance probabilities, but there is a notable 7% responses where authors think their better paper will face a worse outcome. (4) The author-provided rankings disagreed with the peer-review decisions about a third of the time; when co-authors ranked their jointly authored papers, co-authors disagreed at a similar rate -- about a third of the time. (5) At least 30% of respondents of both accepted and rejected papers said that their perception of their own paper improved after the review process. The stakeholders in peer review should take these findings into account in setting their expectations from peer review.

Charvi Rastogi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Nicholas King et al. · microsoft-research, uw

Large language models are becoming increasingly pervasive and ubiquitous in society via deployment in sociotechnical systems. Yet these language models, be it for classification or generation, have been shown to be biased and behave irresponsibly, causing harm to people at scale. It is crucial to audit these language models rigorously. Existing auditing tools leverage either or both humans and AI to find failures. In this work, we draw upon literature in human-AI collaboration and sensemaking, and conduct interviews with research experts in safe and fair AI, to build upon the auditing tool: AdaTest (Ribeiro and Lundberg, 2022), which is powered by a generative large language model (LLM). Through the design process we highlight the importance of sensemaking and human-AI communication to leverage complementary strengths of humans and generative models in collaborative auditing. To evaluate the effectiveness of the augmented tool, AdaTest++, we conduct user studies with participants auditing two commercial language models: OpenAI's GPT-3 and Azure's sentiment analysis model. Qualitative analysis shows that AdaTest++ effectively leverages human strengths such as schematization, hypothesis formation and testing. Further, with our tool, participants identified a variety of failures modes, covering 26 different topics over 2 tasks, that have been shown before in formal audits and also those previously under-reported.

Arkadiy Saakyan, Charvi Rastogi, Lora Aroyo

Safe global deployment of AI models requires alignment with human values that vary across cultures. Yet rater pools in safety evaluation datasets remain largely geographically homogeneous, failing to capture geo-cultural differences. Further, it remains unclear whether such differences persist after controlling for demographics such as age, gender, and ethnicity. Through a meta-analysis of safety datasets, we find that most do not report geo-cultural information, and those that do lack a unified methodology to jointly analyze geo-cultural and demographic correlates. Using the Inglehart-Welzel dimensions of cross-cultural variation, we demonstrate via multilevel modeling that cultural zone membership explains variance in safety ratings beyond standard demographics (p<0.05 across 6 datasets). Moreover, our analysis indicates that roughly 10% of items in the datasets we examined are culturally sensitive: likely to be misclassified as safe without adequate cultural representation. We evaluate LLMs as both rater surrogates and triage tools, finding that current LLMs do not reliably stand in for raters, though they can help prioritize culturally sensitive items for human annotation. Our findings motivate more culturally pluralistic safety evaluation and offer practical takeaways to support it.

Charvi Rastogi, Liu Leqi, Kenneth Holstein et al.

Hybrid human-ML systems increasingly make consequential decisions in a wide range of domains. These systems are often introduced with the expectation that the combined human-ML system will achieve complementary performance, that is, the combined decision-making system will be an improvement compared with either decision-making agent in isolation. However, empirical results have been mixed, and existing research rarely articulates the sources and mechanisms by which complementary performance is expected to arise. Our goal in this work is to provide conceptual tools to advance the way researchers reason and communicate about human-ML complementarity. Drawing upon prior literature in human psychology, machine learning, and human-computer interaction, we propose a taxonomy characterizing distinct ways in which human and ML-based decision-making can differ. In doing so, we conceptually map potential mechanisms by which combining human and ML decision-making may yield complementary performance, developing a language for the research community to reason about design of hybrid systems in any decision-making domain. To illustrate how our taxonomy can be used to investigate complementarity, we provide a mathematical aggregation framework to examine enabling conditions for complementarity. Through synthetic simulations, we demonstrate how this framework can be used to explore specific aspects of our taxonomy and shed light on the optimal mechanisms for combining human-ML judgments

Canfer Akbulut, Rasmi Elasmar, Abhishek Roy et al.

