Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 119 references

AI Assurance in UK Defence: Challenges in Operationalising JSP 936

T0 review · 1 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-06-27 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read JSP 936 supplies a governance basis for AI assurance in UK Defence, but its use hinges on eight unresolved technical, organisational and assurance questions.

desk verdict This is a policy briefing that maps eight standard AI assurance issues onto the new UK JSP 936 directive without showing how the mapping was done or adding new methods. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.09414 v1 pith:3B3YZC4H submitted 2026-06-08 cs.HC cs.AI

Callum Cockburn , Sam Farrow This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords AIassuranceUKDefenceJSP936operationalisationchallengessocio-technicalsystemshuman-AIinteractionethicalsafetyandsecurity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper conducts a structured interpretive review of JSP 936 Part 1 and extracts eight thematic challenge areas that block practical application. It maintains that the directive supplies a sound governance foundation yet real implementation still requires solutions to problems of evidence adequacy, human-AI interaction management, operational-environment definition, systems-of-systems integration, performance assessment and maintenance, safety and security analysis, ethicality measurement, and AI complexity mitigation. These difficulties arise from the socio-technical character of AI systems, uncertain deployment settings, gaps in existing assurance techniques, and unavoidable trade-offs among performance, safety, oversight, security and ethics. The authors conclude that further methods, guidance and organisational capability are required to achieve ambitious yet safe and responsible AI adoption across Defence.

What carries the argument

A structured interpretive review of JSP 936 Part 1 that isolates eight thematic challenge areas as the primary barriers to operationalisation.

What would settle it

An empirical demonstration that all eight listed challenge areas can be fully resolved using only existing methods, guidance and organisational structures without further development would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

JSP 936 provides a useful governance basis for AI assurance, but implementation depends on unresolved technical, organisational, and assurance questions that stem from the socio-technical nature of AI-enabled systems, uncertainty in real-world deployment contexts, limitations in current assurance methodologies, and tensions between performance, safety, human oversight, security, and ethical acceptability.

Load-bearing premise

The structured interpretive review has correctly and comprehensively identified the eight thematic challenge areas as the primary barriers to operationalisation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Further methods and guidance must be developed to address the eight challenge areas for AI adoption in Defence.
  • Organisational capability building is required to manage the socio-technical aspects of AI assurance.
  • JSP 936 implementation must proceed iteratively to accommodate uncertainties in real-world contexts.
  • Explicit management of trade-offs among performance, safety, human oversight, security and ethics is necessary.
  • Current assurance methodologies require extension to handle AI-specific complexities.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar governance documents in civilian sectors may encounter parallel socio-technical barriers when applied to AI.
  • Targeted training for Defence personnel on ethical measurement and human-AI oversight could reduce several of the identified tensions.
  • Case studies that apply the eight areas to specific AI systems would show which challenges dominate in practice.
  • Linking JSP 936 requirements to established safety standards could ease some of the performance-safety conflicts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper examines practical challenges in operationalising JSP 936 Part 1 for AI assurance in UK Defence. Using a structured interpretive review of the directive's requirements, it identifies eight thematic challenge areas (adequacy of evidence and argument, management of human interaction with AI, definition of the operational environment, integration of AI within systems of systems, assessment and maintenance of AI performance, analysis of safety and security, measurement of ethicality, and mitigation of the inherent complexities of AI). It argues that JSP 936 provides a useful governance basis but that implementation depends on unresolved technical, organisational, and assurance questions stemming from the socio-technical nature of AI-enabled systems.

