Z-Inspection ® : A Process to Assess Trustworthy AI
Open accessAbstract
The ethical and societal implications of artificial intelligence systems raise concerns. In this article, we outline a novel process based on applied ethics, namely, Z-Inspection®, to assess if an AI system is trustworthy. We use the definition of trustworthy AI given by the high-level European Commission's expert group on AI. Z-Inspection®is a general inspection process that can be applied to a variety of domains where AI systems are used, such as business, healthcare, and public sector, among many others. To the best of our knowledge, Z-Inspection®is the first process to assess trustworthy AI in practice.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The applied ethics Z-Inspection process maps and assesses tensions in socio-technical scenarios in trustworthy AI.
“For instance, integrating the applied ethics Z-Inspection ® [138] process to map and assess tensions in socio-technical scenarios in trustworthy AI.”
From Connecting the dots in trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: From AI principles, ethics, and key requirements to responsible AI systems and regulation (2023) · cites this paper as [138]
Such contributions can be divided into high-level procedures and tools for specific tasks.
“Such contributions can be divided into two broad categories.First, high-level procedures-often proposed by scholars from organisation studies or systems engineering-that outline the steps audits should include, what activities these entail, and the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders (Floridi et al., 2022;Zicari et al., 2021).Second, tools that can be employed by auditors for”
From Auditing of AI: Legal, Ethical and Technical Approaches (2023) · cites this paper as Zicari et al., 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations
Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C., & Mullainathan, S. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aax2342 · Cited by 7,137 · see citing works
Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor
Lebovits, H. (2018) · Public Integrity · doi:10.1080/10999922.2018.1511671 · Cited by 3,318 · see citing works
The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future
Stiglitz, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.7916/d8-96ed-6058 · Cited by 2,959 · see citing works
Permutation importance: a corrected feature importance measure
Altmann, A., Toloşi, L., Sander, O., & Lengauer, T. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq134 · Cited by 2,903 · see citing works
Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism
Noble, S. U. (2020) · doi:10.2307/j.ctt1pwt9w5 · Cited by 2,709 · see citing works
Model Cards for Model Reporting
Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., Barnes, P., Vasserman, L., Hutchinson, B., Spitzer, E., Raji, I. D., & Gebru, T. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287596 · Cited by 2,681 · cited 1× · see citing works
“data sets [48], [64], [68]–[73], models [74], and services [68].”
BackgroundGebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé, H., & Crawford, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.09010 · Cited by 2,474
Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., III, H. D., & Crawford, K. (2021) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3458723 · Cited by 2,469 · see citing works
Bellamy, R. K. E., Dey, K., Hind, M., Hoffman, S. C., Houde, S., Kannan, K., Lohia, P., Martino, J., Mehta, S., Mojsilovic, A., et al. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.01943 · Cited by 1,581 · see citing works
Ensuring fairness in machine learning to advance health equity.
Rajkomar, A., Hardt, M., Howell, M. D., Corrado, G., & Chin, M. H. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-1990 · Cited by 1,341 · see citing works
Techniques for interpretable machine learning
Du, M., Liu, N., & Hu, X. (2019) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3359786 · Cited by 1,268 · see citing works
Schapire, R. E. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41136-6_5 · Cited by 1,201 · see citing works
Reliability-Centered Maintenance
Ziegel, E. R., & Moubray, J. (1996) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1268924 · Cited by 1,070 · see citing works
Bender, E. M., & Friedman, B. (2018) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00041 · Cited by 854 · see citing works
Explanations based on the Missing: Towards Contrastive Explanations with Pertinent NegativesPreprint
Dhurandhar, A., Chen, P.-Y., Luss, R., Tu, C.-C., Ting, P.-S., Shanmugam, K., & Das, P. (2018) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.07623 · Cited by 730 · see citing works
Explainable machine learning in deployment
Bhatt, U., Xiang, A., Sharma, S., Weller, A., Taly, A., Jia, Y., Ghosh, J., Puri, R., Moura, J. M. F., & Eckersley, P. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3375624 · Cited by 633 · see citing works
On the ethics of algorithmic decision-making in healthcare
Grote, T., & Berens, P. (2020) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/medethics-2019-105586 · Cited by 551 · see citing works
The What-If Tool: Interactive Probing of Machine Learning Models
Wexler, J., Pushkarna, M., Bolukbasi, T., WATTENBERG, M. P., Viégas, F. B., & Wilson, J. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019.2934619 · Cited by 512 · see citing works
Madaio, M. A., Stark, L., Wortman Vaughan, J., & Wallach, H. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376445 · Cited by 436 · see citing works
FactSheets: Increasing trust in AI services through supplier's declarations of conformity
Arnold, M., Bellamy, R. K. E., Hind, M., Houde, S., Mehta, S., Mojsilović, A., Nair, R., Ramamurthy, K. N., Olteanu, A., Piorkowski, D., et al. (2019) · IBM Journal of Research and Development · doi:10.1147/jrd.2019.2942288 · Cited by 434 · see citing works
Ball, C. (2009) · Public Integrity · doi:10.2753/pin1099-9922110400 · Cited by 376 · see citing works
Will Democracy Survive Big Data and Artificial Intelligence?
