Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Systematic Literature Review of Validation Methods for AI Systems

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2107.12190 v1 pith:NSDKHLN5 submitted 2021-07-26 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords validationmethodssystemsliteratureappliedreviewsystematicused
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Context: Artificial intelligence (AI) has made its way into everyday activities, particularly through new techniques such as machine learning (ML). These techniques are implementable with little domain knowledge. This, combined with the difficulty of testing AI systems with traditional methods, has made system trustworthiness a pressing issue. Objective: This paper studies the methods used to validate practical AI systems reported in the literature. Our goal is to classify and describe the methods that are used in realistic settings to ensure the dependability of AI systems. Method: A systematic literature review resulted in 90 papers. Systems presented in the papers were analysed based on their domain, task, complexity, and applied validation methods. Results: The validation methods were synthesized into a taxonomy consisting of trial, simulation, model-centred validation, and expert opinion. Failure monitors, safety channels, redundancy, voting, and input and output restrictions are methods used to continuously validate the systems after deployment. Conclusions: Our results clarify existing strategies applied to validation. They form a basis for the synthesization, assessment, and refinement of AI system validation in research and guidelines for validating individual systems in practice. While various validation strategies have all been relatively widely applied, only few studies report on continuous validation. Keywords: artificial intelligence, machine learning, validation, testing, V&V, systematic literature review.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Beyond Explainability: The Case for AI Validation

    cs.CY 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    AI governance should shift from explainability to validation as its central regulatory pillar, with a typology of valid-versus-explainable systems.

  2. Engineering Trustworthy Machine-Learning Operations with Zero-Knowledge Proofs

    cs.SE 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A systematic review of 57 ZKP-for-ML papers concludes that inference verification dominates the field and that research is converging toward a unified ZKMLOps framework for trustworthy, auditable AI.

Pith tools