Significance. If the eight themes are shown to be exhaustive and correctly derived, the report would usefully map socio-technical and methodological gaps that must be addressed for responsible AI adoption in defence, aligning with MOD's own framing of iterative implementation.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / methods description of the review] The description of the 'structured interpretive review' (Abstract and the section presenting the eight themes) provides no protocol details, requirement-by-requirement mapping to JSP 936 Part 1, exclusion criteria, or completeness checks. Without these, it is impossible to verify whether the eight areas exhaustively cover the directive or whether other barriers were overlooked, directly undermining the central claim that implementation depends on resolving exactly these gaps.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback on the manuscript. The single major comment raises a valid methodological concern that we can address through revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / methods description of the review] The description of the 'structured interpretive review' (Abstract and the section presenting the eight themes) provides no protocol details, requirement-by-requirement mapping to JSP 936 Part 1, exclusion criteria, or completeness checks. Without these, it is impossible to verify whether the eight areas exhaustively cover the directive or whether other barriers were overlooked, directly undermining the central claim that implementation depends on resolving exactly these gaps.

    Authors: We agree that the current description of the structured interpretive review lacks sufficient methodological transparency. The review was interpretive rather than a formal systematic review, drawing on close reading of JSP 936 Part 1 to surface socio-technical challenges, but no explicit protocol, mapping table, or completeness argument was provided. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated methods subsection that: (1) outlines the interpretive process (iterative thematic grouping of directive requirements), (2) provides a high-level mapping of key JSP 936 requirements to the eight themes, (3) states the scope and any implicit exclusion criteria (e.g., focus on Part 1 only), and (4) includes a short limitations paragraph acknowledging that exhaustiveness cannot be formally demonstrated. This will allow readers to assess coverage without altering the identified challenge areas or the overall argument. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: external policy review with no self-referential derivations

full rationale

The paper performs a structured interpretive review of the external JSP 936 Part 1 directive to extract eight thematic challenge areas, then concludes that operationalisation depends on resolving those challenges. No equations, fitted parameters, self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes appear in the provided text. The derivation chain consists of mapping an external policy document to themes and does not reduce any claim to the paper's own inputs by construction. This is a standard interpretive analysis of an outside source and is self-contained against that benchmark.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a policy analysis report with no mathematical derivations, data fitting, or new postulated entities. The only background assumption is that JSP 936 Part 1 constitutes the relevant governance document for the analysis.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption JSP 936 Part 1 is the authoritative and relevant directive whose operationalisation challenges are under examination
    The entire analysis is scoped to this single document; the paper does not justify why other directives or standards are secondary.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI Assurance in UK Defence: Challenges in Operationalising JSP 936." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3B3YZC4H

@misc{pith2026260609414,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI Assurance in UK Defence: Challenges in Operationalising JSP 936},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3B3YZC4H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.09414}
}
read the original abstract

This report examines practical challenges in operationalising JSP 936 Part 1 for AI assurance in UK Defence. Using a structured interpretive review of the directive's requirements, the analysis identifies eight thematic challenge areas adequacy of evidence and argument, management of human interaction with AI, definition of the operational environment, integration of AI within systems of systems, assessment and maintenance of AI performance, analysis of safety and security, measurement of ethicality, and mitigation of the inherent complexities of AI. The report argues that JSP 936 provides a useful governance basis, but that implementation depends on unresolved technical, organisational, and assurance questions. These challenges stem from the socio-technical nature of AI-enabled systems, uncertainty in real-world deployment contexts, limitations in current assurance methodologies, and tensions between performance, safety, human oversight, security, and ethical acceptability. The report identifies areas where further methods, guidance, and organisational capability are needed for the ambitious, safe, and responsible adoption of AI across Defence. This is consistent with MOD's own framing of JSP 936 as requiring iterative implementation and supporting guidance.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ver- sion 1

    Ministry of Defence.JSP 936: Dependable Artificial Intelligence (AI) in defence (part 1: directive). Ver- sion 1. Nov. 13, 2024.URL: https : / / www . gov . uk / government / publications / jsp - 936 - dependable - artificial- intelligence- ai- in- defence- part- 1- directive (visited on 05/29/2026). 8TH JUNE 2025 14

    2024

  2. [2]

    Safety and As- surance Cases: Past, Present and Possible Future – an Adelard Perspective

