Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

System Cards for AI-Based Decision-Making for Public Policy

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 2203.04754 v2 pith:E3L43KVB submitted 2022-03-01 cs.CY cs.AI

System Cards for AI-Based Decision-Making for Public Policy

classification cs.CY cs.AI
keywords algorithmssystemauditsaccountabilityanalysisworkbenchmarkcards
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Decisions impacting human lives are increasingly being made or assisted by automated decision-making algorithms. Many of these algorithms process personal data for predicting recidivism, credit risk analysis, identifying individuals using face recognition, and more. While potentially improving efficiency and effectiveness, such algorithms are not inherently free from bias, opaqueness, lack of explainability, maleficence, and the like. Given that the outcomes of these algorithms have a significant impact on individuals and society and are open to analysis and contestation after deployment, such issues must be accounted for before deployment. Formal audits are a way of ensuring algorithms meet the appropriate accountability standards. This work, based on an extensive analysis of the literature and an expert focus group study, proposes a unifying framework for a system accountability benchmark for formal audits of artificial intelligence-based decision-aiding systems. This work also proposes system cards to serve as scorecards presenting the outcomes of such audits. It consists of 56 criteria organized within a four-by-four matrix composed of rows focused on (i) data, (ii) model, (iii) code, (iv) system, and columns focused on (a) development, (b) assessment, (c) mitigation, and (d) assurance. The proposed system accountability benchmark reflects the state-of-the-art developments for accountable systems, serves as a checklist for algorithm audits, and paves the way for sequential work in future research.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. L2-Bench: An Evaluation Benchmark for Measuring LLM Capabilities in Second Language Education

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    L2-Bench introduces a practitioner-validated taxonomy and 1,000-task rubric benchmark showing frontier LLMs score ~85% on L2 learning-design tasks but drop to ~70% on hard items.

  2. Evaluation Cards: An Interpretive Layer for AI Evaluation Reporting

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    EvalCards is a composable reporting schema and monitoring tool for AI evaluations, derived from 52 papers and 10 interviews, and applied to 5,816 models and 101,843 results to surface reporting gaps.

  3. The 2025 AI Agent Index: Documenting Technical and Safety Features of Deployed Agentic AI Systems

    cs.CY 2026-02 accept novelty 6.0

    The 2025 AI Agent Index catalogs technical and safety details for 30 deployed AI agents and finds low developer transparency on safety, evaluations, and societal impacts.