Helbing, D., Frey, B. S., Gigerenzer, G., Hafen, E., Hagner, M., Hofstetter, Y., van den Hoven, J., Zicari, R. V., & Zwitter, A. (2019) · Towards Digital Enlightenment · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90869-4_7 · Cited by 355 · see citing works
Self-citationToward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims
Brundage, M., Avin, S., Wang, J., Belfield, H., Krueger, G., Hadfield, G., Khlaaf, H., Yang, J., Toner, H., Fong, R., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.07213 · Cited by 306 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Brundage et al. [13] further stated that “techniques and best practices have not yet been established for auditing AI systems.””
BackgroundResultInfluentialResponsible AI—two frameworks for ethical design practice
Peters, D., Vold, K., Robinson, D., & Calvo, R. A. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society · doi:10.1109/tts.2020.2974991 · Cited by 293 · cited 3× · see citing works
“[14] recently published two frameworks (Responsible Design Process and Spheres of Technology Experience) that are supposed to help the design of what they call responsible AI.”
BackgroundInfluentialOne Explanation Does Not Fit All: A Toolkit and Taxonomy of AI Explainability Techniques
Arya, V., Bellamy, R. K. E., Chen, P.-Y., Dhurandhar, A., Hind, M., Hoffman, S. C., Houde, S., Liao, Q. V., Luss, R., Mojsilović, A., et al. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.03012 · Cited by 268 · cited 1× · see citing works
“A corresponding number of software tools have been implemented to help with specific aspects of AI self-assessment, e.g., [45], [46], and [75].”
MethodThe Dataset Nutrition Label: A Framework To Drive Higher Data Quality Standards
Holland, S., Hosny, A., Newman, S., Joseph, J., & Chmielinski, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1805.03677 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain
Edwards, B. (1979) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Leslie, D. (2019) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3240529 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Putting Fairness Principles into Practice: Challenges, Metrics, and Improvements
Beutel, A., Chen, J., Doshi, T., Qian, H., Woodruff, A., Luu, C., Kreitmann, P., Bischof, J., & Chi, E. H. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3306618.3314234 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Ethical Framework for Designing Autonomous Intelligent Systems
Leikas, J., Koivisto, R., & Gotcheva, N. (2019) · Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity · doi:10.3390/joitmc5010018 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Sustainability Auditing and Reporting: The Canadian Experience
Nitkin, D., & Brooks, L. J. (1998) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1023/a:1006044130990 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Reliability-Centered Maintenance
Netherton, D. (2002) · Failure Analysis and Prevention · doi:10.31399/asm.hb.v11.a0003504 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
From Principles to Practice. An interdisciplinary framework to operationalise AI ethics.
Hallensleben, S., Fetic, L., Fleischer, T., Grünke, Hagendorff, T., Hauer, M. P., Hauschke, A., Heesen, J., Herrmann, M., Hillerbrand, R., et al. (2020) · Cited by 52 · see citing works
(2016) · International journal of communication · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Stealth research: Lack of peer‐reviewed evidence from healthcare unicorns
Cristea, I. A., Cahan, E. M., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2019) · European Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1111/eci.13072 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Engineering-Based Design Methodology for Embedding Ethics in Autonomous Robots
Robertson, L. J., Abbas, R., Alıcı, G., Munoz, A., & Michael, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2018.2889678 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Experiences with Improving the Transparency of AI Models and Services
Hind, M., Houde, S., Martino, J., Mojsilovic, A., Piorkowski, D., Richards, J., & Varshney, K. R. (2020) · Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3334480.3383051 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
On the Legal Compatibility of Fairness Definitions
Xiang, A., & Raji, I. D. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.00761 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Braun, T., Spiliopoulos, S., Veltman, C., et al. (2020) · Journal of Electrocardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2019.12.018 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Non-invasive diagnosis of coronary artery disease using cardiogoniometry performed at rest
Schüpbach, M. W. M., Emese, B., Loretan, P., et al. (2008) · Swiss Medical Weekly · doi:10.4414/smw.2008.12040 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Sanz, E., Steger, J. P., & Thie, W. (1983) · Clinical Cardiology · doi:10.1002/clc.4960060502 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Ethical Business Regulation: Understanding the Evidence
Hodges, C. P. (2016) · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Fairness With Minimal Harm: A Pareto-Optimal Approach For HealthcarePreprint
Martínez, N., Bertrán, M., & Sapiro, G. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.06935 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Ethical maintenance of artificial intelligence systems
Düdder, B., Möslein, F., Stürtz, N., et al. (2021) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781839104398.00018 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
What a Philosopher Learned at an AI Ethics Evaluation
Brusseau, J. (2020) · AI Ethics Journal · doi:10.47289/aiej20201214 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citationCertifying artificial intelligence systems
Möslein, F., & Zicari, R. V. (2021) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781788972826.00024 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- J. Stegenga, Medical Nihilism. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2020.