    Robin Bloomfield and Peter Bishop. “Safety and As- surance Cases: Past, Present and Possible Future – an Adelard Perspective”. In:Making Systems Safer. Ed. by Chris Dale and Tom Anderson. London: Springer, 2010, pp. 51–67.ISBN: 978-1-84996-086-1.DOI: 10. 1007/978-1-84996-086-1 4

    2010

  3. [3]

    Software Assurance Using Structured Assurance Case Models

    Thomas Rhodes, Elizabeth Fong, and Michael Kass. “Software Assurance Using Structured Assurance Case Models”. In:Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology115.3 (2010)

    2010

  4. [4]

    Version Number: 3

    Ibrahim Habli et al.The BIG Argument for AI Safety Cases. Version Number: 3. 2025.DOI: 10 . 48550 / ARXIV.2503.11705.URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503. 11705 (visited on 06/04/2026)

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Center for International Security and Cooperation: Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, Nov

    Isaac Gazendam and Philip Dawson.Mind the Gap: The Challenges of Assurance for Artificial Intelligence. Center for International Security and Cooperation: Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, Nov. 26, 2023.URL: https : / / cisac . fsi . stanford . edu / publication / mind - gap - challenges-assurance-artificial-intellig...

    2023

  6. [6]

    Introduction to AI assurance

    Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Introduction to AI assurance. GOV.UK. Feb. 12, 2024. URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ introduction - to - ai - assurance / introduction - to - ai - assurance (visited on 06/04/2026)

    2024

  7. [7]

    A sociotechnical system perspective on AI

    Olya Kudina and Ibo van de Poel. “A sociotechnical system perspective on AI”. In:Minds and Machines 34.3 (June 12, 2024), p. 21.ISSN: 1572-8641.DOI: 10.1007/s11023-024-09680-2.URL: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11023-024-09680-2 (visited on 04/02/2026)

    work page doi:10.1007/s11023-024-09680-2.url: 2024

  8. [8]

    Facing & mitigating common chal- lenges when working with real-world data: The Data Learning Paradigm

    Jake Lever et al. “Facing & mitigating common chal- lenges when working with real-world data: The Data Learning Paradigm”. In:Journal of Computational Science85 (Feb. 1, 2025), p. 102523.ISSN: 1877- 7503.DOI: 10 . 1016 / j . jocs . 2024 . 102523.URL: https : / / www. sciencedirect . com / science / article / pii / S1877750324003168 (visited on 04/03/2026)

    2025

Show all 119 references
  1. [9]

    Data models, rep- resentation and adequacy-for-purpose

    Alisa Bokulich and Wendy Parker. “Data models, rep- resentation and adequacy-for-purpose”. In:European Journal for Philosophy of Science11.1 (Mar. 2021), p. 31.ISSN: 1879-4912, 1879-4920.DOI: 10 . 1007 / s13194-020-00345-2.URL: http://link.springer.com/ 10.1007/s13194-020-0034...

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Defence Committee.Developing AI capacity and ex- pertise in UK Defence. HC 590. UK Parliment, Jan. 10, 2025.URL: https : / / publications . parliament . uk / pa / cm5901/cmselect/cmdfence/812/report.html (visited on 06/04/2026)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Non-functional requirements for ma- chine learning: understanding current use and chal- lenges among practitioners

    Khan Mohammad Habibullah, Gregory Gay, and Jen- nifer Horkoff. “Non-functional requirements for ma- chine learning: understanding current use and chal- lenges among practitioners”. In:Requirements Engi- neering28.2 (June 1, 2023), pp. 283–316.ISSN: 1432- 010X.DOI: 10.1007/s007...

