pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.21831 · v1 · pith:Y6QWSMH2new · submitted 2026-06-20 · 💻 cs.DB

RAIDS: Rethinking Data Systems as Responsible Intelligent Infrastructure

Zhengyi Yang , Wenke Yang , Guanfeng Liu , Lu Qin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 11:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DB
keywords responsible data systemsexecution semanticsresponsibility preservationoperator contractsdata pipelinesintelligent infrastructuredata-to-decision
0
0 comments X

The pith

RAIDS treats responsibility as execution semantics through operator-level contracts that compose across data pipelines.

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

The paper claims that data systems now function as decision infrastructure, yet current responsibility tools remain separate from execution. It proposes operator-level responsibility contracts that attach support, constraint satisfaction, and actionability states to each output under an explicit context. These contracts are designed to compose so that responsibility state stays sufficient throughout a pipeline or triggers repair, replan, or refusal. The organizing objective is responsibility preservation rather than post-hoc checks. A research agenda covers preservation mechanisms, optimization, provenance, and evaluation.

Core claim

Responsibility is operationalized as an operator-level contract that exposes an output together with its support, constraint, and actionability state; these contracts compose across holistic data-to-decision pipelines, and responsibility preservation becomes the primary systems objective so that state remains adequate or the system changes course.

What carries the argument

The operator-level responsibility contract, which attaches support, constraint satisfaction, and actionability states to each operator output under a responsibility context and enables composition across pipelines.

If this is right

  • Responsibility state must remain sufficient during execution or the system must repair, replan, escalate, or refuse.
  • Query optimization and execution engines must incorporate responsibility dimensions alongside accuracy and efficiency.
  • Provenance, oversight, and evaluation mechanisms become native to the execution model rather than added later.
  • Data mining and decision pipelines can be designed end-to-end with responsibility as a first-class property.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Existing provenance systems could be extended by mapping their metadata directly onto the three responsibility state dimensions.
  • Domain-specific responsibility contexts would need standardization before contracts can cross application boundaries.
  • Performance experiments could test whether responsibility-aware scheduling changes latency or throughput under realistic workloads.

Load-bearing premise

Responsibility states can be defined for arbitrary operators and composed across pipelines in a way that permits practical preservation or repair.

What would settle it

A working implementation of responsibility contracts on a multi-operator pipeline where states cannot be maintained or repaired without losing correctness or incurring prohibitive overhead.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.21831 by Guanfeng Liu, Lu Qin, Wenke Yang, Zhengyi Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Conventional pipelines attach responsibility after output. RAIDS makes the responsibility contract part of the loop: responsibility state (support, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Data systems are evolving from information infrastructure into decision infrastructure. Yet responsibility mechanisms have not kept pace: an output can be accurate or efficient while still lacking sufficient support, satisfied constraints, and actionability for responsible use. We propose RAIDS (Responsible and Intelligent Data System), a vision for data systems as responsible intelligent infrastructure. RAIDS treats responsibility not as post-hoc metadata, but as execution semantics for holistic data-to-decision and data mining pipelines. Its core abstraction is an operator-level responsibility contract: each operator exposes an output together with support, constraint, and actionability state under an explicit responsibility context, and these contracts compose across pipelines. These states capture whether an output is grounded, whether execution satisfies relevant limits, and which action modes are permissible. We introduce responsibility preservation as the organizing systems objective: responsibility state should remain sufficient as execution proceeds, or the system should repair, replan, escalate, refuse, or otherwise change course. We outline a BlueSky research agenda for RAIDS, spanning responsibility-preserving execution, responsibility-aware optimization, provenance, oversight, and evaluation.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes RAIDS, a vision for data systems as responsible intelligent infrastructure. Responsibility is reframed as execution semantics rather than post-hoc metadata, with the core abstraction being an operator-level responsibility contract that exposes an output together with support, constraint-satisfaction, and actionability states under an explicit responsibility context; these contracts are asserted to compose across pipelines. Responsibility preservation is introduced as the organizing objective (triggering repair, replan, escalation, or refusal when states become insufficient), and a BlueSky research agenda is sketched across execution, optimization, provenance, oversight, and evaluation.

