capAI - A Procedure for Conducting Conformity Assessment of AI Systems in Line with the EU Artificial Intelligence Act
Open accessAbstract
We have developed capAI, a conformity assessment procedure for AI systems, to provide an independent, comparable, quantifiable, and accountable assessment of AI systems that conforms with the proposed AIA regulation. By building on the AIA, capAI provides organisations with practical guidance on how high-level ethics principles can be translated into verifiable criteria that help shape the design, development, deployment and use of ethical AI. The main purpose of capAI is to serve as a governance tool that ensures and demonstrates that the development and operation of an AI system are trustworthy – i.e., legally compliant, ethically sound, and technically robust – and thus conform to the AIA.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 CapAI procedure is one of the most complete guidance procedures assisting on complying with AI Act regulation for conducting conformity assessment of AI systems.
“One of the most complete guidance procedures assisting on complying with AI Act regulation is the CapAI procedure for conducting conformity assessment of AI systems [129].”
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 [129]
Cites
Practical Bayesian Optimization of Machine Learning Algorithms
Snoek, J., Larochelle, H., & Adams, R. P. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1206.2944 · Cited by 6,691 · see citing works
On calibration of modern neural networks
Guo, C., Pleiss, G., Sun, Y., & Weinberger, K. Q. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.04599 · Cited by 3,435 · see citing works
The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate
Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951716679679 · Cited by 3,432 · see citing works
Self-citationModel 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 · see citing works
Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI
Mittelstadt, B. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4 · Cited by 1,886 · see citing works
Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., Smith-Loud, J., Theron, D., & Barnes, P. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372873 · Cited by 1,372 · see citing works
Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L., & Elhalal, A. (2020) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-019-00165-5 · Cited by 882 · see citing works
Self-citationHow AI can be a force for good
Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aat5991 · Cited by 760 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Phantom Menace: Omitted Variable Bias in Econometric Research
Clarke, K. A. (2005) · Conflict Management and Peace Science · doi:10.1080/07388940500339183 · Cited by 484 · see citing works
The Role and Limits of Principles in AI Ethics: Towards a Focus on Tensions
Whittlestone, J., Nyrup, R., Alexandrova, A., & Cave, S. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3306618.3314289 · Cited by 399 · see citing works
The ethics of algorithms: key problems and solutions
Tsamados, A., Aggarwal, N., Cowls, J., Morley, J., Roberts, H., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2022) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01154-8 · Cited by 384 · see citing works
Self-citationMachine learning and human capital complementarities: Experimental evidence on bias mitigation
Choudhury, P., Starr, E., & Agarwal, R. (2020) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3152 · Cited by 293 · see citing works
Hutchinson, B., Smart, A., Hanna, A., Denton, R., Greer, C., Kjartansson, O., Barnes, P., & Mitchell, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445918 · Cited by 279 · see citing works
Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., Smith-Loud, J., Theron, D., & Barnes, P. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.00973 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society
Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2021) · Philosophical Studies Series · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-81907-1_2 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Self-citationCharacterizing Machine Learning Processes: A Maturity Framework
Akkiraju, R., Sinha, V., Xu, A., Mahmud, J., Gundecha, P., Liu, Z., Liu, X., & Schumacher, J. (2020) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58666-9_2 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Turilli, M. (2007) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-006-9128-9 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
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
Auditing 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).”
BackgroundSelf-citationMapping the ethics of generative AI: a comprehensive scoping review
Hagendorff, T. (2024) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-024-09694-w · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Farrow, R. (2023) · Learning, Media and Technology · doi:10.1080/17439884.2023.2185630 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
- Authors
- Floridi, L., Holweg, M., Taddeo, M., Amaya, J., Mökander, J., & Wen, Y.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Holweg, Matthias
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4220929609
- Cited by
- 157
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 9
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
- Keywords
- EU AI Act, AI governance, ethical AI, AI ethics principles, trustworthy AI, AI compliance
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