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Assuring the Machine Learning Lifecycle: Desiderata, Methods, and Challenges

    Rob Ashmore, Radu Calinescu, and Colin Paterson. “Assuring the Machine Learning Lifecycle: Desiderata, Methods, and Challenges”. In:ACM Computing Sur- veys54.5 (June 30, 2022), pp. 1–39.ISSN: 0360-0300, 1557-7341.DOI: 10.1145/3453444.URL: https://dl. acm.org/doi/10.1145/345344...

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Agile Management for Machine Learning: A Systematic Mapping Study

    Lucas Romao et al. “Agile Management for Machine Learning: A Systematic Mapping Study”. In:Software Engineering and Advanced Applications. Ed. by Da- vide Taibi and Darja Smite. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2026, pp. 350–360.ISBN: 978-3-032- 04200-2.DOI: 10.1007/978-3-03...

    2026 doi

  6. [14]

    Software Engineering for Ma- chine Learning: A Case Study

    Saleema Amershi et al. “Software Engineering for Ma- chine Learning: A Case Study”. In:2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineer- ing: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP). 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Soft...

    2019

  7. [15]

    How mature is requirements engineering for AI-based systems? A systematic map- ping study on practices, challenges, and future re- search directions

    Umm-e- Habiba et al. “How mature is requirements engineering for AI-based systems? A systematic map- ping study on practices, challenges, and future re- search directions”. In:Requirements Engineering29.4 (Dec. 1, 2024), pp. 567–600.ISSN: 1432-010X.DOI: 10.1007/s00766-024-0043...

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Requirements engineering for artificial intelligence systems: A systematic mapping study

    Khlood Ahmad et al. “Requirements engineering for artificial intelligence systems: A systematic mapping study”. In:Information and Software Technology158 (June 1, 2023), p. 107176.ISSN: 0950-5849.DOI: 10 . 1016 / j . infsof . 2023 . 107176.URL: https : / / www . sciencedirect ...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Modeling machine learning requirements from three perspectives: a case report from the healthcare domain

    Soroosh Nalchigar, Eric Yu, and Karim Keshav- jee. “Modeling machine learning requirements from three perspectives: a case report from the healthcare domain”. In:Requirements Engineering26.2 (June 2021), pp. 237–254.ISSN: 0947-3602, 1432-010X. DOI: 10 . 1007 / s00766 - 020 - 0...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Antonio Pedro Santos Alves et al.Status Quo and Problems of Requirements Engineering for Ma- chine Learning: Results from an International Survey. Oct. 10, 2023.DOI: 10 . 48550 / arXiv. 2310 . 06726. arXiv: 2310.06726[cs.SE].URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2310.06726 (visited on 05...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Expectation management in AI: A framework for understanding stakeholder trust and acceptance of artificial intelligence systems

    Marjorie Kinney et al. “Expectation management in AI: A framework for understanding stakeholder trust and acceptance of artificial intelligence systems”. In: Heliyon10.7 (Apr. 2024), e28562.ISSN: 24058440. DOI: 10 . 1016 / j . heliyon . 2024 . e28562.URL: https : / / linkinghu...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Version 1

    Lloyd’s Register.LR Code for Unmanned Marine Systems. Version 1. Feb. 2017.URL: https://events. iala . int / content / uploads / 2021 / 07 / LR Code for Unmanned Marine Systems February 2017.pdf (visited on 05/25/2026)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Version 3

    Society of Automotive Engineers.Taxonomy and Def- initions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles. Version 3. Apr. 2024.URL: https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/sae/ sae30162021 (visited on 05/25/2026)

    2024

  14. [22]

    A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation

    R. Parasuraman, T.B. Sheridan, and C.D. Wickens. “A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation”. In:IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans30.3 (May 2000), pp. 286–297.ISSN: 10834427.DOI: 10. 1109/3468.844354.URL: ht...

