AI Hazard Management: A framework for the systematic management of root causes for AI risks

Recent advancements in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) establish the basis to address challenging tasks. However, with the integration of AI, new risks arise. Therefore, to benefit from its advantages, it is essential to adequately handle the risks associated with AI. Existing risk management processes in related fields, such as software systems, need to sufficiently consider the specifics of AI. A key challenge is to systematically and transparently identify and address AI risks' root causes - also called AI hazards. This paper introduces the AI Hazard Management (AIHM) framework, which provides a structured process to systematically identify, assess, and treat AI hazards. The proposed process is conducted in parallel with the development to ensure that any AI hazard is captured at the earliest possible stage of the AI system's life cycle. In addition, to ensure the AI system's auditability, the proposed framework systematically documents evidence that the potential impact of identified AI hazards could be reduced to a tolerable level. The framework builds upon an AI hazard list from a comprehensive state-of-the-art analysis. Also, we provide a taxonomy that supports the optimal treatment of the identified AI hazards. Additionally, we illustrate how the AIHM framework can increase the overall quality of a power grid AI use case by systematically reducing the impact of identified hazards to an acceptable level.

The Thousand Faces of Explainable AI Along the Machine Learning Life Cycle: Industrial Reality and Current State of Research

In this paper, we investigate the practical relevance of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) with a special focus on the producing industries and relate them to the current state of academic XAI research. Our findings are based on an extensive series of interviews regarding the role and applicability of XAI along the Machine Learning (ML) lifecycle in current industrial practice and its expected relevance in the future. The interviews were conducted among a great variety of roles and key stakeholders from different industry sectors. On top of that, we outline the state of XAI research by providing a concise review of the relevant literature. This enables us to provide an encompassing overview covering the opinions of the surveyed persons as well as the current state of academic research. By comparing our interview results with the current research approaches we reveal several discrepancies. While a multitude of different XAI approaches exists, most of them are centered around the model evaluation phase and data scientists. Their versatile capabilities for other stages are currently either not sufficiently explored or not popular among practitioners. In line with existing work, our findings also confirm that more efforts are needed to enable also non-expert users' interpretation and understanding of opaque AI models with existing methods and frameworks.