Interest in the concept of AI-driven harmful manipulation is growing, yet current approaches to evaluating it are limited. This paper introduces a framework for evaluating harmful AI manipulation via context-specific human-AI interaction studies. We illustrate the utility of this framework by assessing an AI model with 10,101 participants spanning interactions in three AI use domains (public policy, finance, and health) and three locales (US, UK, and India). Overall, we find that that the tested model can produce manipulative behaviours when prompted to do so and, in experimental settings, is able to induce belief and behaviour changes in study participants. We further find that context matters: AI manipulation differs between domains, suggesting that it needs to be evaluated in the high-stakes context(s) in which an AI system is likely to be used. We also identify significant differences across our tested geographies, suggesting that AI manipulation results from one geographic region may not generalise to others. Finally, we find that the frequency of manipulative behaviours (propensity) of an AI model is not consistently predictive of the likelihood of manipulative success (efficacy), underscoring the importance of studying these dimensions separately. To facilitate adoption of our evaluation framework, we detail our testing protocols and make relevant materials publicly available. We conclude by discussing open challenges in evaluating harmful manipulation by AI models.

Charvi Rastogi, Mukul Bhutani, Minsuk Kahng et al.

Despite the global deployment of text-to-image (T2I) models, their safety frameworks are largely calibrated to a Western-centric default, creating significant vulnerabilities for the rest of the world. To embrace cultural pluralism and bring historically under-represented perspectives in T2I safety, we conduct localised community-centered red teaming studies in the Global South. Our two-fold approach prioritizes localization and participation, by focusing on secondary urban centers in these regions, and conducting community engagement and training workshops to contextualize local norms. As a result, we present PLACES, a dataset comprising over 26,000 examples of T2I model failures collected in partnership with universities in Ghana, Nigeria, and two regions of India (Karnataka and Punjab). Analysis of prompts collected reveals a wide-ranging diversity in socio-cultural and linguistic attributes, when compared to existing geography-agnostic crowdsourced red-teaming data. We observe unique adversarial patterns enabled by local cultural and linguistic nuances, and distinct clusters within region around specific themes, such as religion in India. Moreover, we uncover structural contextual gaps in existing safety frameworks by identifying novel harms showing normative dissonance (e.g., violating religious norms, ignoring local customs, and ominous symbolism). This work argues that expanding T2I safety requires moving beyond mere scale to incorporate deeply localised, participatory methodologies for data collection and contextualization. Content warning: This paper includes examples containing potentially harmful or offensive content.

Imagen-Team-Google, Jason Baldridge, Jakob Bauer et al.

We introduce Imagen 3, a latent diffusion model that generates high quality images from text prompts. We describe our quality and responsibility evaluations. Imagen 3 is preferred over other state-of-the-art (SOTA) models at the time of evaluation. In addition, we discuss issues around safety and representation, as well as methods we used to minimize the potential harm of our models.

Jessica Quaye, Alicia Parrish, Oana Inel et al. · oxford

With the rise of text-to-image (T2I) generative AI models reaching wide audiences, it is critical to evaluate model robustness against non-obvious attacks to mitigate the generation of offensive images. By focusing on ``implicitly adversarial'' prompts (those that trigger T2I models to generate unsafe images for non-obvious reasons), we isolate a set of difficult safety issues that human creativity is well-suited to uncover. To this end, we built the Adversarial Nibbler Challenge, a red-teaming methodology for crowdsourcing a diverse set of implicitly adversarial prompts. We have assembled a suite of state-of-the-art T2I models, employed a simple user interface to identify and annotate harms, and engaged diverse populations to capture long-tail safety issues that may be overlooked in standard testing. The challenge is run in consecutive rounds to enable a sustained discovery and analysis of safety pitfalls in T2I models. In this paper, we present an in-depth account of our methodology, a systematic study of novel attack strategies and discussion of safety failures revealed by challenge participants. We also release a companion visualization tool for easy exploration and derivation of insights from the dataset. The first challenge round resulted in over 10k prompt-image pairs with machine annotations for safety. A subset of 1.5k samples contains rich human annotations of harm types and attack styles. We find that 14% of images that humans consider harmful are mislabeled as ``safe'' by machines. We have identified new attack strategies that highlight the complexity of ensuring T2I model robustness. Our findings emphasize the necessity of continual auditing and adaptation as new vulnerabilities emerge. We are confident that this work will enable proactive, iterative safety assessments and promote responsible development of T2I models.