Significance. If the proposed abstractions can be developed into concrete, composable mechanisms, the work could shift data-system research toward treating responsibility as a first-class, enforceable property of pipelines rather than an external concern. This would have broad implications for trustworthy data-to-decision systems. At present the contribution is entirely prospective; its significance therefore rests on whether future realizations of the contract and preservation ideas prove tractable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and core-abstraction paragraph: the central claim that responsibility contracts 'compose across pipelines' and thereby enable responsibility preservation (or repair/replan) is load-bearing, yet the manuscript supplies neither a formal semantics for the three states nor a worked example for any pair of operators (e.g., filter then aggregate). Without such grounding the composition claim remains an assertion rather than a demonstrated property.
  2. The paragraph introducing responsibility preservation: no argument is given that the support/constraint/actionability states are closed under composition or that maintaining them remains tractable for arbitrary operators; this directly affects whether preservation can serve as a practical systems objective.
minor comments (2)
  1. Several key terms ('responsibility context', 'responsibility preservation', 'action modes') are introduced without an initial glossary or illustrative definition, making the high-level proposal harder to evaluate.
  2. The research agenda section would benefit from explicit prioritization or a minimal concrete milestone (e.g., a two-operator prototype) to make the vision more actionable for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for identifying the load-bearing aspects of the proposed abstractions. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and core-abstraction paragraph: the central claim that responsibility contracts 'compose across pipelines' and thereby enable responsibility preservation (or repair/replan) is load-bearing, yet the manuscript supplies neither a formal semantics for the three states nor a worked example for any pair of operators (e.g., filter then aggregate). Without such grounding the composition claim remains an assertion rather than a demonstrated property.

    Authors: The manuscript is explicitly a vision paper that introduces responsibility contracts and preservation as organizing concepts rather than as a completed formalism. We do not claim to have established or demonstrated composition; the text presents it as the intended semantics of the abstraction whose realization is listed among the open questions in the BlueSky agenda. Adding formal semantics or operator-pair examples would shift the paper from a prospective outline to a technical development, which lies outside its stated scope. revision: no

  2. Referee: The paragraph introducing responsibility preservation: no argument is given that the support/constraint/actionability states are closed under composition or that maintaining them remains tractable for arbitrary operators; this directly affects whether preservation can serve as a practical systems objective.

    Authors: We concur that no closure or tractability argument appears, because the manuscript does not assert that the states are closed or that preservation is immediately tractable. Instead, it nominates preservation as the systems objective whose feasibility, including compositionality and scalability across operators, constitutes part of the research program to be pursued. The absence of such arguments is therefore consistent with the paper's framing as an agenda rather than a solved system. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

High-level vision proposal with no derivations or equations

full rationale

The manuscript is a conceptual vision paper proposing RAIDS as a new abstraction for data systems. It contains no equations, no formal derivations, no fitted parameters, no predictions, and no mathematical claims that could reduce to inputs by construction. The core ideas (operator-level responsibility contracts, responsibility preservation) are presented as definitional proposals rather than derived results. No self-citation chains or uniqueness theorems are invoked to justify load-bearing steps. This is the expected non-finding for a high-level systems vision paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 2 invented entities

The proposal rests on the domain assumption that responsibility can be captured in operator-level states and that preservation is a workable systems objective; it introduces two new conceptual entities without independent evidence.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Responsibility can be captured through explicit states of support, constraint satisfaction, and actionability under a responsibility context.
    This is the foundational abstraction stated in the abstract.
invented entities (2)
  • Responsibility contract no independent evidence
    purpose: Operator-level exposure of output together with support, constraint, and actionability states.
    New abstraction introduced to make responsibility part of execution semantics.
  • Responsibility preservation no independent evidence
    purpose: Organizing objective that responsibility state should remain sufficient or trigger repair/replan/escalate/refuse.
    New systems-level goal proposed without prior grounding.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5715 in / 1272 out tokens · 34904 ms · 2026-06-26T11:32:24.918117+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations,

    Z. Obermeyer, B. Powers, C. V ogeli, and S. Mullainathan, “Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations,” Science, vol. 366, no. 6464, pp. 447–453, 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    Large language models encode clinical knowledge,

    K. Singhal, S. Azizi, T. Tu, S. S. Mahdavi, J. Wei, H. W. Chung, N. Scales, A. Tanwani, H. Cole-Lewis, S. Pfohl, P. Payne, M. Senevi- ratne, P. Gamble, C. Kelly, N. Sch ¨arli, A. Chowdhery, P. Mansfield, D. Demner-Fushman, B. Ag ¨uera y Arcas, D. Webster, G. S. Corrado, Y . Matias, K. Chou, J. Gottweis, N. Tomasev, Y . Liu, A. Rajkomar, J. Barral, C. Semt...

