Multisource AI Scorecard Table for System Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.03985v1
• Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 03:37:40 GMT
• Title: Multisource AI Scorecard Table for System Evaluation
• Authors: Erik Blasch, James Sung, Tao Nguyen
• Abstract summary: The paper describes a Multisource AI Scorecard Table (MAST) that provides the developer and user of an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) system with a standard checklist. The paper explores how the analytic tradecraft standards outlined in Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 203 can provide a framework for assessing the performance of an AI system.
• Score: 3.74397577716445
• License: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
• Abstract: The paper describes a Multisource AI Scorecard Table (MAST) that provides the developer and user of an artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) system with a standard checklist focused on the principles of good analysis adopted by the intelligence community (IC) to help promote the development of more understandable systems and engender trust in AI outputs. Such a scorecard enables a transparent, consistent, and meaningful understanding of AI tools applied for commercial and government use. A standard is built on compliance and agreement through policy, which requires buy-in from the stakeholders. While consistency for testing might only exist across a standard data set, the community requires discussion on verification and validation approaches which can lead to interpretability, explainability, and proper use. The paper explores how the analytic tradecraft standards outlined in Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 203 can provide a framework for assessing the performance of an AI system supporting various operational needs. These include sourcing, uncertainty, consistency, accuracy, and visualization. Three use cases are presented as notional examples that support security for comparative analysis.

Related papers

• Can We Trust AI Agents? An Experimental Study Towards Trustworthy LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems for AI Ethics [10.084913433923566]
  This study examines how trustworthiness-enhancing techniques affect ethical AI output generation. We design the prototype LLM-BMAS, where agents engage in structured discussions on real-world ethical AI issues. Discussions reveal terms like bias detection, transparency, accountability, user consent, compliance, fairness evaluation, and EU AI Act compliance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T20:17:59Z)
• Engineering Trustworthy AI: A Developer Guide for Empirical Risk Minimization [53.80919781981027]
  Key requirements for trustworthy AI can be translated into design choices for the components of empirical risk minimization. We hope to provide actionable guidance for building AI systems that meet emerging standards for trustworthiness of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T07:53:32Z)
• AI Cards: Towards an Applied Framework for Machine-Readable AI and Risk Documentation Inspired by the EU AI Act [2.1897070577406734]
  Despite its importance, there is a lack of standards and guidelines to assist with drawing up AI and risk documentation aligned with the AI Act. We propose AI Cards as a novel holistic framework for representing a given intended use of an AI system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T09:51:49Z)
• Testing autonomous vehicles and AI: perspectives and challenges from cybersecurity, transparency, robustness and fairness [53.91018508439669]
  The study explores the complexities of integrating Artificial Intelligence into Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) It examines the challenges introduced by AI components and the impact on testing procedures. The paper identifies significant challenges and suggests future directions for research and development of AI in AV technology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T08:29:42Z)
• PADTHAI-MM: A Principled Approach for Designing Trustable, Human-centered AI systems using the MAST Methodology [5.38932801848643]
  The Multisource AI Scorecard Table (MAST), a checklist rating system, addresses this gap in designing and evaluating AI-enabled decision support systems. We propose the Principled Approach for Designing Trustable Human-centered AI systems using MAST methodology. We show that MAST-guided design can improve trust perceptions, and that MAST criteria can be linked to performance, process, and purpose information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T23:15:44Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• Towards a Responsible AI Metrics Catalogue: A Collection of Metrics for AI Accountability [28.67753149592534]
  This study bridges the accountability gap by introducing our effort towards a comprehensive metrics catalogue. Our catalogue delineates process metrics that underpin procedural integrity, resource metrics that provide necessary tools and frameworks, and product metrics that reflect the outputs of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-22T04:43:16Z)
• Guideline for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence -- AI Assessment Catalog [0.0]
  It is clear that AI and business models based on it can only reach their full potential if AI applications are developed according to high quality standards. The issue of the trustworthiness of AI applications is crucial and is the subject of numerous major publications. This AI assessment catalog addresses exactly this point and is intended for two target groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-20T08:07:18Z)
• A Study of Situational Reasoning for Traffic Understanding [63.45021731775964]
  We devise three novel text-based tasks for situational reasoning in the traffic domain. We adopt four knowledge-enhanced methods that have shown generalization capability across language reasoning tasks in prior work. We provide in-depth analyses of model performance on data partitions and examine model predictions categorically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-05T01:01:12Z)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)
• Trustworthy AI [75.99046162669997]
  Brittleness to minor adversarial changes in the input data, ability to explain the decisions, address the bias in their training data, are some of the most prominent limitations. We propose the tutorial on Trustworthy AI to address six critical issues in enhancing user and public trust in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-02T20:04:18Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.