Lujain Ibrahim, Canfer Akbulut, Rasmi Elasmar et al.

The tendency of users to anthropomorphise large language models (LLMs) is of growing interest to AI developers, researchers, and policy-makers. Here, we present a novel method for empirically evaluating anthropomorphic LLM behaviours in realistic and varied settings. Going beyond single-turn static benchmarks, we contribute three methodological advances in state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLM evaluation. First, we develop a multi-turn evaluation of 14 anthropomorphic behaviours. Second, we present a scalable, automated approach by employing simulations of user interactions. Third, we conduct an interactive, large-scale human subject study (N=1101) to validate that the model behaviours we measure predict real users' anthropomorphic perceptions. We find that all SOTA LLMs evaluated exhibit similar behaviours, characterised by relationship-building (e.g., empathy and validation) and first-person pronoun use, and that the majority of behaviours only first occur after multiple turns. Our work lays an empirical foundation for investigating how design choices influence anthropomorphic model behaviours and for progressing the ethical debate on the desirability of these behaviours. It also showcases the necessity of multi-turn evaluations for complex social phenomena in human-AI interaction.

Charvi Rastogi, Tian Huey Teh, Pushkar Mishra et al.

AI systems crucially rely on human ratings, but these ratings are often aggregated, obscuring the inherent diversity of perspectives in real-world phenomenon. This is particularly concerning when evaluating the safety of generative AI, where perceptions and associated harms can vary significantly across socio-cultural contexts. While recent research has studied the impact of demographic differences on annotating text, there is limited understanding of how these subjective variations affect multimodal safety in generative AI. To address this, we conduct a large-scale study employing highly-parallel safety ratings of about 1000 text-to-image (T2I) generations from a demographically diverse rater pool of 630 raters balanced across 30 intersectional groups across age, gender, and ethnicity. Our study shows that (1) there are significant differences across demographic groups (including intersectional groups) on how severe they assess the harm to be, and that these differences vary across different types of safety violations, (2) the diverse rater pool captures annotation patterns that are substantially different from expert raters trained on specific set of safety policies, and (3) the differences we observe in T2I safety are distinct from previously documented group level differences in text-based safety tasks. To further understand these varying perspectives, we conduct a qualitative analysis of the open-ended explanations provided by raters. This analysis reveals core differences into the reasons why different groups perceive harms in T2I generations. Our findings underscore the critical need for incorporating diverse perspectives into safety evaluation of generative AI ensuring these systems are truly inclusive and reflect the values of all users.

Charvi Rastogi, Tian Huey Teh, Pushkar Mishra et al.

Current text-to-image (T2I) models often fail to account for diverse human experiences, leading to misaligned systems. We advocate for pluralistic alignment, where an AI understands and is steerable towards diverse, and often conflicting, human values. Our work provides three core contributions to achieve this in T2I models. First, we introduce a novel dataset for Diverse Intersectional Visual Evaluation (DIVE) -- the first multimodal dataset for pluralistic alignment. It enable deep alignment to diverse safety perspectives through a large pool of demographically intersectional human raters who provided extensive feedback across 1000 prompts, with high replication, capturing nuanced safety perceptions. Second, we empirically confirm demographics as a crucial proxy for diverse viewpoints in this domain, revealing significant, context-dependent differences in harm perception that diverge from conventional evaluations. Finally, we discuss implications for building aligned T2I models, including efficient data collection strategies, LLM judgment capabilities, and model steerability towards diverse perspectives. This research offers foundational tools for more equitable and aligned T2I systems. Content Warning: The paper includes sensitive content that may be harmful.

Jessica Quaye, Charvi Rastogi, Alicia Parrish et al.

