AuditMAI: Towards An Infrastructure for Continuous AI Auditing
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Presents a framework for continuous auditing of AI systems, called AuditMAI
- Aims to address the need for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of AI systems to ensure their safety, fairness, and accountability
- Proposes a set of technical and organizational components to enable continuous AI auditing
Plain English Explanation
The paper introduces a framework called AuditMAI that is designed to enable continuous auditing of AI systems. The key idea is to have an ongoing process of monitoring and evaluating AI systems to ensure they are behaving as intended, are fair and unbiased, and remain accountable to users and stakeholders.
The researchers recognize that as AI systems become more pervasive in our lives, it's crucial to have mechanisms in place to continuously assess their performance and impact. Framework for Assurance Audits of Algorithmic Systems and Necessity of AI Audit Standards Boards have also highlighted the need for systematic auditing approaches.
AuditMAI aims to address this need by proposing a set of technical tools and organizational processes to enable ongoing auditing of AI systems. This includes mechanisms for data and model monitoring, testing for fairness and robustness, and ways to involve diverse stakeholders in the auditing process.
The goal is to make AI systems more transparent and accountable, so that any issues or concerns can be quickly identified and addressed. This aligns with efforts to Address the Regulatory Gap and Move Towards EU AI and the broader push for Trustworthy AI.
Technical Explanation
The AuditMAI framework consists of several key components:
-
Data and Model Monitoring: Continuously collecting and analyzing data about the AI system's inputs, outputs, and decision-making processes to detect anomalies or changes over time.
-
Testing for Fairness and Robustness: Conducting targeted tests to evaluate the AI system's performance across different demographic groups and its ability to handle edge cases or adversarial inputs.
-
Stakeholder Involvement: Engaging a diverse set of stakeholders, including domain experts, affected communities, and regulatory bodies, in the auditing process to capture a range of perspectives and concerns.
-
Reporting and Remediation: Generating comprehensive reports on the AI system's performance and facilitating the implementation of necessary changes or interventions to address any issues identified.
The researchers Pragmatic Auditing: A Pilot-Driven Approach to Auditing Machine Learning Systems as a potential basis for the AuditMAI framework, emphasizing the importance of a practical, iterative approach to auditing.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a well-structured and comprehensive framework for continuous AI auditing, addressing important gaps in the current landscape. However, some potential limitations and areas for further research include:
- The feasibility and scalability of the proposed approach, especially in terms of the resources and expertise required to implement it across a wide range of AI systems.
- The specific methodologies and metrics to be used for fairness and robustness testing, which may require further development and validation.
- The challenges of balancing transparency and protecting sensitive information related to the AI systems being audited.
- The potential tensions between the interests of different stakeholders and how to navigate these effectively.
Overall, the AuditMAI framework represents a valuable contribution to the ongoing efforts to Ensure Trustworthy AI and address the regulatory gaps in this domain.
Conclusion
The AuditMAI framework presented in this paper offers a comprehensive approach to enable continuous auditing of AI systems. By combining technical tools for data and model monitoring with stakeholder engagement and systematic reporting, the researchers aim to enhance the transparency, fairness, and accountability of AI systems as they become increasingly pervasive in our lives.
While the framework faces some practical challenges and areas for further refinement, its adoption could play a crucial role in Moving Towards EU AI and the broader push for Trustworthy AI. Continuous auditing is essential to ensure that the benefits of AI technology are realized while mitigating its potential risks and unintended consequences.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
AuditMAI: Towards An Infrastructure for Continuous AI Auditing
Laura Waltersdorfer, Fajar J. Ekaputra, Tomasz Miksa, Marta Sabou
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Auditability is a core requirement for achieving responsible AI system design. However, it is not yet a prominent design feature in current applications. Existing AI auditing tools typically lack integration features and remain as isolated approaches. This results in manual, high-effort, and mostly one-off AI audits, necessitating alternative methods. Inspired by other domains such as finance, continuous AI auditing is a promising direction to conduct regular assessments of AI systems. The issue remains, however, since the methods for continuous AI auditing are not mature yet at the moment. To address this gap, we propose the Auditability Method for AI (AuditMAI), which is intended as a blueprint for an infrastructure towards continuous AI auditing. For this purpose, we first clarified the definition of AI auditability based on literature. Secondly, we derived requirements from two industrial use cases for continuous AI auditing tool support. Finally, we developed AuditMAI and discussed its elements as a blueprint for a continuous AI auditability infrastructure.