- European Parliament and Council of European Union, "Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices," Official Eur. Union Commun., vol. L-169, pp. 1-43, Jul. 1993.
- J. Casey et al., IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-Being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, 1st ed., IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://standards.ieee.org/content/ieee-standards/en/industry- connections/ec/autonomous-systems.html
- IEEE P7006. Standard for Personal Data Artificial Intelligence (AI) Agent. Accessed: Mar. 11, 2021. [Online]. Available: https:// standards.ieee.org/project/7006.html
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Coeckelbergh, M., López de Prado, M., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2023) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101896 · Cited by 800 · see citing works
Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance: A Review and Research Framework
Papagiannidis, E., Mikalef, P., & Conboy, K. (2025) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2024.101885 · Cited by 565 · see citing works
Nazir, S., Dickson, D. M., & Akram, M. U. (2023) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.106668 · Cited by 283 · see citing works
“It was proposed for evaluating trustworthy AI and can help inform the stakeholders about the technical, ethical and legal risks before the production of an AI system [134].”
BackgroundAmann, J., Vetter, D., Blomberg, S. N., Christensen, H. C., Coffee, M., Gerke, S., Gilbert, T. K., Hagendorff, T., Holm, S., Livne, M., et al. (2022) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000016 · Cited by 251 · see citing works
“), served as the basis for an interdisciplinary assessment of system trustworthiness following the Z-Inspection1 process [31,56], which is guided by the “Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI” by the European Commission’s AI HLEG [13].”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationAuditing of AI: Legal, Ethical and Technical Approaches
Mökander, J. (2023) · Digital Society · doi:10.1007/s44206-023-00074-y · Cited by 152 · see citing works
“First, high-level procedures – often proposed by scholars from organisation studies or systems engineering – that outline the steps audits should include, what activities these entail, and the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders (Floridi et al., 2022; Zicari et al., 2021).”
BackgroundFinancial Risk Management and Explainable, Trustworthy, Responsible AI
Fritz-Morgenthal, S., Hein, B., & Papenbrock, J. (2022) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2022.779799 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Baroni, I., Re Calegari, G., Scandolari, D., & Celino, I. (2022) · Human Computation · doi:10.15346/hc.v9i1.134 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Governing Ethical AI Transformation: A Case Study of AuroraAI
Leikas, J., Johri, A., Latvanen, M., Wessberg, N., & Hahto, A. (2022) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2022.836557 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Sankar, B. S., Gilliland, D., Rincon, J., Hermjakob, H., Yan, Y., Adam, I., Lemaster, G., Wang, D., Watson, K., Bui, A., et al. (2024) · Bioengineering · doi:10.3390/bioengineering11100984 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
How Do We Assess the Trustworthiness of AI? Introducing the Trustworthiness Assessment Model (TrAM)
Schlicker, N., Baum, K., Uhde, A., Sterz, S., Hirsch, M. C., & Langer, M. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/qhwvx · Cited by 79 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zicari, R. V., Brodersen, J., Brusseau, J., Dudder, B., Eichhorn, T., Ivanov, T., Kararigas, G., Kringen, P., McCullough, M., Moslein, F., Mushtaq, N., Roig, G., Sturtz, N., Tolle, K., Tithi, J. J., van Halem, I., & Westerlund, M.
- Affiliations
- Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
- University of Copenhagen (DK)
- Pace University (US)
- University of Iceland (IS)
- Intel (United States) (US)
- Arcada University of Applied Sciences (FI)
- ORCID
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society
- Published
- 2021-06
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 83-97
- ISSN
- 2637-6415 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3156205870
- Cited by
- 134
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 22.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Publication Server of Goethe University Frankfurt am Main (Goethe University Frankfurt) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
- Keywords
- trustworthy AI, applied ethics, AI ethics, ethical implications of AI
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