    2023

  3. [3]

    SALP-CG: Standard- aligned LLM pipeline for classifying and grading large volumes of online conversational health data,

    Y . Yan, H. Li, H. He, G. Kai, Z. Yang, and G. Liu, “SALP-CG: Standard- aligned LLM pipeline for classifying and grading large volumes of online conversational health data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.09717, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Empirical asset pricing via machine learning,

    S. Gu, B. Kelly, and D. Xiu, “Empirical asset pricing via machine learning,”Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 136, no. 1, pp. 222– 253, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    AEFA: An ensemble framework for fraud detection in the forex market,

    W. Wang, J. Yu, Z. Yang, M. Ju, S. Yu, J. Wu, L. Liu, Y . Liu, J. Shepherd, and W. Zhang, “AEFA: An ensemble framework for fraud detection in the forex market,” inAdvanced Data Mining and Applications. Springer Nature Singapore, 2025, pp. 34–49

    2025

  6. [6]

    ForexAgent: Identifying trading strategies in forex markets with large language models,

    X. Shu, M. Ju, Z. Chen, Y . Ding, W. Zhang, D. Wen, and Z. Yang, “ForexAgent: Identifying trading strategies in forex markets with large language models,” in2026 IEEE International Conference on Big Data and Smart Computing, ser. BigComp, 2026, pp. 55–62

    2026

  7. [7]

    Gov- ernment by algorithm: Artificial intelligence in federal administrative agencies,

    D. F. Engstrom, D. E. Ho, C. M. Sharkey, and M.-F. Cu ´ellar, “Gov- ernment by algorithm: Artificial intelligence in federal administrative agencies,” Administrative Conference of the United States, Tech. Rep., 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Accountable algorithms,

    J. A. Kroll, J. Huey, S. Barocas, E. W. Felten, J. R. Reidenberg, D. G. Robinson, and H. Yu, “Accountable algorithms,”University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 165, no. 3, pp. 633–705, 2017

    2017

  9. [9]

    Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments,

    A. Chouldechova, “Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments,”Big Data, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 153–163, 2017

    2017

  10. [10]

    Runaway feedback loops in predictive policing,

    D. Ensign, S. A. Friedler, S. Neville, C. Scheidegger, and S. Venkatasub- ramanian, “Runaway feedback loops in predictive policing,” inProceed- ings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, ser. FAT* ’18, 2018, pp. 160–171

    2018

  11. [11]

    Improving access to building licensing information in Australia: Design and development of a graph-based retrieval-augmented generation artificial intelligence system,

    D. Yan, J. Liu, B. Han, Z. Yang, J. He, J. Xu, R. Y . Sunindijo, and C. C. Wang, “Improving access to building licensing information in Australia: Design and development of a graph-based retrieval-augmented generation artificial intelligence system,”Buildings, vol. 16, no. 6, p. 1224, 2026

    2026

  12. [12]

    T. Hey, S. Tansley, and K. Tolle, Eds.,The Fourth Paradigm: Data- Intensive Scientific Discovery. Microsoft Research, 2009

    2009

  13. [13]

    Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold,

    J. Jumper, R. Evans, A. Pritzel, T. Green, M. Figurnov, O. Ronneberger, K. Tunyasuvunakool, R. Bates, A. ˇZ´ıdek, A. Potapenko, A. Bridgland, C. Meyer, S. A. A. Kohl, A. J. Ballard, A. Cowie, B. Romera- Paredes, S. Nikolov, R. Jain, J. Adler, T. Back, S. Petersen, D. Reiman, E. Clancy, M. Zielinski, M. Steinegger, M. Pacholska, T. Berghammer, S. Bodenstei...

