An AI System Evaluation Framework for Advancing AI Safety: Terminology, Taxonomy, Lifecycle Mapping

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05388v3
• Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 06:19:04 GMT
• Title: An AI System Evaluation Framework for Advancing AI Safety: Terminology, Taxonomy, Lifecycle Mapping
• Authors: Boming Xia, Qinghua Lu, Liming Zhu, Zhenchang Xing,
• Abstract summary: This paper proposes a framework for AI system evaluation comprising three components. This framework catalyses a deeper discourse on AI system evaluation beyond model-centric approaches.
• Score: 23.92695048003188
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The advent of advanced AI underscores the urgent need for comprehensive safety evaluations, necessitating collaboration across communities (i.e., AI, software engineering, and governance). However, divergent practices and terminologies across these communities, combined with the complexity of AI systems-of which models are only a part-and environmental affordances (e.g., access to tools), obstruct effective communication and comprehensive evaluation. This paper proposes a framework for AI system evaluation comprising three components: 1) harmonised terminology to facilitate communication across communities involved in AI safety evaluation; 2) a taxonomy identifying essential elements for AI system evaluation; 3) a mapping between AI lifecycle, stakeholders, and requisite evaluations for accountable AI supply chain. This framework catalyses a deeper discourse on AI system evaluation beyond model-centric approaches.

Related papers

• Evaluating AI Evaluation: Perils and Prospects [8.086002368038658]
  This paper contends that the prevalent evaluation methods for these systems are fundamentally inadequate. I argue that a reformation is required in the way we evaluate AI systems and that we should look towards cognitive sciences for inspiration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-12T12:37:13Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment: A Systematic Review for Clarifications, Framework, and Future Directions [101.67121669727354]
  Recent advancements in AI have highlighted the importance of guiding AI systems towards the intended goals, ethical principles, and values of individuals and groups, a concept broadly recognized as alignment. The lack of clarified definitions and scopes of human-AI alignment poses a significant obstacle, hampering collaborative efforts across research domains to achieve this alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T16:03:25Z)
• Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems [88.80306881112313]
  We will introduce and define a family of approaches to AI safety, which we will refer to as guaranteed safe (GS) AI. The core feature of these approaches is that they aim to produce AI systems which are equipped with high-assurance quantitative safety guarantees. We outline a number of approaches for creating each of these three core components, describe the main technical challenges, and suggest a number of potential solutions to them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T17:38:32Z)
• Quantifying AI Vulnerabilities: A Synthesis of Complexity, Dynamical Systems, and Game Theory [0.0]
  We propose a novel approach that introduces three metrics: System Complexity Index (SCI), Lyapunov Exponent for AI Stability (LEAIS), and Nash Equilibrium Robustness (NER) SCI quantifies the inherent complexity of an AI system, LEAIS captures its stability and sensitivity to perturbations, and NER evaluates its strategic robustness against adversarial manipulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-07T07:05:59Z)
• 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)
• Artificial intelligence in government: Concepts, standards, and a unified framework [0.0]
  Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) hold the promise of transforming government. It is critical that new AI systems behave in alignment with the normative expectations of society.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-31T10:57:20Z)
• A Human-Centric Assessment Framework for AI [11.065260433086024]
  There is no agreed standard on how explainable AI systems should be assessed. Inspired by the Turing test, we introduce a human-centric assessment framework. This setup can serve as framework for a wide range of human-centric AI system assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T12:59:13Z)
• 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)
• Towards an Interface Description Template for AI-enabled Systems [77.34726150561087]
  Reuse is a common system architecture approach that seeks to instantiate a system architecture with existing components. There is currently no framework that guides the selection of necessary information to assess their portability to operate in a system different than the one for which the component was originally purposed. We present ongoing work on establishing an interface description template that captures the main information of an AI-enabled component.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-13T20:30:26Z)
• AAAI FSS-19: Human-Centered AI: Trustworthiness of AI Models and Data Proceedings [8.445274192818825]
  It is crucial for predictive models to be uncertainty-aware and yield trustworthy predictions. The focus of this symposium was on AI systems to improve data quality and technical robustness and safety. submissions from broadly defined areas also discussed approaches addressing requirements such as explainable models, human trust and ethical aspects of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-15T15:30:29Z)

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.