On AI Safety and Security Technical Debt in Engineering AI-Enabled Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.23365v1
• Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2026 21:15:41 GMT
• Title: On AI Safety and Security Technical Debt in Engineering AI-Enabled Systems
• Abstract summary: AI Technical Debts (AITDs) arise from root causes spanning data governance, model implementation, algorithm design, architectural decisions, operational processes, documentation practices, and testing adequacy.<n>Unlike conventional technical debt, many AITDs are latent and propagate across tightly coupled AI pipelines, leading to maintenance challenges, reliability degradation, and heightened safety or security risks.<n>We introduce AITD-MAP, an integrated framework that connects the AITD taxonomy, quality and risk impacts, and mitigation strategies into a unified structure for risk-aware AI engineering.
• Score: 11.878368077620337
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, autonomous driving, finance, and education. While these systems offer powerful data-driven and adaptive capabilities, their complexity, rapid evolution, and dependence on dynamic data pipelines introduce new forms of engineering liability collectively referred to as AI Technical Debts (AITDs). AITDs arise from root causes spanning data governance, model implementation, algorithm design, architectural decisions, operational processes, documentation practices, and testing adequacy. Unlike conventional technical debt, many AITDs are latent and propagate across tightly coupled AI pipelines, leading to maintenance challenges, reliability degradation, and heightened safety or security risks. Guided by the principles of AI Trust, Risk, and Security Management (AI TRiSM), this study reinterprets technical debt through the interconnected dimensions of trustworthiness, focusing on AI safety and security technical debts. We conduct a systematic review of 60 primary studies and identify 31 distinct types of AITD, which are organized into a root-cause-oriented taxonomy comprising seven classes. The analysis examines how these debts map to 18 trust-related concerns, including 6 safety hazards and 12 security vulnerabilities. To support mitigation, the review synthesizes 34 actionable guidelines (8 safety and 26 security) targeting the prevention, detection, and reduction of AITDs across the AI lifecycle. Building on these findings, we introduce AITD-MAP, an integrated framework that connects the AITD taxonomy, quality and risk impacts, and mitigation strategies into a unified structure for risk-aware AI engineering. The framework aims to assist AI software engineers in making AI safety and security technical debts visible, understanding their root causes, and mitigating their presence.

Related papers

• AI Deployment Accountability Engineering: A Vision for Accountable AI in Safety-Critical Socio-Technical Systems [14.280538199149634]
  This vision paper introduces AI Deployment Accountability Engineering (ADAE)<n>ADAE is a proposed AI engineering subdiscipline concerned with establishing measurable, continuous, and actionable accountability for deployed AI systems.<n>We articulate a research agenda built around four interconnected pillars: structured discovery of context-dependent failure modes, privacy-preserving accountability measurement, system-level risk analysis for agentic AI, and translation of technical failures into operational, and institutional risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-13T15:18:41Z)
• Safety in Embodied AI: A Survey of Risks, Attacks, and Defenses [168.50301366360344]
  Embodied Artificial Intelligence (Embodied AI) integrates perception, cognition, planning, and interaction into agents that operate in safety-critical environments.<n>Unlike digital AI systems, embodied agents must act under uncertain sensing, incomplete knowledge, and dynamic human-robot interactions.<n>This survey provides a comprehensive review of safety research in embodied AI, examining attacks and defenses across the full embodied pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-28T13:21:44Z)
• ForesightSafety Bench: A Frontier Risk Evaluation and Governance Framework towards Safe AI [38.70363180741332]
  "ForesightSafety Bench" is a safety evaluation framework for cutting-edge AI models.<n>The benchmark has accumulated tens of thousands of structured risk data points and assessment results.<n>Based on this benchmark, we conduct systematic evaluation and in-depth analysis of over twenty mainstream advanced large models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T13:12:44Z)
• Securing Agentic AI Systems -- A Multilayer Security Framework [0.0]
  Securing Agentic Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems requires addressing the complex cyber risks introduced by autonomous, decision-making, and adaptive behaviors.<n>Existing AI security frameworks do not adequately address these challenges or the unique nuances of agentic AI.<n>This research develops a lifecycle-aware security framework specifically designed for agentic AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-19T20:22:25Z)
• Responsible AI Technical Report [2.706528024660027]
  KT developed a Responsible AI (RAI) assessment methodology and risk mitigation technologies to ensure the safety and reliability of AI services.<n>We present a reliable assessment methodology that verifies model safety and robustness based on KT's AI risk taxonomy tailored to the domestic environment.<n>We also provide practical tools for managing and mitigating identified AI risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T12:26:33Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Position: Mind the Gap-the Growing Disconnect Between Established Vulnerability Disclosure and AI Security [56.219994752894294]
  We argue that adapting existing processes for AI security reporting is doomed to fail due to fundamental shortcomings for the distinctive characteristics of AI systems.<n>Based on our proposal to address these shortcomings, we discuss an approach to AI security reporting and how the new AI paradigm, AI agents, will further reinforce the need for specialized AI security incident reporting advancements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T13:50:26Z)
• Landscape of AI safety concerns -- A methodology to support safety assurance for AI-based autonomous systems [0.0]
  AI has emerged as a key technology, driving advancements across a range of applications.<n>The challenge of assuring safety in systems that incorporate AI components is substantial.<n>We propose a novel methodology designed to support the creation of safety assurance cases for AI-based systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T16:38:16Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress [171.05448842016125]
  We describe risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. There is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:59:06Z)

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.