  15. [23]

    Version 1

    International Standards Organisation.Ships and ma- rine technology — Vocabulary related to autonomous ship systems. Version 1. May 2022.URL: https://www. iso.org/standard/77186.html (visited on 05/25/2026)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Ironies of automation

    Lisanne Bainbridge. “Ironies of automation”. In:Auto- matica19.6 (Nov. 1, 1983), pp. 775–779.ISSN: 0005- 1098.DOI: 10 . 1016 / 0005 - 1098(83 ) 90046 - 8.URL: https : / / www. sciencedirect . com / science / article / pii / 0005109883900468 (visited on 01/05/2026)

    1983

  17. [25]

    The Out-of-the- Loop Performance Problem and Level of Control in Automation

    Mica R. Endsley and Esin O. Kiris. “The Out-of-the- Loop Performance Problem and Level of Control in Automation”. In:Human Factors37.2 (June 1, 1995). Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc, pp. 381–394.ISSN: 0018-7208.DOI: 10.1518/001872095779064555.URL: https://doi.org/10.1518/001...

    1995 doi

  18. [26]

    Com- placency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration

    Raja Parasuraman and Dietrich H. Manzey. “Com- placency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration”. In:Human Factors52.3 (June 1, 2010). Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc, pp. 381–410.ISSN: 0018-7208.DOI: 10 . 1177 / 0018720810376055.URL: https : / / doi ....

    2010

  19. [27]

    Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance

    John D. Lee and Katrina A. See. “Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance”. In:Human Fac- tors46.1 (Mar. 1, 2004). Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc, pp. 50–80.ISSN: 0018-7208.DOI: 10.1518/hfes. 46.1.50 30392.URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/ action/showAbstract...

    2004 doi

  20. [28]

    Richard Hawkins et al.Guidance on the Safety Assur- ance of Autonomous Systems in Complex Environments (SACE). Aug. 1, 2022.DOI: 10 . 48550 / arXiv. 2208 . 00853. arXiv: 2208.00853[cs.SE].URL: http://arxiv. org/abs/2208.00853 (visited on 05/26/2026)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Dynamic Assurance Cases: A Pathway to Trusted Autonomy

    Erfan Asaadi et al. “Dynamic Assurance Cases: A Pathway to Trusted Autonomy”. In:Computer53.12 (Dec. 2020), pp. 35–46.ISSN: 0018-9162, 1558-0814. DOI: 10 . 1109 / MC . 2020 . 3022030.URL: https : / / ieeexplore . ieee . org / document / 9269875/ (visited on 05/26/2026)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Robin Bloomfield and John Rushby.Assurance 2.0: A Manifesto. Jan. 14, 2021.DOI: 10 . 48550 / arXiv. 2004 . 10474. arXiv: 2004 . 10474[cs . SE].URL: http : //arxiv.org/abs/2004.10474 (visited on 05/26/2026)

    2021

  23. [31]

    A framework to identify failure scenarios in the control mode transition process for autonomous ships with dynamic autonomy

    X. Yang et al. “A framework to identify failure scenarios in the control mode transition process for autonomous ships with dynamic autonomy”. In:Ocean & Coastal Management249 (Mar. 1, 2024), p. 107003. ISSN: 0964-5691.DOI: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023. 107003.URL: https : / / www ...

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    A systematic review of ar- tificial intelligence impact assessments

    Bernd Carsten Stahl et al. “A systematic review of ar- tificial intelligence impact assessments”. In:Artificial Intelligence Review56.11 (Nov. 1, 2023), pp. 12799– 12831.ISSN: 1573-7462.DOI: 10.1007/s10462-023- 10420-8.URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023- 10420-8 (visited ...

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Version 1

    International Standards Organisation.ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Information technology — Artificial intelligence — Management system. Version 1. Dec. 2023.URL: https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html

    2023

  26. [34]

    Topics — European Parliament

    European Parliment.EU AI Act: first regulation on artificial intelligence. Topics — European Parliament. June 8, 2023.URL: https : / / www. europarl . europa . eu/topics/en/article/20230601STO93804/eu- ai- act- first - regulation - on - artificial - intelligence (visited on 11...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Let Me Take Over: Variable Au- tonomy for Meaningful Human Control

    Leila Methnani et al. “Let Me Take Over: Variable Au- tonomy for Meaningful Human Control”. In:Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence4 (Sept. 14, 2021), p. 737072. ISSN: 2624-8212.DOI: 10 . 3389 / frai . 2021 . 737072. URL: https : / / pmc . ncbi . nlm . nih . gov / articles / P...