    2021

  14. [14]

    Scaling deep learning for materials discovery,

    A. Merchant, S. Batzner, S. S. Schoenholz, M. Aykol, G. Cheon, and E. D. Cubuk, “Scaling deep learning for materials discovery,”Nature, vol. 624, pp. 80–85, 2023

    2023

  15. [15]

    Accurate medium-range global weather forecasting with 3D neural networks,

    K. Bi, L. Xie, H. Zhang, X. Chen, X. Gu, and Q. Tian, “Accurate medium-range global weather forecasting with 3D neural networks,” Nature, vol. 619, pp. 533–538, 2023

    2023

  16. [16]

    Machine learning for environ- mental monitoring,

    M. Hino, E. Benami, and N. Brooks, “Machine learning for environ- mental monitoring,”Nature Sustainability, vol. 1, pp. 583–588, 2018

    2018

  17. [17]

    Machine learning methods in weather and climate applications: A survey,

    L. Chen, B. Han, X. Wang, J. Zhao, W. Yang, and Z. Yang, “Machine learning methods in weather and climate applications: A survey,”Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 21, p. 12019, 2023

    2023

  18. [18]

    Holistic evaluation of language models,

    P. Liang, R. Bommasani, T. Lee, D. Tsipras, D. Soylu, M. Yasunaga, Y . Zhang, D. Narayanan, Y . Wu, A. Kumar, B. Newman, B. Yuan, B. Yan, C. Zhang, C. Cosgrove, C. D. Manning, C. R´e, D. Acosta-Navas, D. A. Hudson, E. Zelikman, E. Durmus, F. Ladhak, F. Rong, H. Ren, H. Yao, J. Wang, K. Santhanam, L. Orr, L. Zheng, M. Yuksekgonul, M. Suzgun, N. Kim, N. Guh...

    2023

  19. [19]

    Tabular-textual question answering: From parallel program generation to large language models,

    X. Tang, L. Chen, W. Yang, Z. Yang, M. Ju, X. Shu, Z. Yang, and Y . Tang, “Tabular-textual question answering: From parallel program generation to large language models,”World Wide Web, vol. 28, no. 4, p. 42, 2025

    2025

  20. [20]

    Parallel program generation for hybrid tabular-textual question answer- ing,

    W. Yang, Z. Yang, L. Chen, R. Yan, Z. Yang, L. Zhang, and Y . Tang, “Parallel program generation for hybrid tabular-textual question answer- ing,” inWeb and Big Data. Springer Nature Singapore, 2024, pp. 121–137

    2024

  21. [21]

    Big data and its technical challenges,

    H. V . Jagadish, J. Gehrke, A. Labrinidis, Y . Papakonstantinou, J. M. Patel, R. Ramakrishnan, and C. Shahabi, “Big data and its technical challenges,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 86–94, 2014

    2014

  22. [22]

    The cambridge report on database research,

    A. Ailamaki, S. Madden, D. Abadi, G. Alonso, S. Amer-Yahia, M. Bal- azinska, P. A. Bernstein, P. Boncz, M. Cafarella, S. Chaudhuri, S. David- son, D. DeWitt, Y . Diao, X. L. Dong, M. Franklin, J. Freire, J. Gehrke, A. Halevy, J. M. Hellerstein, M. D. Hill, S. Idreos, Y . Ioannidis, C. Koch, D. Kossmann, T. Kraska, A. Kumar, G. Li, V . Markl, R. Miller, C....

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Survey of vector database management systems,

    J. J. Pan, J. Wang, and G. Li, “Survey of vector database management systems,”The VLDB Journal, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 1591–1615, 2024

    2024

  24. [24]

    Machine learning: Trends, perspec- tives, and prospects,

    M. I. Jordan and T. M. Mitchell, “Machine learning: Trends, perspec- tives, and prospects,”Science, vol. 349, no. 6245, pp. 255–260, 2015

    2015

  25. [25]

    DataPerf: Benchmarks for data-centric AI development,

    M. Mazumder, C. Banbury, X. Yao, B. Karla ˇs, W. G. Rojas, S. Diamos, G. Diamos, L. He, A. Parrish, H. R. Kirk, J. Quaye, C. Rastogi, D. Kiela, D. Jurado, D. Kanter, R. Mosquera, J. Ciro, L. Aroyo, B. Acun, L. Chen, M. S. Raje, M. Bartolo, S. Eyuboglu, A. Ghorbani, E. Goodman, O. Inel, T. Kane, C. R. Kirkpatrick, T.-S. Kuo, J. Mueller, T. Thrush, J. Vansc...

