Establishing and Evaluating Trustworthy AI: Overview and Research Challenges

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.09973v1
• Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 06:05:52 GMT
• Title: Establishing and Evaluating Trustworthy AI: Overview and Research Challenges
• Authors: Dominik Kowald, Sebastian Scher, Viktoria Pammer-Schindler, Peter Müllner, Kerstin Waxnegger, Lea Demelius, Angela Fessl, Maximilian Toller, Inti Gabriel Mendoza Estrada, Ilija Simic, Vedran Sabol, Andreas Truegler, Eduardo Veas, Roman Kern, Tomislav Nad, Simone Kopeinik,
• Abstract summary: Some AI systems have yielded unexpected or undesirable outcomes or have been used in questionable manners. This paper synthesizes existing conceptualizations of trustworthy AI along six requirements. It aims to serve as a reference for a broad audience and as a basis for future research directions.
• Score: 4.806063079434686
• License:
• Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies (re-)shape modern life, driving innovation in a wide range of sectors. However, some AI systems have yielded unexpected or undesirable outcomes or have been used in questionable manners. As a result, there has been a surge in public and academic discussions about aspects that AI systems must fulfill to be considered trustworthy. In this paper, we synthesize existing conceptualizations of trustworthy AI along six requirements: 1) human agency and oversight, 2) fairness and non-discrimination, 3) transparency and explainability, 4) robustness and accuracy, 5) privacy and security, and 6) accountability. For each one, we provide a definition, describe how it can be established and evaluated, and discuss requirement-specific research challenges. Finally, we conclude this analysis by identifying overarching research challenges across the requirements with respect to 1) interdisciplinary research, 2) conceptual clarity, 3) context-dependency, 4) dynamics in evolving systems, and 5) investigations in real-world contexts. Thus, this paper synthesizes and consolidates a wide-ranging and active discussion currently taking place in various academic sub-communities and public forums. It aims to serve as a reference for a broad audience and as a basis for future research directions.

Related papers

• Unraveling the Nuances of AI Accountability: A Synthesis of Dimensions Across Disciplines [0.0]
  We review current research across multiple disciplines and identify key dimensions of accountability in the context of AI. We reveal six themes with 13 corresponding dimensions and additional accountability facilitators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T18:08:39Z)
• Trustworthy and Responsible AI for Human-Centric Autonomous Decision-Making Systems [2.444630714797783]
  We review and discuss the intricacies of AI biases, definitions, methods of detection and mitigation, and metrics for evaluating bias. We also discuss open challenges with regard to the trustworthiness and widespread application of AI across diverse domains of human-centric decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-28T06:04:25Z)
• Aligning Cyber Space with Physical World: A Comprehensive Survey on Embodied AI [129.08019405056262]
  Embodied Artificial Intelligence (Embodied AI) is crucial for achieving Artificial Intelligence (AGI) MLMs andWMs have attracted significant attention due to their remarkable perception, interaction, and reasoning capabilities. In this survey, we give a comprehensive exploration of the latest advancements in Embodied AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T14:14:47Z)
• OlympicArena: Benchmarking Multi-discipline Cognitive Reasoning for Superintelligent AI [73.75520820608232]
  We introduce OlympicArena, which includes 11,163 bilingual problems across both text-only and interleaved text-image modalities. These challenges encompass a wide range of disciplines spanning seven fields and 62 international Olympic competitions, rigorously examined for data leakage. Our evaluations reveal that even advanced models like GPT-4o only achieve a 39.97% overall accuracy, illustrating current AI limitations in complex reasoning and multimodal integration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T16:20:53Z)
• Ten Hard Problems in Artificial Intelligence We Must Get Right [72.99597122935903]
  We explore the AI2050 "hard problems" that block the promise of AI and cause AI risks. For each problem, we outline the area, identify significant recent work, and suggest ways forward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T23:16:41Z)
• Ethical Framework for Harnessing the Power of AI in Healthcare and Beyond [0.0]
  This comprehensive research article rigorously investigates the ethical dimensions intricately linked to the rapid evolution of AI technologies. Central to this article is the proposition of a conscientious AI framework, meticulously crafted to accentuate values of transparency, equity, answerability, and a human-centric orientation. The article unequivocally accentuates the pressing need for globally standardized AI ethics principles and frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-31T18:12:12Z)
• Connecting the Dots in Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: From AI Principles, Ethics, and Key Requirements to Responsible AI Systems and Regulation [22.921683578188645]
  We argue that attaining truly trustworthy AI concerns the trustworthiness of all processes and actors that are part of the system's life cycle. A more holistic vision contemplates four essential axes: the global principles for ethical use and development of AI-based systems, a philosophical take on AI ethics, and a risk-based approach to AI regulation. Our multidisciplinary vision of trustworthy AI culminates in a debate on the diverging views published lately about the future of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-02T09:49:53Z)
• A.I. Robustness: a Human-Centered Perspective on Technological Challenges and Opportunities [8.17368686298331]
  Robustness of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems remains elusive and constitutes a key issue that impedes large-scale adoption. We introduce three concepts to organize and describe the literature both from a fundamental and applied point of view. We highlight the central role of humans in evaluating and enhancing AI robustness, considering the necessary knowledge humans can provide.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T10:00:51Z)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
• Metaethical Perspectives on 'Benchmarking' AI Ethics [81.65697003067841]
  Benchmarks are seen as the cornerstone for measuring technical progress in Artificial Intelligence (AI) research. An increasingly prominent research area in AI is ethics, which currently has no set of benchmarks nor commonly accepted way for measuring the 'ethicality' of an AI system. We argue that it makes more sense to talk about 'values' rather than 'ethics' when considering the possible actions of present and future AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T14:36:39Z)
• 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)

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.