    2021

  28. [37]

    General Purpose Artificial Intel- ligence Systems (GPAIS): Properties, definition, tax- onomy, societal implications and responsible gover- nance

    Isaac Triguero et al. “General Purpose Artificial Intel- ligence Systems (GPAIS): Properties, definition, tax- onomy, societal implications and responsible gover- nance”. In:Information Fusion103 (Mar. 1, 2024), p. 102135.ISSN: 1566-2535.DOI: 10.1016/j.inffus. 2023.102135.URL:...

    2024 doi

  29. [38]

    Trust in Artificial Intelli- gence: Meta-Analytic Findings

    Alexandra D. Kaplan et al. “Trust in Artificial Intelli- gence: Meta-Analytic Findings”. In:Human Factors 65.2 (Mar. 1, 2023). Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc, pp. 337–359.ISSN: 0018-7208.DOI: 10 . 1177 / 00187208211013988.URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 00187208211013988 (visi...

    2023

  30. [39]

    Trust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust

    Kevin Anthony Hoff and Masooda Bashir. “Trust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust”. In:Human Factors 57.3 (May 1, 2015). Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc, pp. 407–434.ISSN: 0018-7208.DOI: 10 . 1177 / 8TH JUNE 2025 16 0018720814547570.U...

    2015

  31. [40]

    Trust in Automation

    Robert R. Hoffman et al. “Trust in Automation”. In: IEEE Intelligent Systems28.1 (Jan. 2013), pp. 84–88. ISSN: 1941-1294.DOI: 10.1109/MIS.2013.24.URL: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6468022 (visited on 08/20/2025)

    2013 doi

  32. [41]

    Measuring and Calibrating Trust in Artificial Intelligence

    Mathias Bollaert, Olivier Augereau, and Gilles Cop- pin. “Measuring and Calibrating Trust in Artificial Intelligence”. Mar. 2024.URL: https://hal.science/hal- 04493669 (visited on 05/26/2026)

    2024

  33. [42]

    Measuring and Understanding Trust Calibrations for Automated Systems: A Survey of the State-Of-The-Art and Future Directions

    Magdalena Wischnewski, Nicole Kr ¨amer, and Em- manuel M ¨uller. “Measuring and Understanding Trust Calibrations for Automated Systems: A Survey of the State-Of-The-Art and Future Directions”. In:Proceed- ings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. C...

    2023

  34. [43]

    Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration

    Kazuo Okamura and Seiji Yamada. “Adaptive trust calibration for human-AI collaboration”. In:PLOS ONE15.2 (Feb. 21, 2020). Publisher: Public Library of Science, e0229132.ISSN: 1932-6203.DOI: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0229132.URL: https://journals.plos.org/ plosone / article ? id = ...

    2020

  35. [44]

    Adaptive Cognitive Mech- anisms to Maintain Calibrated Trust and Reliance in Automation

    Christian Lebiere et al. “Adaptive Cognitive Mech- anisms to Maintain Calibrated Trust and Reliance in Automation”. In:Frontiers in Robotics and AI8 (May 24, 2021), p. 652776.ISSN: 2296-9144.DOI: 10 . 3389 / frobt . 2021 . 652776.URL: https : / / pmc . ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/article...

    2021

  36. [45]

    Trust Calibration for Joint Human/AI Decision-Making in Dynamic and Uncer- tain Contexts

    Laura R. Marusich et al. “Trust Calibration for Joint Human/AI Decision-Making in Dynamic and Uncer- tain Contexts”. In:Artificial Intelligence in HCI. Ed. by Helmut Degen and Stavroula Ntoa. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2025, pp. 106–120.ISBN: 978-3- 031-93412-4.DOI: 10...