    2023

  26. [26]

    Data quality management for responsible AI in data lakes,

    C. Cortes, C. Sanz, L. Etcheverry, and A. Marotta, “Data quality management for responsible AI in data lakes,” inVLDB Workshops, 2024

    2024

  27. [27]

    Towards interpretable and trustworthy time series reasoning: A BlueSky vision,

    K. Ning, Z. Pan, Y . Jiang, A. Schneider, Y . Nevmyvaka, and D. Song, “Towards interpretable and trustworthy time series reasoning: A BlueSky vision,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Work- shops (ICDMW), 2025, pp. 2497–2502

    2025

  28. [28]

    Text-to- SQL empowered by large language models: A benchmark evaluation,

    D. Gao, H. Wang, Y . Li, X. Sun, Y . Qian, B. Ding, and J. Zhou, “Text-to- SQL empowered by large language models: A benchmark evaluation,” Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 1132–1145, 2024

    2024

  29. [29]

    Semantic operators and their optimization: Enabling LLM- based data processing with accuracy guarantees in LOTUS,

    L. Patel, S. Jha, M. Pan, H. Gupta, P. Asawa, C. Guestrin, and M. Zaharia, “Semantic operators and their optimization: Enabling LLM- based data processing with accuracy guarantees in LOTUS,”Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 4171–4184, 2025

    2025

  30. [30]

    DocETL: Agentic query rewriting and evaluation for complex docu- ment processing,

    S. Shankar, T. Chambers, T. Shah, A. G. Parameswaran, and E. Wu, “DocETL: Agentic query rewriting and evaluation for complex docu- ment processing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12189, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Graphy’our data: Towards end-to-end modeling, exploring and generating report from raw data,

    L. Lai, C. Luo, Y . Lou, M. Ju, and Z. Yang, “Graphy’our data: Towards end-to-end modeling, exploring and generating report from raw data,” inCompanion of the 2025 International Conference on Management of Data, ser. SIGMOD Companion ’25, 2025, pp. 147–150

    2025

  32. [32]

    Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0),

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, “Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0),” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Tech. Rep. NIST AI 100-1, 2023

    2023

  33. [33]

    Responsible data management,

    J. Stoyanovich, S. Abiteboul, B. Howe, H. V . Jagadish, and S. Schelter, “Responsible data management,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 64–74, 2022

    2022

  34. [34]

    Transparency, fairness, data pro- tection, neutrality: Data management challenges in the face of new regulation,

    S. Abiteboul and J. Stoyanovich, “Transparency, fairness, data pro- tection, neutrality: Data management challenges in the face of new regulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.03683, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1903

  35. [35]

    Designing data governance,

    V . Khatri and C. V . Brown, “Designing data governance,”Communica- tions of the ACM, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 148–152, 2010

    2010

  36. [36]

    Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic audit- ing,

    I. D. Raji, A. Smart, R. N. White, M. Mitchell, T. Gebru, B. Hutchinson, J. Smith-Loud, D. Theron, and P. Barnes, “Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic audit- ing,” inProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, ser. FAT* ’20, 2020, pp. 33–44

    2020

  37. [37]

    Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis,

    C. Dwork, F. McSherry, K. Nissim, and A. Smith, “Calibrating noise to sensitivity in private data analysis,” inTheory of Cryptography, ser. TCC ’06, 2006, pp. 265–284

    2006

  38. [38]

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union, “Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation),” Official Journal of the European Union, OJ L 119, 4 May 2016, 2016

    2016

  39. [39]

    Environmental footprints of query processing: A vision for sustainable database architectures,

    M. Bachras and H.-A. Jacobsen, “Environmental footprints of query processing: A vision for sustainable database architectures,”Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 4064–4072, 2025

    2025

  40. [40]

    Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act),

    European Parliament and Council of the European Union, “Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act),” Official Journal of the European Union, OJ L, 2024/1689, 12 July 2024, 2024

