The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective
Open accessAbstract
In the past few decades, artificial intelligence (AI) technology has experienced swift developments, changing everyone's daily life and profoundly altering the course of human society. The intention of developing AI is to benefit humans, by reducing human labor, bringing everyday convenience to human lives, and promoting social good. However, recent research and AI applications show that AI can cause unintentional harm to humans, such as making unreliable decisions in safety-critical scenarios or undermining fairness by inadvertently discriminating against one group. Thus, trustworthy AI has attracted immense attention recently, which requires careful consideration to avoid the adverse effects that AI may bring to humans, so that humans can fully trust and live in harmony with AI technologies. Recent years have witnessed a tremendous amount of research on trustworthy AI. In this survey, we present a comprehensive survey of trustworthy AI from a computational perspective, to help readers understand the latest technologies for achieving trustworthy AI. Trustworthy AI is a large and complex area, involving various dimensions. In this work, we focus on six of the most crucial dimensions in achieving trustworthy AI: (i) Safety & Robustness, (ii) Non-discrimination & Fairness, (iii) Explainability, (iv) Privacy, (v) Accountability & Auditability, and (vi) Environmental Well-Being. For each dimension, we review the recent related technologies according to a taxonomy and summarize their applications in real-world systems. We also discuss the accordant and conflicting interactions among different dimensions and discuss potential aspects for trustworthy AI to investigate in the future.
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.
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
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on RAG Meeting LLMs: Towards Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models
Fan, W., Ding, Y., Ning, L., Wang, S., Li, H., Yin, D., Chua, T.-S., & Li, Q. (2024) · Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3637528.3671470 · Cited by 827
Self-citationTrustworthy AI: From Principles to Practices
Li, B., Qi, P., Liu, B., Di, S., Liu, J., Pei, J., Yi, J., & Zhou, B. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3555803 · Cited by 612
Fairness in machine learning: A survey
Caton, S., & Haas, C. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3616865 · Cited by 646
Financial 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, H., Wang, Y., Fan, W., Liu, X., Li, Y., Jain, S., Liu, Y., Jain, A. K., & Tang, J.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK)
- Twitter (United States) (US)
- Tsinghua University (CN)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-59
- ISSN
- 2157-6904 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2107.06641
- OpenAlex
- W3182221256
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 42 · 2025: 85 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 63.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Army Research Office (W911NF-2110198)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › 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, AI safety, robustness, algorithmic fairness, non-discrimination, explainability, privacy, accountability, auditability, environmental impact of AI, safety-critical systems
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