Text-to-image (T2I) models have become prevalent across numerous applications, making their robust evaluation against adversarial attacks a critical priority. Continuous access to new and challenging adversarial prompts across diverse domains is essential for stress-testing these models for resilience against novel attacks from multiple vectors. Current techniques for generating such prompts are either entirely authored by humans or synthetically generated. On the one hand, datasets of human-crafted adversarial prompts are often too small in size and imbalanced in their cultural and contextual representation. On the other hand, datasets of synthetically-generated prompts achieve scale, but typically lack the realistic nuances and creative adversarial strategies found in human-crafted prompts. To combine the strengths of both human and machine approaches, we propose Seed2Harvest, a hybrid red-teaming method for guided expansion of culturally diverse, human-crafted adversarial prompt seeds. The resulting prompts preserve the characteristics and attack patterns of human prompts while maintaining comparable average attack success rates (0.31 NudeNet, 0.36 SD NSFW, 0.12 Q16). Our expanded dataset achieves substantially higher diversity with 535 unique geographic locations and a Shannon entropy of 7.48, compared to 58 locations and 5.28 entropy in the original dataset. Our work demonstrates the importance of human-machine collaboration in leveraging human creativity and machine computational capacity to achieve comprehensive, scalable red-teaming for continuous T2I model safety evaluation.

Ding Wang, Mark Díaz, Charvi Rastogi et al.

Understanding what constitutes safety in AI-generated content is complex. While developers often rely on predefined taxonomies, real-world safety judgments also involve personal, social, and cultural perceptions of harm. This paper examines how annotators evaluate the safety of AI-generated images, focusing on the qualitative reasoning behind their judgments. Analyzing 5,372 open-ended comments, we find that annotators consistently invoke moral, emotional, and contextual reasoning that extends beyond structured safety categories. Many reflect on potential harm to others more than to themselves, grounding their judgments in lived experience, collective risk, and sociocultural awareness. Beyond individual perceptions, we also find that the structure of the task itself -- including annotation guidelines -- shapes how annotators interpret and express harm. Guidelines influence not only which images are flagged, but also the moral judgment behind the justifications. Annotators frequently cite factors such as image quality, visual distortion, and mismatches between prompt and output as contributing to perceived harm dimensions, which are often overlooked in standard evaluation frameworks. Our findings reveal that existing safety pipelines miss critical forms of reasoning that annotators bring to the task. We argue for evaluation designs that scaffold moral reflection, differentiate types of harm, and make space for subjective, context-sensitive interpretations of AI-generated content.

Alicia Parrish, Hannah Rose Kirk, Jessica Quaye et al.

The generative AI revolution in recent years has been spurred by an expansion in compute power and data quantity, which together enable extensive pre-training of powerful text-to-image (T2I) models. With their greater capabilities to generate realistic and creative content, these T2I models like DALL-E, MidJourney, Imagen or Stable Diffusion are reaching ever wider audiences. Any unsafe behaviors inherited from pretraining on uncurated internet-scraped datasets thus have the potential to cause wide-reaching harm, for example, through generated images which are violent, sexually explicit, or contain biased and derogatory stereotypes. Despite this risk of harm, we lack systematic and structured evaluation datasets to scrutinize model behavior, especially adversarial attacks that bypass existing safety filters. A typical bottleneck in safety evaluation is achieving a wide coverage of different types of challenging examples in the evaluation set, i.e., identifying 'unknown unknowns' or long-tail problems. To address this need, we introduce the Adversarial Nibbler challenge. The goal of this challenge is to crowdsource a diverse set of failure modes and reward challenge participants for successfully finding safety vulnerabilities in current state-of-the-art T2I models. Ultimately, we aim to provide greater awareness of these issues and assist developers in improving the future safety and reliability of generative AI models. Adversarial Nibbler is a data-centric challenge, part of the DataPerf challenge suite, organized and supported by Kaggle and MLCommons.

Ivan Stelmakh, Charvi Rastogi, Nihar B. Shah et al.

Peer review is the backbone of academia and humans constitute a cornerstone of this process, being responsible for reviewing papers and making the final acceptance/rejection decisions. Given that human decision making is known to be susceptible to various cognitive biases, it is important to understand which (if any) biases are present in the peer-review process and design the pipeline such that the impact of these biases is minimized. In this work, we focus on the dynamics of between-reviewers discussions and investigate the presence of herding behaviour therein. In that, we aim to understand whether reviewers and more senior decision makers get disproportionately influenced by the first argument presented in the discussion when (in case of reviewers) they form an independent opinion about the paper before discussing it with others. Specifically, in conjunction with the review process of ICML 2020 -- a large, top tier machine learning conference -- we design and execute a randomized controlled trial with the goal of testing for the conditional causal effect of the discussion initiator's opinion on the outcome of a paper.

