The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How to Assess Trustworthy AI in Practice
Abstract
This report is a methodological reflection on Z-Inspection$^{\small{\circledR}}$. Z-Inspection$^{\small{\circledR}}$ is a holistic process used to evaluate the trustworthiness of AI-based technologies at different stages of the AI lifecycle. It focuses, in particular, on the identification and discussion of ethical issues and tensions through the elaboration of socio-technical scenarios. It uses the general European Union's High-Level Expert Group's (EU HLEG) guidelines for trustworthy AI. This report illustrates for both AI researchers and AI practitioners how the EU HLEG guidelines for trustworthy AI can be applied in practice. We share the lessons learned from conducting a series of independent assessments to evaluate the trustworthiness of AI systems in healthcare. We also share key recommendations and practical suggestions on how to ensure a rigorous trustworthy AI assessment throughout the life-cycle of an AI system.
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?
In the citing paper
“The required auditability property of Trustworthy AI systems demands the development of practical tools [109] that are capable of verifying desirable properties of neural networks such as stability, sensitivity, relevance or reachability [110], as well as metrics beyond explainability [111-115], such as on traceability, data quality and integrity.”
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 [109]
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
On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07258 · Cited by 2,676
Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems
Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287598 · Cited by 1,631
Hard choices in artificial intelligence
Dobbe, R., Krendl Gilbert, T., & Mintz, Y. (2021) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2021.103555 · Cited by 65
Cited by
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
European AI regulation: Brussels effect versus human dignity?
Gstrein, O. J. (2022) · Zeitschrift für europarechtliche Studien · doi:10.5771/1435-439x-2022-4-755 · Cited by 26
Mariani, R., Rossi, F., Cucchiara, R., Pavone, M., Simkin, B., Koene, A., & Papenbrock, J. (2023) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.2022.3227683 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Zicari, R. V., Amann, J., Bruneault, F., Coffee, M., Düdder, B., Hickman, E., Gallucci, A., Gilbert, T. K., Hagendorff, T., van Halem, I., Hildt, E., Holm, S., Kararigas, G., Kringen, P., Madai, V. I., Mathez, E. W., Tithi, J. J., Vetter, D., Westerlund, M., & Wurth, R.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- arXiv
- 2206.09887
- References
- 3
- Type
- Preprint
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How to Assess Trustworthy AI in Practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2206.09887
- The paper
- Zicari, R. V., Amann, J., Bruneault, F., Coffee, M., Düdder, B., Hickman, E., Gallucci, A., Gilbert, T. K., Hagendorff, T., van Halem, I., Hildt, E., Holm, S., Kararigas, G., Kringen, P., Madai, V. I., Mathez, E. W., Tithi, J. J., Vetter, D., Westerlund, M., & Wurth, R. (2022). How to Assess Trustworthy AI in Practice. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2206.09887
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
