Usage Governance Advisor: From Intent to AI Governance

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.01957v2
• Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 14:49:53 GMT
• Title: Usage Governance Advisor: From Intent to AI Governance
• Authors: Elizabeth M. Daly, Sean Rooney, Seshu Tirupathi, Luis Garces-Erice, Inge Vejsbjerg, Frank Bagehorn, Dhaval Salwala, Christopher Giblin, Mira L. Wolf-Bauwens, Ioana Giurgiu, Michael Hind, Peter Urbanetz,
• Abstract summary: evaluating the safety of AI systems is a pressing concern for organizations deploying them. We present Usage Governance Advisor which creates semi-structured governance information.
• Score: 4.49852442764084
• License:
• Abstract: Evaluating the safety of AI Systems is a pressing concern for organizations deploying them. In addition to the societal damage done by the lack of fairness of those systems, deployers are concerned about the legal repercussions and the reputational damage incurred by the use of models that are unsafe. Safety covers both what a model does; e.g., can it be used to reveal personal information from its training set, and how a model was built; e.g., was it only trained on licensed data sets. Determining the safety of an AI system requires gathering information from a wide set of heterogeneous sources including safety benchmarks and technical documentation for the set of models used in that system. In addition, responsible use is encouraged through mechanisms that advise and help the user to take mitigating actions where safety risks are detected. We present Usage Governance Advisor which creates semi-structured governance information, identifies and prioritizes risks according to the intended use case, recommends appropriate benchmarks and risk assessments and importantly proposes mitigation strategies and actions.

Related papers

• Risk Sources and Risk Management Measures in Support of Standards for General-Purpose AI Systems [2.3266896180922187]
  We compile an extensive catalog of risk sources and risk management measures for general-purpose AI systems. This work involves identifying technical, operational, and societal risks across model development, training, and deployment stages. The catalog is released under a public domain license for ease of direct use by stakeholders in AI governance and standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T21:32:56Z)
• Improving the Shortest Plank: Vulnerability-Aware Adversarial Training for Robust Recommender System [60.719158008403376]
  Vulnerability-aware Adversarial Training (VAT) is designed to defend against poisoning attacks in recommender systems. VAT employs a novel vulnerability-aware function to estimate users' vulnerability based on the degree to which the system fits them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-26T02:24:03Z)
• EARBench: Towards Evaluating Physical Risk Awareness for Task Planning of Foundation Model-based Embodied AI Agents [53.717918131568936]
  Embodied artificial intelligence (EAI) integrates advanced AI models into physical entities for real-world interaction. Foundation models as the "brain" of EAI agents for high-level task planning have shown promising results. However, the deployment of these agents in physical environments presents significant safety challenges. This study introduces EARBench, a novel framework for automated physical risk assessment in EAI scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T13:19:37Z)
• "Glue pizza and eat rocks" -- Exploiting Vulnerabilities in Retrieval-Augmented Generative Models [74.05368440735468]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generative (RAG) models enhance Large Language Models (LLMs) In this paper, we demonstrate a security threat where adversaries can exploit the openness of these knowledge bases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T05:36:23Z)
• Affirmative safety: An approach to risk management for high-risk AI [6.133009503054252]
  We argue that entities developing or deploying high-risk AI systems should be required to present evidence of affirmative safety. We propose a risk management approach for advanced AI in which model developers must provide evidence that their activities keep certain risks below regulator-set thresholds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-14T20:48:55Z)
• Leveraging Traceability to Integrate Safety Analysis Artifacts into the Software Development Process [51.42800587382228]
  Safety assurance cases (SACs) can be challenging to maintain during system evolution. We propose a solution that leverages software traceability to connect relevant system artifacts to safety analysis models. We elicit design rationales for system changes to help safety stakeholders analyze the impact of system changes on safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-14T16:03:27Z)
• Foveate, Attribute, and Rationalize: Towards Physically Safe and Trustworthy AI [76.28956947107372]
  Covertly unsafe text is an area of particular interest, as such text may arise from everyday scenarios and are challenging to detect as harmful. We propose FARM, a novel framework leveraging external knowledge for trustworthy rationale generation in the context of safety. Our experiments show that FARM obtains state-of-the-art results on the SafeText dataset, showing absolute improvement in safety classification accuracy by 5.9%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T17:51:47Z)
• Assurance Cases as Foundation Stone for Auditing AI-enabled and Autonomous Systems: Workshop Results and Political Recommendations for Action from the ExamAI Project [2.741266294612776]
  We investigate the way safety standards define safety measures to be implemented against software faults. Functional safety standards use Safety Integrity Levels (SILs) to define which safety measures shall be implemented. We propose the use of assurance cases to argue that the individually selected and applied measures are sufficient.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-17T10:05:07Z)
• Risk Management Framework for Machine Learning Security [7.678455181587705]
  Adversarial attacks for machine learning models have become a highly studied topic both in academia and industry. In this paper, we outline a novel framework to guide the risk management process for organizations reliant on machine learning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-09T06:21:34Z)
• Evaluating the Safety of Deep Reinforcement Learning Models using Semi-Formal Verification [81.32981236437395]
  We present a semi-formal verification approach for decision-making tasks based on interval analysis. Our method obtains comparable results over standard benchmarks with respect to formal verifiers. Our approach allows to efficiently evaluate safety properties for decision-making models in practical applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-19T11:18:06Z)

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.