Charvi Rastogi, Yunfeng Zhang, Dennis Wei et al.

Several strands of research have aimed to bridge the gap between artificial intelligence (AI) and human decision-makers in AI-assisted decision-making, where humans are the consumers of AI model predictions and the ultimate decision-makers in high-stakes applications. However, people's perception and understanding are often distorted by their cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, anchoring bias, availability bias, to name a few. In this work, we use knowledge from the field of cognitive science to account for cognitive biases in the human-AI collaborative decision-making setting, and mitigate their negative effects on collaborative performance. To this end, we mathematically model cognitive biases and provide a general framework through which researchers and practitioners can understand the interplay between cognitive biases and human-AI accuracy. We then focus specifically on anchoring bias, a bias commonly encountered in human-AI collaboration. We implement a time-based de-anchoring strategy and conduct our first user experiment that validates its effectiveness in human-AI collaborative decision-making. With this result, we design a time allocation strategy for a resource-constrained setting that achieves optimal human-AI collaboration under some assumptions. We, then, conduct a second user experiment which shows that our time allocation strategy with explanation can effectively de-anchor the human and improve collaborative performance when the AI model has low confidence and is incorrect.

Charvi Rastogi, Sivaraman Balakrishnan, Nihar B. Shah et al.

A number of applications require two-sample testing on ranked preference data. For instance, in crowdsourcing, there is a long-standing question of whether pairwise comparison data provided by people is distributed similar to ratings-converted-to-comparisons. Other examples include sports data analysis and peer grading. In this paper, we design two-sample tests for pairwise comparison data and ranking data. For our two-sample test for pairwise comparison data, we establish an upper bound on the sample complexity required to correctly distinguish between the distributions of the two sets of samples. Our test requires essentially no assumptions on the distributions. We then prove complementary lower bounds showing that our results are tight (in the minimax sense) up to constant factors. We investigate the role of modeling assumptions by proving lower bounds for a range of pairwise comparison models (WST, MST,SST, parameter-based such as BTL and Thurstone). We also provide testing algorithms and associated sample complexity bounds for the problem of two-sample testing with partial (or total) ranking data.Furthermore, we empirically evaluate our results via extensive simulations as well as two real-world datasets consisting of pairwise comparisons. By applying our two-sample test on real-world pairwise comparison data, we conclude that ratings and rankings provided by people are indeed distributed differently. On the other hand, our test recognizes no significant difference in the relative performance of European football teams across two seasons. Finally, we apply our two-sample test on a real-world partial and total ranking dataset and find a statistically significant difference in Sushi preferences across demographic divisions based on gender, age and region of residence.

Bhavya Kailkhura, Jayaraman J. Thiagarajan, Charvi Rastogi et al.

This paper proposes a new approach to construct high quality space-filling sample designs. First, we propose a novel technique to quantify the space-filling property and optimally trade-off uniformity and randomness in sample designs in arbitrary dimensions. Second, we connect the proposed metric (defined in the spatial domain) to the objective measure of the design performance (defined in the spectral domain). This connection serves as an analytic framework for evaluating the qualitative properties of space-filling designs in general. Using the theoretical insights provided by this spatial-spectral analysis, we derive the notion of optimal space-filling designs, which we refer to as space-filling spectral designs. Third, we propose an efficient estimator to evaluate the space-filling properties of sample designs in arbitrary dimensions and use it to develop an optimization framework to generate high quality space-filling designs. Finally, we carry out a detailed performance comparison on two different applications in 2 to 6 dimensions: a) image reconstruction and b) surrogate modeling on several benchmark optimization functions and an inertial confinement fusion (ICF) simulation code. We demonstrate that the propose spectral designs significantly outperform existing approaches especially in high dimensions.