Recent advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP) have underscored the crucial role of high-quality datasets in building large language models (LLMs). However, while extensive resources and analyses exist for English, the landscape for East Asian languages - particularly Chinese, Japanese, and Korean (CJK) - remains fragmented and underexplored, despite these languages together serving over 1.6 billion speakers. To address this gap, we investigate the HuggingFace ecosystem from a cross-linguistic perspective, focusing on how cultural norms, research environments, and institutional practices shape dataset availability and quality. Drawing on more than 3,300 datasets, we employ quantitative and qualitative methods to examine how these factors drive distinct creation and curation patterns across Chinese, Japanese, and Korean NLP communities. Our findings highlight the large-scale and often institution-driven nature of Chinese datasets, grassroots community-led development in Korean NLP, and an entertainment- and subculture-focused emphasis on Japanese collections. By uncovering these patterns, we reveal practical strategies for enhancing dataset documentation, licensing clarity, and cross-lingual resource sharing - ultimately guiding more effective and culturally attuned LLM development in East Asia. We conclude by discussing best practices for future dataset curation and collaboration, aiming to strengthen resource development across all three languages.

The authors state here that they bear all responsibility in case of violation of rights, etc., and confirm that this We aim to extend the PowerGraph with new datasets and include additional power grid analyses, including solutions to the unit commitment problem. Over time, we plan to release new versions of the datasets and provide updates to the results for both the GNN accuracy and the explainability analysis. The authors give public free access to the PowerGraph dataset. We run a hyper-parameters grid search over different GNN models, using torch-geometric 2.3.0 [

In this section, we follow the Datasheets for Datasets framework Gebru et al., 2020 to document the Who created the dataset (e.g., which team, research group) and on behalf of which Who funded the creation of the dataset? This work is funded by Digital Futures in the project EO-AI4GlobalChange. What do the instances that comprise the dataset represent (e.g., documents, photos, Each instance is one image consisting of 23 channels. How many instances are there in total (of each type, if appropriate)? There are 13 607 images in total.

I liked that it was a puzzle.

Dataset transparency is a key enabler of responsible AI, but insights into multimodal dataset attributes that impact trustworthy and ethical aspects of AI applications remain scarce and are difficult to compare across datasets. To address this challenge, we introduce Trustworthy and Ethical Dataset Indicators (TEDI) that facilitate the systematic, empirical analysis of dataset documentation. TEDI encompasses 143 fine-grained indicators that characterize trustworthy and ethical attributes of multimodal datasets and their collection processes. The indicators are framed to extract verifiable information from dataset documentation. Using TEDI, we manually annotated and analyzed over 100 multimodal datasets that include human voices. We further annotated data sourcing, size, and modality details to gain insights into the factors that shape trustworthy and ethical dimensions across datasets. We find that only a select few datasets have documented attributes and practices pertaining to consent, privacy, and harmful content indicators. The extent to which these and other ethical indicators are addressed varies based on the data collection method, with documentation of datasets collected via crowdsourced and direct collection approaches being more likely to mention them. Scraping dominates scale at the cost of ethical indicators, but is not the only viable collection method. Our approach and empirical insights contribute to increasing dataset transparency along trustworthy and ethical dimensions and pave the way for automating the tedious task of extracting information from dataset documentation in future.

ML/AI is the field of computer science and computer engineering that arguably received the most attention and funding over the last decade. Data is the key element of ML/AI, so it is becoming increasingly important to ensure that users are fully aware of the quality of the datasets that they use, and of the process generating them, so that possible negative impacts on downstream effects can be tracked, analysed, and, where possible, mitigated. One of the tools that can be useful in this perspective is dataset documentation. The aim of this work is to investigate the state of dataset documentation practices, measuring the completeness of the documentation of several popular datasets in ML/AI repositories. We created a dataset documentation schema -- the Documentation Test Sheet (DTS) -- that identifies the information that should always be attached to a dataset (to ensure proper dataset choice and informed use), according to relevant studies in the literature. We verified 100 popular datasets from four different repositories with the DTS to investigate which information was present. Overall, we observed a lack of relevant documentation, especially about the context of data collection and data processing, highlighting a paucity of transparency.

Recent regulatory initiatives like the European AI Act and relevant voices in the Machine Learning (ML) community stress the need to describe datasets along several key dimensions for trustworthy AI, such as the provenance processes and social concerns. However, this information is typically presented as unstructured text in accompanying documentation, hampering their automated analysis and processing. In this work, we explore using large language models (LLM) and a set of prompting strategies to automatically extract these dimensions from documents and enrich the dataset description with them. Our approach could aid data publishers and practitioners in creating machine-readable documentation to improve the discoverability of their datasets, assess their compliance with current AI regulations, and improve the overall quality of ML models trained on them. In this paper, we evaluate the approach on 12 scientific dataset papers published in two scientific journals (Nature's Scientific Data and Elsevier's Data in Brief) using two different LLMs (GPT3.5 and Flan-UL2). Results show good accuracy with our prompt extraction strategies. Concrete results vary depending on the dimensions, but overall, GPT3.5 shows slightly better accuracy (81,21%) than FLAN-UL2 (69,13%) although it is more prone to hallucinations. We have released an open-source tool implementing our approach and a replication package, including the experiments' code and results, in an open-source repository.

Advances in machine learning are closely tied to the creation of datasets. While data documentation is widely recognized as essential to the reliability, reproducibility, and transparency of ML, we lack a systematic empirical understanding of current dataset documentation practices. To shed light on this question, here we take Hugging Face -- one of the largest platforms for sharing and collaborating on ML models and datasets -- as a prominent case study. By analyzing all 7,433 dataset documentation on Hugging Face, our investigation provides an overview of the Hugging Face dataset ecosystem and insights into dataset documentation practices, yielding 5 main findings: (1) The dataset card completion rate shows marked heterogeneity correlated with dataset popularity. (2) A granular examination of each section within the dataset card reveals that the practitioners seem to prioritize Dataset Description and Dataset Structure sections, while the Considerations for Using the Data section receives the lowest proportion of content. (3) By analyzing the subsections within each section and utilizing topic modeling to identify key topics, we uncover what is discussed in each section, and underscore significant themes encompassing both technical and social impacts, as well as limitations within the Considerations for Using the Data section. (4) Our findings also highlight the need for improved accessibility and reproducibility of datasets in the Usage sections. (5) In addition, our human annotation evaluation emphasizes the pivotal role of comprehensive dataset content in shaping individuals' perceptions of a dataset card's overall quality. Overall, our study offers a unique perspective on analyzing dataset documentation through large-scale data science analysis and underlines the need for more thorough dataset documentation in machine learning research.