The DOI matches its DataCite record; 146 of the 230 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims
Open accessAbstract
With the recent wave of progress in artificial intelligence (AI) has come a growing awareness of the large-scale impacts of AI systems, and recognition that existing regulations and norms in industry and academia are insufficient to ensure responsible AI development. In order for AI developers to earn trust from system users, customers, civil society, governments, and other stakeholders that they are building AI responsibly, they will need to make verifiable claims to which they can be held accountable. Those outside of a given organization also need effective means of scrutinizing such claims. This report suggests various steps that different stakeholders can take to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems and their associated development processes, with a focus on providing evidence about the safety, security, fairness, and privacy protection of AI systems. We analyze ten mechanisms for this purpose--spanning institutions, software, and hardware--and make recommendations aimed at implementing, exploring, or improving those mechanisms.
Overview
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
Verification
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Provenance records may contain sensitive timestamps or workflow traces”
From Designing automated audit mechanisms to evaluate compliance of generative AI platforms with federal authorship and ownership disclosure requirements. (2023) · cites this paper as [37]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Where external model providers or plug-ins are used, vendor audits ensure provenance capture and persistence obligations are met across integrated systems [37,34].”
From Designing automated audit mechanisms to evaluate compliance of generative AI platforms with federal authorship and ownership disclosure requirements. (2023) · cites this paper as [37]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Besides governmental organizations, a wealth of companies also release their guidelines or principles to demonstrate their compliance with AI trustworthiness [27, 58, 37, 15, 14, 82].”
From Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practices (2023) · cites this paper as [14]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“To ensure that the provenance is tamper proof, the blockchain has been recently considered as a promising tool to certify data provenance in AI [96, 14].”
From Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practices (2023) · cites this paper as [14]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
SMOTE synthetic minority over-sampling technique
Chawla, N. V., Bowyer, K. W., Hall, L. O., & Kegelmeyer, W. P. (2002) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.953 · Cited by 32,865 · cited 1×
“Training data can be rigorously evaluated for representativeness [63] [64]; assumptions can be characterized by evaluating modular components of an AI model and by clearly communicating output uncertainties; and performance can be characterized by measuring generalization, fairness, and performance heterogeneity acros…”
BackgroundVisualizing and understanding convolutional networks
Zeiler, M. D., & Fergus, R. (2014) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10590-1_53 · Cited by 15,839
An integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736
Rudin, C. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x · Cited by 10,561 · cited 1×
“This lack of interpretability in AI systems has raised concerns about using AI models in high stakes decision-making contexts where human welfare may be compromised [73].”
BackgroundExplaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples
Goodfellow, I. J., Shlens, J., & Szegedy, C. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6572 · Cited by 10,381 · cited 1×
“• This system is robust even to adversarial examples [57] [58];”
BackgroundThe future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019 · Cited by 8,727
Intriguing properties of neural networks
Szegedy, C., Zaremba, W., Sutskever, I., Bruna, J., Erhan, D., Goodfellow, I., & Fergus, R. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1312.6199 · Cited by 8,143 · cited 1×
“• This system is robust even to adversarial examples [57] [58];”
BackgroundIntroduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination
Haas, P. M. (1992) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818300001442 · Cited by 7,891
Advances and Open Problems in Federated Learning
Kairouz, P., & McMahan, H. B. (2021) · Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning · doi:10.1561/2200000083 · Cited by 7,772 · cited 2×
“, service provider), while keeping the training data decentralized [94].”
BackgroundSelf-citationCalibrating Noise to Sensitivity in Private Data Analysis
Dwork, C., McSherry, F., Nissim, K., & Smith, A. (2006) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/11681878_14 · Cited by 7,272
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Toward Medical XAI
Tjoa, E., & Guan, C. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2020.3027314 · Cited by 2,524
Ali, S., Abuhmed, T., El-Sappagh, S., Muhammad, K., Alonso-Moral, J. M., Confalonieri, R., Guidotti, R., Del Ser, J., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., & Herrera, F. (2023) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101805 · Cited by 1,762
Secure, privacy-preserving and federated machine learning in medical imaging
Kaissis, G. A., Makowski, M. R., Rückert, D., & Braren, R. F. (2020) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-020-0186-1 · Cited by 1,676
“(8) The development of auditable and objectively trustworthy systems 99 (that is, not relying on subjective assertions—for example, by governments) will promote the universal acceptance of secure and private AI solutions by individuals and policymakers.”
