Healthy skepticism in AI: a data visualization research agenda

We argue that the AI community is now ready to move beyond benchmarking and consolidate scattered efforts in model analysis into a systematic discipline, a direction we term Model Science. Complex AI models now serve billions of users, yet our understanding of how they work lags far behind our ability to deploy them. Decades of benchmark-driven research have delivered remarkable progress: extensive leaderboards, a wide range of performance metrics, tracking capability gains across diverse tasks; yet this success has also revealed the limits of benchmarks as they tell us whether models perform but not why they succeed or fail, they miss critical failure modes, such as hallucinations or shortcuts. Precedents from established sciences point the way forward: cognitive science shows that understanding complex systems requires complementary levels of analysis; neuroscience demonstrates that deep study of single cases reveals what population studies miss; medicine teaches that specialised training must develop alongside research practice; and agriculture models how shared infrastructure and principles enable cumulative progress. These lessons inform three foundations for Model Science. First, we propose to consolidate research around four functional perspectives: Verify, Explore, Steer, and Refine that address complementary questions about model behaviour. Second, we discuss the required infrastructure for cumulative knowledge: catalogues of datasets, models and findings. Third, we highlight the need for deep analysis of individual model instances, not just model families, because single cases can reveal what population studies miss.

Human feedback is critical for aligning AI systems to human values. As AI capabilities improve and AI is used to tackle more challenging tasks, verifying quality and safety becomes increasingly challenging. This paper explores how we can leverage AI to improve the quality of human oversight. We focus on an important safety problem that is already challenging for humans: fact-verification of AI outputs. We find that combining AI ratings and human ratings based on AI rater confidence is better than relying on either alone. Giving humans an AI fact-verification assistant further improves their accuracy, but the type of assistance matters. Displaying AI explanation, confidence, and labels leads to over-reliance, but just showing search results and evidence fosters more appropriate trust. These results have implications for Amplified Oversight -- the challenge of combining humans and AI to supervise AI systems even as they surpass human expert performance.

AI systems are increasingly employed as decision aids, decision delegates, or autonomous decision-makers. This position paper argues that in many settings, particularly high-stakes decision-making, we need accurate cognitively-aligned AI systems that reason similarly to their users, and faithfully communicate their reasoning. We review evidence that cognitive alignment improves understandability and trustworthiness, and provide new survey data showing that many users find cognitive alignment "essential" when an AI's rationale for a judgment or action is important to them. We outline the gaps between existing alignment methods and what is needed to achieve cognitive alignment, and present a research agenda to address these gaps. We argue that cognitive misalignment represents a likely impediment to AI adoption in many envisioned applications, and that addressing it is important for creating AI systems on which users are both willing and justified to rely.