Standardised schema and taxonomy for AI incident databases in critical digital infrastructure

The rapid deployment of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in critical digital infrastructure introduces significant risks, necessitating a robust framework for systematically collecting AI incident data to prevent future incidents. Existing databases lack the granularity as well as the standardized structure required for consistent data collection and analysis, impeding effective incident management. This work proposes a standardized schema and taxonomy for AI incident databases, addressing these challenges by enabling detailed and structured documentation of AI incidents across sectors. Key contributions include developing a unified schema, introducing new fields such as incident severity, causes, and harms caused, and proposing a taxonomy for classifying AI incidents in critical digital infrastructure. The proposed solution facilitates more effective incident data collection and analysis, thus supporting evidence-based policymaking, enhancing industry safety measures, and promoting transparency. This work lays the foundation for a coordinated global response to AI incidents, ensuring trust, safety, and accountability in using AI across regions.

A Seven-Layer Model for Standardising AI Fairness Assessment

Problem statement: Standardisation of AI fairness rules and benchmarks is challenging because AI fairness and other ethical requirements depend on multiple factors such as context, use case, type of the AI system, and so on. In this paper, we elaborate that the AI system is prone to biases at every stage of its lifecycle, from inception to its usage, and that all stages require due attention for mitigating AI bias. We need a standardised approach to handle AI fairness at every stage. Gap analysis: While AI fairness is a hot research topic, a holistic strategy for AI fairness is generally missing. Most researchers focus only on a few facets of AI model-building. Peer review shows excessive focus on biases in the datasets, fairness metrics, and algorithmic bias. In the process, other aspects affecting AI fairness get ignored. The solution proposed: We propose a comprehensive approach in the form of a novel seven-layer model, inspired by the Open System Interconnection (OSI) model, to standardise AI fairness handling. Despite the differences in the various aspects, most AI systems have similar model-building stages. The proposed model splits the AI system lifecycle into seven abstraction layers, each corresponding to a well-defined AI model-building or usage stage. We also provide checklists for each layer and deliberate on potential sources of bias in each layer and their mitigation methodologies. This work will facilitate layer-wise standardisation of AI fairness rules and benchmarking parameters.

Fairness Score and Process Standardization: Framework for Fairness Certification in Artificial Intelligence Systems

Decisions made by various Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems greatly influence our day-to-day lives. With the increasing use of AI systems, it becomes crucial to know that they are fair, identify the underlying biases in their decision-making, and create a standardized framework to ascertain their fairness. In this paper, we propose a novel Fairness Score to measure the fairness of a data-driven AI system and a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for issuing Fairness Certification for such systems. Fairness Score and audit process standardization will ensure quality, reduce ambiguity, enable comparison and improve the trustworthiness of the AI systems. It will also provide a framework to operationalise the concept of fairness and facilitate the commercial deployment of such systems. Furthermore, a Fairness Certificate issued by a designated third-party auditing agency following the standardized process would boost the conviction of the organizations in the AI systems that they intend to deploy. The Bias Index proposed in this paper also reveals comparative bias amongst the various protected attributes within the dataset. To substantiate the proposed framework, we iteratively train a model on biased and unbiased data using multiple datasets and check that the Fairness Score and the proposed process correctly identify the biases and judge the fairness.