PreprintCited by 2,474Research Data Management PracticesScientific Computing and Data ManagementSemantic Web and Ontologies

Datasheets for Datasets

Open access
Gebru, Timnit, Morgenstern, Jamie, Vecchione, Briana, Vaughan, Jennifer Wortman, Wallach, Hanna, Daumé, Hal, Crawford, Kate·2018·arXiv

Abstract

The machine learning community currently has no standardized process for documenting datasets, which can lead to severe consequences in high-stakes domains. To address this gap, we propose datasheets for datasets. In the electronics industry, every component, no matter how simple or complex, is accompanied with a datasheet that describes its operating characteristics, test results, recommended uses, and other information. By analogy, we propose that every dataset be accompanied with a datasheet that documents its motivation, composition, collection process, recommended uses, and so on. Datasheets for datasets will facilitate better communication between dataset creators and dataset consumers, and encourage the machine learning community to prioritize transparency and accountability.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1803.09010

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The electronic hardware industry provides datasheets with detailed characterizations of components' performances under different test conditions.

    “the electronic hardware industry provides datasheets with detailed characterizations of components' performances under different test conditions.”

    From Model Cards for Model Reporting (2019) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Introduction (p. 1) says that electronics-industry components have datasheets describing their operating characteristics and test results. It does not specify that those results characterize performance under different test conditions. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Datasheets for Data Sets (Gebru et al., 2018) and Model Cards (Mitchell et al., 2019) are two examples of standardized reporting frameworks that may accompany clinical technologies.

    “For example, Datasheets for Data Sets (Gebru et al., 2018) and Model Cards (Mitchell et al., 2019) are two examples of standardized reporting frameworks that may accompany clinical technologies.”
  • Recently, researchers have proposed standardized forms of communicating characteristics of datasets used in machine learning.

    “Recently, researchers have proposed standardized forms of communicating characteristics of datasets used in machine learning [3, 21, 28] to help users understand the context in which the datasets should be used.”

    From Model Cards for Model Reporting (2019) · cites this paper as [21]

  • Many mature industries have developed standardized methods of benchmarking various systems under different conditions.

    “Many mature industries have developed standardized methods of benchmarking various systems under different conditions.”

    From Model Cards for Model Reporting (2019) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Introduction (p. 1) discusses how datasets affect machine-learning performance under different deployment conditions, and Impact and Challenges (p. 10) discusses documentation guidance. Neither passage says that mature industries have developed standardized methods for benchmarking systems under different conditions. Searches for that claim and for industry testing practices found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [7][7] Yang Trista Cao and Hal Daumé, III. 2020. Toward Gender-Inclusive Coreference Resolution. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) . -
  2. [15][15] Kenneth Holstein, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hal Daumé III, Miroslav Dudík, and Hanna M. Wallach. 2019. Improving Fairness in Machine Learning Systems: What Do Industry Practitioners Need?. In 2019 ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . -
  3. [26][26] Semih Yagcioglu, Aykut Erdem, Erkut Erdem, and Nazli Ikizler-Cinbis. 2018. RecipeQA: A Challenge Dataset for Multimodal Comprehension of Cooking Recipes. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé, H., & Crawford, K.
Affiliations
  • DAIR Institute (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Microsoft Research New York City (United States) (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
Volume
64
Issue
12
Pages
86-92
ISSN
0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2795038878
Cited by
2,474
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 795 · 2025: 402 · 2024: 298 · 2023: 379 · 2022: 221 · 2021: 216 · 2020: 91 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 11
FWCI
251.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Communications of the ACM (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Semantic Web and Ontologies
Keywords
dataset documentation, data provenance, data sharing, data reuse, metadata

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review