Design of a Quality Management System based on the EU Artificial Intelligence Act
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper proposes a quality management system for AI systems based on the EU Artificial Intelligence Act.
- It covers the key requirements of the AI Act and how they can be implemented through a comprehensive quality management framework.
- The system is designed to help organizations ensure compliance with the AI Act and maintain high standards for their AI-powered products and services.
Plain English Explanation
The EU Artificial Intelligence Act is a new set of regulations that aims to govern the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in the European Union. The paper outlines a quality management system that organizations can use to ensure their AI-powered products and services meet the requirements of the AI Act.
The quality management system covers key areas such as risk assessment, data management, model development, and human oversight. It provides a structured approach to implementing the various provisions of the AI Act, such as ensuring AI systems are transparent, accountable, and do not discriminate.
By adopting this system, organizations can demonstrate their commitment to responsible AI development and build trust with their customers and regulators. The system also helps them identify and address potential issues before they become bigger problems, reducing the risk of non-compliance and reputational damage.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a quality management system designed to help organizations comply with the requirements of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. The system is structured around the key provisions of the AI Act, which include requirements for risk assessment, data management, model development, and human oversight.
The risk assessment process outlined in the system helps organizations identify and mitigate potential harms associated with their AI systems. This involves evaluating the system's intended use, the data used to train it, and the potential for biased or discriminatory outputs.
The data management framework ensures that organizations collect, process, and store data in a manner that is transparent, secure, and respects user privacy. This includes implementing data quality checks, maintaining detailed data provenance records, and obtaining appropriate user consent.
The model development lifecycle incorporates best practices for AI system design, testing, and monitoring. This includes techniques for ensuring model robustness, interpretability, and alignment with intended use cases.
Finally, the human oversight mechanisms described in the paper provide a means for humans to monitor, override, and intervene in the operation of AI systems, particularly for high-risk applications.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a comprehensive quality management system that addresses the key requirements of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. However, the authors acknowledge that the system may need to be tailored to the specific needs and constraints of different organizations and industries.
Additionally, the paper does not delve into the potential challenges and complexities of implementing such a system in practice. For example, the authors do not discuss the technical and organizational resources required, the potential cost implications, or the change management considerations.
Furthermore, the paper does not address the broader societal implications of the EU AI Act and the role that quality management systems can play in shaping the responsible development and deployment of AI. It would be valuable to explore how these systems can help foster public trust and mitigate the risks of AI-powered technologies.
Conclusion
The quality management system proposed in this paper offers a comprehensive framework for organizations to ensure compliance with the EU Artificial Intelligence Act and maintain high standards for their AI-powered products and services. By addressing key requirements such as risk assessment, data management, model development, and human oversight, the system can help build trust, reduce the risk of non-compliance, and promote responsible AI practices.
While the paper provides a solid foundation, further research and practical implementation guidance would be valuable to help organizations navigate the complexities of the AI Act and effectively operationalize quality management for their AI systems.
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
Design of a Quality Management System based on the EU Artificial Intelligence Act
Henryk Mustroph, Stefanie Rinderle-Ma
The Artificial Intelligence Act of the European Union mandates that providers and deployers of high-risk AI systems establish a quality management system (QMS). Among other criteria, a QMS shall help to i) identify, analyze, evaluate, and mitigate risks, ii) ensure evidence of compliance with training, validation, and testing data, and iii) verify and document the AI system design and quality. Current research mainly addresses conceptual considerations and framework designs for AI risk assessment and auditing processes. However, it often overlooks practical tools that actively involve and support humans in checking and documenting high-risk or general-purpose AI systems. This paper addresses this gap by proposing requirements derived from legal regulations and a generic design and architecture of a QMS for AI systems verification and documentation. A first version of a prototype QMS is implemented, integrating LLMs as examples of AI systems and focusing on an integrated risk management sub-service. The prototype is evaluated on i) a user story-based qualitative requirements assessment using potential stakeholder scenarios and ii) a technical assessment of the required GPU storage and performance.