    2024

  41. [41]

    Data validation for machine learning,

    E. Breck, N. Polyzotis, S. Roy, S. E. Whang, and M. Zinkevich, “Data validation for machine learning,” inProceedings of the 2nd Conference on Machine Learning and Systems, ser. MLSys, 2019, pp. 334–347

    2019

  42. [42]

    Model cards for model reporting,

    M. Mitchell, S. Wu, A. Zaldivar, P. Barnes, L. Vasserman, B. Hutchin- son, E. Spitzer, I. D. Raji, and T. Gebru, “Model cards for model reporting,” inProceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, ser. FAT* ’19, 2019, pp. 220–229

    2019

  43. [43]

    Datasheets for datasets,

    T. Gebru, J. Morgenstern, B. Vecchione, J. W. Vaughan, H. Wallach, H. Daum ´e III, and K. Crawford, “Datasheets for datasets,”Communi- cations of the ACM, vol. 64, no. 12, pp. 86–92, 2021

    2021

  44. [44]

    Provenance semirings,

    T. J. Green, G. Karvounarakis, and V . Tannen, “Provenance semirings,” inProceedings of the Twenty-Sixth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, ser. PODS ’07, 2007, pp. 31–40

    2007

  45. [45]

    OneProvenance: Efficient extraction of dynamic coarse-grained provenance from database query event logs,

    F. Psallidas, A. Agrawal, C. Sugunan, K. Ibrahim, K. Karanasos, J. Camacho-Rodr ´ıguez, A. Floratou, C. Curino, and R. Ramakrish- nan, “OneProvenance: Efficient extraction of dynamic coarse-grained provenance from database query event logs,”Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 3662–3675, 2023

    2023

  46. [46]

    Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms,

    C. Sandvig, K. Hamilton, K. Karahalios, and C. Langbort, “Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms,” inData and Discrimination: Converting Critical Concerns into Productive Inquiry, 2014

    2014

  47. [47]

    Actionable auditing: Investigating the impact of publicly naming biased performance results of commercial AI products,

    I. D. Raji and J. Buolamwini, “Actionable auditing: Investigating the impact of publicly naming biased performance results of commercial AI products,” inProceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, ser. AIES ’19, 2019, pp. 429–435

    2019

  48. [48]

    Data man- agement challenges in production machine learning,

    N. Polyzotis, S. Roy, S. E. Whang, and M. Zinkevich, “Data man- agement challenges in production machine learning,”SIGMOD Record, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 17–20, 2017

    2017

  49. [49]

    Hidden technical debt in machine learning systems,

    D. Sculley, G. Holt, D. Golovin, E. Davydov, T. Phillips, D. Ebner, V . Chaudhary, M. Young, J.-F. Crespo, and D. Dennison, “Hidden technical debt in machine learning systems,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 28, 2015, pp. 2503–2511

    2015

  50. [50]

    Make your database system dream of electric sheep: Towards self-driving operation,

    A. Pavlo, M. Butrovich, L. Ma, P. Menon, W. S. Lim, D. Van Aken, and W. Zhang, “Make your database system dream of electric sheep: Towards self-driving operation,”Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 3211–3221, 2021

    2021

  51. [51]

    One size does not fit all—a contingency approach to data governance,

    K. Weber, B. Otto, and H. ¨Osterle, “One size does not fit all—a contingency approach to data governance,”ACM Journal of Data and Information Quality, vol. 1, no. 1, 2009

    2009

  52. [52]

    Data governance: A conceptual framework, structured review, and research agenda,

    R. Abraham, J. Schneider, and J. vom Brocke, “Data governance: A conceptual framework, structured review, and research agenda,”Interna- tional Journal of Information Management, vol. 49, pp. 424–438, 2019

    2019

  53. [53]

    Data governance: Organizing data for trustworthy artificial intelligence,

    M. Janssen, P. Brous, E. Estevez, L. S. Barbosa, and T. Janowski, “Data governance: Organizing data for trustworthy artificial intelligence,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 3, p. 101493, 2020

    2020

  54. [54]

    Capturing and querying fine-grained provenance of preprocessing pipelines in data science,

    A. Chapman, P. Missier, G. Simonelli, and R. Torlone, “Capturing and querying fine-grained provenance of preprocessing pipelines in data science,”Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 507– 520, 2021