    2025 doi

  37. [46]

    Building trustworthy Artificial Intelligence through transparency explain- ability uncertainty and trust calibration

    Haochen Guo and Petr Polak. “Building trustworthy Artificial Intelligence through transparency explain- ability uncertainty and trust calibration”. In:Discover Artificial Intelligence(Apr. 13, 2026).ISSN: 2731- 0809.DOI: 10.1007/s44163-026-01219-x.URL: https: //doi.org/10.1007...

    2026 doi

  38. [47]

    Supporting Human-AI Teams:Transparency, explainability, and situation awareness

    Mica R. Endsley. “Supporting Human-AI Teams:Transparency, explainability, and situation awareness”. In:Computers in Human Behavior 140 (Mar. 1, 2023), p. 107574.ISSN: 0747- 5632.DOI: 10 . 1016 / j . chb . 2022 . 107574.URL: https : / / www. sciencedirect . com / science / arti...

    2023

  39. [48]

    Situation awareness- based agent transparency and human-autonomy teaming effectiveness

    Jessie Y . C. Chen et al. “Situation awareness- based agent transparency and human-autonomy teaming effectiveness”. In:Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science19.3 (May 4, 2018). Publisher: Taylor & Francis eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2017.1315750, pp. 259–282.ISS...

    2018 doi

  40. [49]

    On the Quest for Effectiveness in Human Oversight: Interdisciplinary Perspectives

    Sarah Sterz et al. “On the Quest for Effectiveness in Human Oversight: Interdisciplinary Perspectives”. In:Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. FAccT ’24. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, June 5, 2024, pp....

    2024 doi

  41. [50]

    AI Safety and Automation Bias

    Lauren Kahn, Emelia Probasco, and Ronnie Kinoshita. AI Safety and Automation Bias. Center for Secu- rity and Emerging Technology, Nov. 2024.DOI: 10. 51593/20230057.URL: https://cset.georgetown.edu/ publication/ai-safety-and-automation-bias/ (visited on 05/26/2026)

    2024

  42. [51]

    Human oversight of artificial intelligence: An operations management perspective

    Jes ´us Salgado-Criado. “Human oversight of artificial intelligence: An operations management perspective”. In:Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 18.2 (June 16, 2025), p. 285.ISSN: 2013-0953, 2013- 8423.DOI: 10.3926/jiem.8567.URL: https://www. jiem.org/index.php/...

    2025 doi

  43. [52]

    Vaishali Vinay.Failure Modes in LLM Systems: A System-Level Taxonomy for Reliable AI Applications. Nov. 26, 2025.DOI: 10 . 48550 / arXiv. 2511 . 19933. arXiv: 2511.19933[cs.AI].URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2511.19933 (visited on 05/26/2026)

    2025

  44. [53]

    Evaluation of LLM-based chatbots for OSINT- based Cyber Threat Awareness

    Samaneh Shafee, Alysson Bessani, and Pedro M. Fer- reira. “Evaluation of LLM-based chatbots for OSINT- based Cyber Threat Awareness”. In:Expert Systems with Applications261 (Feb. 1, 2025), p. 125509.ISSN: 0957-4174.DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2024.125509.URL: https : / / www. scienced...

    2025 doi

  45. [54]

    Ruling the Operational Boundaries: A Survey on Operational Design Domains of Au- tonomous Driving Systems

    Marcel Aguirre Mehlhorn, Andreas Richter, and Yuri A. W. Shardt. “Ruling the Operational Boundaries: A Survey on Operational Design Domains of Au- tonomous Driving Systems”. In:IFAC-PapersOnLine. 22nd IFAC World Congress 56.2 (Jan. 1, 2023), pp. 2202–2213.ISSN: 2405-8963.DOI: ...