Read more8/12/2024
0
AI Cards: Towards an Applied Framework for Machine-Readable AI and Risk Documentation Inspired by the EU AI Act
Delaram Golpayegani, Isabelle Hupont, Cecilia Panigutti, Harshvardhan J. Pandit, Sven Schade, Declan O'Sullivan, Dave Lewis
With the upcoming enforcement of the EU AI Act, documentation of high-risk AI systems and their risk management information will become a legal requirement playing a pivotal role in demonstration of compliance. Despite its importance, there is a lack of standards and guidelines to assist with drawing up AI and risk documentation aligned with the AI Act. This paper aims to address this gap by providing an in-depth analysis of the AI Act's provisions regarding technical documentation, wherein we particularly focus on AI risk management. On the basis of this analysis, we propose AI Cards as a novel holistic framework for representing a given intended use of an AI system by encompassing information regarding technical specifications, context of use, and risk management, both in human- and machine-readable formats. While the human-readable representation of AI Cards provides AI stakeholders with a transparent and comprehensible overview of the AI use case, its machine-readable specification leverages on state of the art Semantic Web technologies to embody the interoperability needed for exchanging documentation within the AI value chain. This brings the flexibility required for reflecting changes applied to the AI system and its context, provides the scalability needed to accommodate potential amendments to legal requirements, and enables development of automated tools to assist with legal compliance and conformity assessment tasks. To solidify the benefits, we provide an exemplar AI Card for an AI-based student proctoring system and further discuss its potential applications within and beyond the context of the AI Act.
Read more6/27/2024
0
A Decision-driven Methodology for Designing Uncertainty-aware AI Self-Assessment
Gregory Canal, Vladimir Leung, Philip Sage, Eric Heim, I-Jeng Wang
Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized decision-making processes and systems throughout society and, in particular, has emerged as a significant technology in high-impact scenarios of national interest. Yet, despite AI's impressive predictive capabilities in controlled settings, it still suffers from a range of practical setbacks preventing its widespread use in various critical scenarios. In particular, it is generally unclear if a given AI system's predictions can be trusted by decision-makers in downstream applications. To address the need for more transparent, robust, and trustworthy AI systems, a suite of tools has been developed to quantify the uncertainty of AI predictions and, more generally, enable AI to self-assess the reliability of its predictions. In this manuscript, we categorize methods for AI self-assessment along several key dimensions and provide guidelines for selecting and designing the appropriate method for a practitioner's needs. In particular, we focus on uncertainty estimation techniques that consider the impact of self-assessment on the choices made by downstream decision-makers and on the resulting costs and benefits of decision outcomes. To demonstrate the utility of our methodology for self-assessment design, we illustrate its use for two realistic national-interest scenarios. This manuscript is a practical guide for machine learning engineers and AI system users to select the ideal self-assessment techniques for each problem.
Read more8/6/2024
👀
0
Human Oversight of Artificial Intelligence and Technical Standardisation
Marion Ho-Dac (UA, CDEP), Baptiste Martinez (UA, CDEP)
The adoption of human oversight measures makes it possible to regulate, to varying degrees and in different ways, the decision-making process of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, for example by placing a human being in charge of supervising the system and, upstream, by developing the AI system to enable such supervision. Within the global governance of AI, the requirement for human oversight is embodied in several regulatory formats, within a diversity of normative sources. On the one hand, it reinforces the accountability of AI systems' users (for example, by requiring them to carry out certain checks) and, on the other hand, it better protects the individuals affected by the AI-based decision (for example, by allowing them to request a review of the decision). In the European context, the AI Act imposes obligations on providers of high-risk AI systems (and to some extent also on professional users of these systems, known as deployers), including the introduction of human oversight tools throughout the life cycle of AI systems, including by design (and their implementation by deployers). The EU legislator is therefore going much further than in the past in spelling out the legal requirement for human oversight. But it does not intend to provide for all implementation details; it calls on standardisation to technically flesh out this requirement (and more broadly all the requirements of section 2 of chapter III) on the basis of article 40 of the AI Act. In this multi-level regulatory context, the question of the place of humans in the AI decision-making process should be given particular attention. Indeed, depending on whether it is the law or the technical standard that sets the contours of human oversight, the regulatory governance of AI is not the same: its nature, content and scope are different. This analysis is at the heart of the contribution made (or to be made) by legal experts to the central reflection on the most appropriate regulatory governance -- in terms of both its institutional format and its substance -- to ensure the effectiveness of human oversight and AI trustworthiness.
Read more7/26/2024