    2021

  55. [55]

    Algorithmic transparency via quantitative input influence: Theory and experiments with learning systems,

    A. Datta, S. Sen, and Y . Zick, “Algorithmic transparency via quantitative input influence: Theory and experiments with learning systems,” in2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2016, pp. 598–617

    2016

  56. [56]

    Croissant: A metadata format for ML-ready datasets,

    M. Akhtar, O. Benjelloun, C. Conforti, L. Foschini, J. Giner-Miguelez, P. Gijsbers, S. Goswami, N. Jain, M. Karamousadakis, M. Kuchnik, S. Krishna, S. Lesage, Q. Lhoest, P. Marcenac, M. Maskey, P. Mattson, L. Oala, H. Oderinwale, P. Ruyssen, T. Santos, R. Shinde, E. Simperl, A. Suresh, G. Thomas, S. Tykhonov, J. Vanschoren, S. Varma, J. van der Velde, S. ...

    2024

  57. [57]

    A standardized machine-readable dataset docu- mentation format for responsible AI,

    N. Jain, M. Akhtar, J. Giner-Miguelez, R. Shinde, J. Vanschoren, S. V ogler, S. Goswami, Y . Rao, T. Santos, L. Oala, M. Karamousadakis, M. Maskey, P. Marcenac, C. Conforti, M. Kuchnik, L. Aroyo, O. Ben- jelloun, and E. Simperl, “A standardized machine-readable dataset docu- mentation format for responsible AI,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16883, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Interventional fairness: Causal database repair for algorithmic fairness,

    B. Salimi, L. Rodriguez, B. Howe, and D. Suciu, “Interventional fairness: Causal database repair for algorithmic fairness,” inProceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Management of Data, ser. SIGMOD ’19, 2019, pp. 793–810

    2019

  59. [59]

    Tailoring data source distributions for fairness-aware data integration,

    F. Nargesian, A. Asudeh, and H. V . Jagadish, “Tailoring data source distributions for fairness-aware data integration,”Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 2519–2532, 2021

    2021

  60. [60]

    Fairness of exposure in rankings,

    A. Singh and T. Joachims, “Fairness of exposure in rankings,” in Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ser. KDD ’18, 2018, pp. 2219– 2228

    2018

  61. [61]

    Equity of attention: Amortizing individual fairness in rankings,

    A. J. Biega, K. P. Gummadi, and G. Weikum, “Equity of attention: Amortizing individual fairness in rankings,” inProceedings of the 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, ser. SIGIR ’18, 2018, pp. 405–414

    2018

  62. [62]

    HoloClean: Holistic data repairs with probabilistic inference,

    T. Rekatsinas, X. Chu, I. F. Ilyas, and C. R ´e, “HoloClean: Holistic data repairs with probabilistic inference,”Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 1190–1201, 2017

    2017

  63. [63]

    Active- Clean: Interactive data cleaning while learning convex loss models,

    S. Krishnan, J. Wang, E. Wu, M. J. Franklin, and K. Goldberg, “Active- Clean: Interactive data cleaning while learning convex loss models,” in Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Management of Data, ser. SIGMOD ’16, 2016, pp. 948–959

    2016

  64. [64]

    Confident learning: Es- timating uncertainty in dataset labels,

    C. G. Northcutt, L. Jiang, and I. L. Chuang, “Confident learning: Es- timating uncertainty in dataset labels,”Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 70, pp. 1373–1411, 2021

    2021

  65. [65]

    CRAG: Comprehensive RAG benchmark,

    X. Yang, K. Sun, H. Xin, Y . Sun, N. Bhalla, X. Chen, S. Choudhary, R. D. Gui, Z. W. Jiang, Z. Jiang, L. Kong, B. Moran, J. Wang, Y . E. Xu, A. Yan, C. Yang, E. Yuan, H. Zha, N. Tang, L. Chen, N. Scheffer, Y . Liu, N. Shah, R. Wanga, A. Kumar, W.-t. Yih, and X. L. Dong, “CRAG: Comprehensive RAG benchmark,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Syste...