BackgroundGenerative AI and ChatGPT: applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration
Fui-Hoon Nah, F., Zheng, R., Cai, J., Siau, K., & Chen, L. (2023) · Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research · doi:10.1080/15228053.2023.2233814 · Cited by 1,363
Interpretable machine learning: Fundamental principles and 10 grand challenges
Rudin, C., Chen, C., Chen, Z., Huang, H., Semenova, L., & Zhong, C. (2022) · Statistics Surveys · doi:10.1214/21-ss133 · Cited by 958
“It is universally agreed that interpretability is a key element of trust for AI models (Wagstaff, 2012; Rudin and Wagstaff, 2014; Lo Piano, 2020; Ashoori and Weisz, 2019; Thiebes et al., 2020; Spiegelhalter, 2020; Brundage et al., 2020).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Brundage, M., Avin, S., Wang, J., Belfield, H., Krueger, G., Hadfield, G., Khlaaf, H., Yang, J., Toner, H., Fong, R., Maharaj, T., Koh, P. W., Hooker, S., Leung, J., Trask, A., Bluemke, E., Lebensold, J., O'Keefe, C., Koren, M., Ryffel, T., Rubinovitz, J., Besiroglu, T., Carugati, F., Clark, J., Eckersley, P., de Haas, S., Johnson, M., Laurie, B., Ingerman, A., Krawczuk, I., Askell, A., Cammarota, R., Lohn, A., Krueger, D., Stix, C., Henderson, P., Graham, L., Prunkl, C., Martin, B., Seger, E., Zilberman, N., hÉigeartaigh, S. Ó., Kroeger, F., Sastry, G., Kagan, R., Weller, A., Tse, B., Barnes, E., Dafoe, A., Scharre, P., Herbert-Voss, A., Rasser, M., Sodhani, S., Flynn, C., Gilbert, T. K., Dyer, L., Khan, S., Bengio, Y., & Anderljung, M.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Centre Universitaire de Mila (DZ)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Adelard (GB)
- Center for Security and Emerging Technology (US)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- École Normale Supérieure - PSL (FR)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Google (United States) (US)
- École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
- RAND Corporation (US)
- Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
- Coventry University (GB)
- Center for a New American Security (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- ORCID
- Avin, Shahar
- Belfield, Haydn
- Hadfield, Gillian
- Yang, Jingying
- Fong, Ruth
- Maharaj, Tegan
- Koh, Pang Wei
- Hooker, Sara
- Trask, Andrew
- Bluemke, Emma
- Ryffel, Théo
- Besiroglu, Tamay
- Carugati, Federica
- Laurie, Ben
- Ingerman, Alex
- Krawczuk, Igor
- Cammarota, Rosario
- Lohn, Andrew
- Krueger, David
- Stix, Charlotte
- Henderson, Peter
- Prunkl, Carina
- Seger, Elizabeth
- Zilberman, Noa
- hÉigeartaigh, Seán Ó
- Kroeger, Frens
- Weller, Adrian
- Barnes, Elizabeth
- Dafoe, Allan
- Sodhani, Shagun
- Gilbert, Thomas Krendl
- Khan, Saif
- Bengio, Yoshua
- Anderljung, Markus
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2020
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2004.07213
- OpenAlex
- W4287552728
- Cited by
- 306
- References
- 230
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 80 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 16
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Pure (Coventry University) (submittedVersion)
- TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Keywords
- trustworthy AI, responsible AI development, accountability, AI safety, AI security, algorithmic fairness, privacy preservation, stakeholder scrutiny, verification methods, AI governance
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
