Determining Absence of Unreasonable Risk: Approval Guidelines for an Automated Driving System Deployment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09880v2
• Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 22:17:49 GMT
• Title: Determining Absence of Unreasonable Risk: Approval Guidelines for an Automated Driving System Deployment
• Authors: Francesca Favaro, Scott Schnelle, Laura Fraade-Blanar, Trent Victor, Mauricio Peña, Nick Webb, Holland Broce, Craig Paterson, Dan Smith,
• Abstract summary: This paper provides an overview of how the determination of absence of unreasonable risk can be operationalized.<n> Readiness determination is, at its core, a risk assessment process.<n>The paper proposes methodological criteria to ground the readiness review process for an ADS release.
• Score: 1.2499098866326646
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper provides an overview of how the determination of absence of unreasonable risk can be operationalized. It complements previous theoretical work published by existing developers of Automated Driving Systems (ADS) on the overall engineering practices and methodologies for readiness determination. Readiness determination is, at its core, a risk assessment process. It is aimed at evaluating the residual risk associated with a new deployment. The paper proposes methodological criteria to ground the readiness review process for an ADS release. While informed by Waymo's experience in this domain, the criteria presented are agnostic of any specific ADS technological solution and/or architectural choice, to support broad implementation by others in the industry. The paper continues with a discussion on governance and decision-making toward approval of a new release candidate for the ADS. The implementation of the presented criteria requires the existence of appropriate safety management practices in addition to many other cultural, procedural, and operational considerations. As such, the paper is concluded by a statement of limitations for those wishing to replicate part or all of its content.

Related papers

• An Overview of the Risk-based Model of AI Governance [0.0]
  The 'Analysis' section proposes several criticisms of the risk based approach to AI governance.<n>It argues that the notion of risk is problematic as its inherent normativity reproduces dominant and harmful narratives about whose interests matter.<n>This paper concludes with the suggestion that existing risk governance scholarship can provide valuable insights toward the improvement of the risk based AI governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-21T06:56:04Z)
• Explainable AI Systems Must Be Contestable: Here's How to Make It Happen [2.5875936082584623]
  This paper presents the first rigorous formal definition of contestability in explainable AI.<n>We introduce a modular framework of by-design and post-hoc mechanisms spanning human-centered interfaces, technical processes, and organizational architectures.<n>Our work equips practitioners with the tools to embed genuine recourse and accountability into AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T13:32:05Z)
• Doing Audits Right? The Role of Sampling and Legal Content Analysis in Systemic Risk Assessments and Independent Audits in the Digital Services Act [0.0]
  The European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) requires online platforms to undergo internal and external audits.<n>This article evaluates the strengths and limitations of different qualitative and quantitative methods for auditing systemic risks.<n>We argue that content sampling, combined with legal and empirical analysis, offers a viable method for risk-specific audits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-06T15:02:54Z)
• Adapting Probabilistic Risk Assessment for AI [0.0]
  General-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) systems present an urgent risk management challenge.<n>Current methods often rely on selective testing and undocumented assumptions about risk priorities.<n>This paper introduces the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) for AI framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-25T17:59:14Z)
• Understanding and Mitigating Risks of Generative AI in Financial Services [22.673239064487667]
  We aim to highlight AI content safety considerations specific to the financial services domain and outline an associated AI content risk taxonomy.<n>We evaluate how existing open-source technical guardrail solutions cover this taxonomy by assessing them on data collected via red-teaming activities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-25T16:55:51Z)
• Securing External Deeper-than-black-box GPAI Evaluations [49.1574468325115]
  This paper examines the critical challenges and potential solutions for conducting secure and effective external evaluations of general-purpose AI (GPAI) models.<n>With the exponential growth in size, capability, reach and accompanying risk, ensuring accountability, safety, and public trust requires frameworks that go beyond traditional black-box methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T16:13:45Z)
• AILuminate: Introducing v1.0 of the AI Risk and Reliability Benchmark from MLCommons [62.374792825813394]
  This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability.<n>The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T05:58:52Z)
• ARTAI: An Evaluation Platform to Assess Societal Risk of Recommender Algorithms [6.697530342907843]
  ARTAI is an evaluation environment that enables large-scale assessments of recommender algorithms. This paper presents ARTAI, an evaluation environment that enables large-scale assessments of recommender algorithms to identify harmful patterns in how content is distributed online.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-19T01:39:51Z)
• RAGEval: Scenario Specific RAG Evaluation Dataset Generation Framework [66.93260816493553]
  This paper introduces RAGEval, a framework designed to assess RAG systems across diverse scenarios.<n>With a focus on factual accuracy, we propose three novel metrics: Completeness, Hallucination, and Irrelevance.<n> Experimental results show that RAGEval outperforms zero-shot and one-shot methods in terms of clarity, safety, conformity, and richness of generated samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T13:35:11Z)
• An evidence-based methodology for human rights impact assessment (HRIA) in the development of AI data-intensive systems [49.1574468325115]
  We show that human rights already underpin the decisions in the field of data use. This work presents a methodology and a model for a Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) The proposed methodology is tested in concrete case-studies to prove its feasibility and effectiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-30T16:27:52Z)
• ABI Approach: Automatic Bias Identification in Decision-Making Under Risk based in an Ontology of Behavioral Economics [46.57327530703435]
  Risk seeking preferences for losses, driven by biases such as loss aversion, pose challenges and can result in severe negative consequences. This research introduces the ABI approach, a novel solution designed to support organizational decision-makers by automatically identifying and explaining risk seeking preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T23:53:46Z)
• Accountability in Offline Reinforcement Learning: Explaining Decisions with a Corpus of Examples [70.84093873437425]
  This paper introduces the Accountable Offline Controller (AOC) that employs the offline dataset as the Decision Corpus. AOC operates effectively in low-data scenarios, can be extended to the strictly offline imitation setting, and displays qualities of both conservation and adaptability. We assess AOC's performance in both simulated and real-world healthcare scenarios, emphasizing its capability to manage offline control tasks with high levels of performance while maintaining accountability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T17:20:32Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)
• Pass-Fail Criteria for Scenario-Based Testing of Automated Driving Systems [0.0]
  This paper sets out a framework for assessing an automated driving system's behavioural safety in normal operation. Risk-based rules cannot give a pass/fail decision from a single test case. This considers statistical performance across many individual tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-19T13:13:08Z)

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.