    2024

  66. [66]

    The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship,

    M. D. Wilkinson, M. Dumontier, I. J. Aalbersberg, G. Appleton, M. Axton, A. Baak, N. Blomberg, J.-W. Boiten, L. B. da Silva Santos, P. E. Bourne, J. Bouwman, A. J. Brookes, T. Clark, M. Crosas, I. Dillo, O. Dumon, S. Edmunds, C. T. Evelo, R. Finkers, A. Gonzalez-Beltran, A. J. G. Gray, P. Groth, C. Goble, J. S. Grethe, J. Heringa, P. A. C. ’t Hoen, R. Hoo...

    2016

  67. [67]

    Data quality aware hierarchical federated reinforcement learning framework for dynamic treatment regimes,

    M. Li, X. Zhang, H. Ying, Y . Li, X. Han, and D. Yu, “Data quality aware hierarchical federated reinforcement learning framework for dynamic treatment regimes,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), 2023, pp. 1103–1108

    2023

  68. [68]

    Class-specific explainability for deep time series classifiers,

    R. Doddaiah, P. S. Parvatharaju, E. A. Rundensteiner, and T. Hartvigsen, “Class-specific explainability for deep time series classifiers,” in2022 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), 2022, pp. 101– 110

    2022

  69. [69]

    Equality of opportunity in super- vised learning,

    M. Hardt, E. Price, and N. Srebro, “Equality of opportunity in super- vised learning,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 29, 2016, pp. 3315–3323

    2016

  70. [70]

    Metric-free individual fairness with coop- erative contextual bandits,

    Q. Hu and H. Rangwala, “Metric-free individual fairness with coop- erative contextual bandits,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), 2020, pp. 182–191

    2020

  71. [71]

    Fair decision-making under uncertainty,

    W. Zhang and J. C. Weiss, “Fair decision-making under uncertainty,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), 2021, pp. 886–895

    2021

  72. [72]

    Do they understand them? an updated evaluation on nonbinary pronoun handling in large language models,

    X. Tang, Y . Ding, Z. Yang, Y . Chen, Y . Gu, W. Yang, M. Ju, X. Cao, Y . Liu, and W. Zhang, “Do they understand them? an updated evaluation on nonbinary pronoun handling in large language models,” inAI 2025: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. Springer Nature Singapore, 2025, pp. 204–219

    2025

  73. [73]

    Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustain- able development,

    United Nations, “Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustain- able development,” United Nations, 2015

    2030

  74. [74]

    Blueprint for an AI bill of rights: Making automated systems work for the american people,

    White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Blueprint for an AI bill of rights: Making automated systems work for the american people,” The White House, 2022

    2022

  75. [75]

    Leveraging hierarchical rep- resentations for preserving privacy and utility in text,

    O. Feyisetan, T. Diethe, and T. Drake, “Leveraging hierarchical rep- resentations for preserving privacy and utility in text,” in2019 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), 2019, pp. 210–219

    2019

  76. [76]

    Fairness through awareness,

    C. Dwork, M. Hardt, T. Pitassi, O. Reingold, and R. Zemel, “Fairness through awareness,” inProceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, ser. ITCS ’12, 2012, pp. 214–226

    2012

  77. [77]

    fair-LDP: Uncertainty-guided fairness and privacy for federated healthcare learning,

    D. Chen, Q. Zhang, L. M. Kaplan, A. Jøsang, D. H. Jeong, F. Chen, and J.-H. Cho, “fair-LDP: Uncertainty-guided fairness and privacy for federated healthcare learning,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), 2025, pp. 130–139

    2025

  78. [78]

    Delayed im- pact of fair machine learning,

    L. T. Liu, S. Dean, E. Rolf, M. Simchowitz, and M. Hardt, “Delayed im- pact of fair machine learning,” inProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ser. ICML ’18, 2018, pp. 3150–3158

    2018

  79. [79]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks,

    P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. K¨uttler, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, T. Rockt¨aschel, S. Riedel, and D. Kiela, “Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, 2020, pp. 9459–9474

    2020

  80. [80]

    From local to global: A graph RAG approach to query- focused summarization,

    D. Edge, H. Trinh, N. Cheng, J. Bradley, A. Chao, A. Mody, S. Truitt, and J. Larson, “From local to global: A graph RAG approach to query- focused summarization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.