Read more6/21/2024
🏅
0
Auditing of AI: Legal, Ethical and Technical Approaches
Jakob Mokander
AI auditing is a rapidly growing field of research and practice. This review article, which doubles as an editorial to Digital Societys topical collection on Auditing of AI, provides an overview of previous work in the field. Three key points emerge from the review. First, contemporary attempts to audit AI systems have much to learn from how audits have historically been structured and conducted in areas like financial accounting, safety engineering and the social sciences. Second, both policymakers and technology providers have an interest in promoting auditing as an AI governance mechanism. Academic researchers can thus fill an important role by studying the feasibility and effectiveness of different AI auditing procedures. Third, AI auditing is an inherently multidisciplinary undertaking, to which substantial contributions have been made by computer scientists and engineers as well as social scientists, philosophers, legal scholars and industry practitioners. Reflecting this diversity of perspectives, different approaches to AI auditing have different affordances and constraints. Specifically, a distinction can be made between technology-oriented audits, which focus on the properties and capabilities of AI systems, and process oriented audits, which focus on technology providers governance structures and quality management systems. The next step in the evolution of auditing as an AI governance mechanism, this article concludes, should be the interlinking of these available (and complementary) approaches into structured and holistic procedures to audit not only how AI systems are designed and used but also how they impact users, societies and the natural environment in applied settings over time.
Read more7/10/2024
🏷️
0
A Framework for Assurance Audits of Algorithmic Systems
Khoa Lam, Benjamin Lange, Borhane Blili-Hamelin, Jovana Davidovic, Shea Brown, Ali Hasan
An increasing number of regulations propose AI audits as a mechanism for achieving transparency and accountability for artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Despite some converging norms around various forms of AI auditing, auditing for the purpose of compliance and assurance currently lacks agreed-upon practices, procedures, taxonomies, and standards. We propose the criterion audit as an operationalizable compliance and assurance external audit framework. We model elements of this approach after financial auditing practices, and argue that AI audits should similarly provide assurance to their stakeholders about AI organizations' ability to govern their algorithms in ways that mitigate harms and uphold human values. We discuss the necessary conditions for the criterion audit and provide a procedural blueprint for performing an audit engagement in practice. We illustrate how this framework can be adapted to current regulations by deriving the criteria on which bias audits can be performed for in-scope hiring algorithms, as required by the recently effective New York City Local Law 144 of 2021. We conclude by offering a critical discussion on the benefits, inherent limitations, and implementation challenges of applying practices of the more mature financial auditing industry to AI auditing where robust guardrails against quality assurance issues are only starting to emerge. Our discussion -- informed by experiences in performing these audits in practice -- highlights the critical role that an audit ecosystem plays in ensuring the effectiveness of audits.
Read more5/29/2024
🤖
0
A Blueprint for Auditing Generative AI
Jakob Mokander, Justin Curl, Mihir Kshirsagar
The widespread use of generative AI systems is coupled with significant ethical and social challenges. As a result, policymakers, academic researchers, and social advocacy groups have all called for such systems to be audited. However, existing auditing procedures fail to address the governance challenges posed by generative AI systems, which display emergent capabilities and are adaptable to a wide range of downstream tasks. In this chapter, we address that gap by outlining a novel blueprint for how to audit such systems. Specifically, we propose a three-layered approach, whereby governance audits (of technology providers that design and disseminate generative AI systems), model audits (of generative AI systems after pre-training but prior to their release), and application audits (of applications based on top of generative AI systems) complement and inform each other. We show how audits on these three levels, when conducted in a structured and coordinated manner, can be a feasible and effective mechanism for identifying and managing some of the ethical and social risks posed by generative AI systems. That said, it is important to remain realistic about what auditing can reasonably be expected to achieve. For this reason, the chapter also discusses the limitations not only of our three-layered approach but also of the prospect of auditing generative AI systems at all. Ultimately, this chapter seeks to expand the methodological toolkit available to technology providers and policymakers who wish to analyse and evaluate generative AI systems from technical, ethical, and legal perspectives.
Read more7/9/2024