    2023

  46. [55]

    Version Num- ber: 2

    Quanshi Zhang and Song-Chun Zhu.Visual Inter- pretability for Deep Learning: a Survey. Version Num- ber: 2. 2018.DOI: 10 . 48550 / ARXIV. 1802 . 00614. URL: https : / / arxiv. org / abs / 1802 . 00614 (visited on 05/27/2026)

    2018

  47. [56]

    Do Computational Models Differ Systematically from Human Object Perception?

    R. T. Pramod and S. P. Arun. “Do Computational Models Differ Systematically from Human Object Perception?” In:2016 IEEE Conference on Computer 8TH JUNE 2025 17 Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR). Las ...

    2016

  48. [57]

    Informing Autonomous System Design Through the Lens of Skill-, Rule-, and Knowledge-Based Behaviors

    Mary (Missy) Cummings. “Informing Autonomous System Design Through the Lens of Skill-, Rule-, and Knowledge-Based Behaviors”. In:Journal of Cogni- tive Engineering and Decision Making12.1 (Mar. 1, 2018). Publisher: SAGE Publications, pp. 58–61.ISSN: 1555-3434.DOI: 10.1177/1555...

    2018 doi

  49. [58]

    Beyond the Machine: An Integrative Framework of Anthropomor- phism in AI

    Petru Lucian Curs , eu and S, tefana Radu. “Beyond the Machine: An Integrative Framework of Anthropomor- phism in AI”. In:Behavioral Sciences16.3 (Mar. 2026). Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, p. 358.ISSN: 2076-328X.DOI: 10 . 3390 / bs16030358.URL: htt...

    2026

  50. [59]

    Anthropomorphism in AI

    Arleen Salles, Kathinka Evers, and Michele Farisco. “Anthropomorphism in AI”. In:AJOB Neuroscience 11.2 (Apr. 2, 2020), pp. 88–95.ISSN: 2150-7740, 2150-7759.DOI: 10.1080/21507740.2020.1740350. URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/ 21507740.2020.1740350 (visited on...

    2020 doi

  51. [60]

    Approach for Argumenting Safety on Basis of an Operational Design Domain

    Gereon Weiss et al. “Approach for Argumenting Safety on Basis of an Operational Design Domain”. In:Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/ACM 3rd International Confer- ence on AI Engineering - Software Engineering for AI. CAIN 2024: IEEE/ACM 3rd International Conference on AI Engineering -...

    2024

  52. [61]

    version: 1

    Ali Shakeri.Formalization of Operational Domain and Operational Design Domain for Automated Vehicles. version: 1. Aug. 16, 2024.DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2408. 14481. arXiv: 2408.14481[cs.RO].URL: http://arxiv. org/abs/2408.14481 (visited on 05/26/2026)

    2024 doi

  53. [62]

    Hyunin Lee et al.A Black Swan Hypothesis: The Role of Human Irrationality in AI Safety. Mar. 20, 2025. DOI: 10 . 48550 / arXiv . 2407 . 18422. arXiv: 2407 . 18422[cs.AI].URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18422 (visited on 05/27/2026)

    2025

  54. [63]

    Safety at the edge: a safety framework to identify edge conditions in the future transportation system with highly automated vehicles

    Megan S Ryerson et al. “Safety at the edge: a safety framework to identify edge conditions in the future transportation system with highly automated vehicles”. In:Injury Prevention26.4 (Aug. 2020), pp. 386–390.ISSN: 1353-8047, 1475-5785.DOI: 10. 1136 / injuryprev - 2019 - 0431...

    2020

  55. [64]

    June 15, 2024.DOI: 10

    Philip Koopman.Lessons from the Cruise Robotaxi Pedestrian Dragging Mishap. June 15, 2024.DOI: 10. 48550/arXiv.2406.05281. arXiv: 2406.05281[cs.RO]. URL: http : / / arxiv. org / abs / 2406 . 05281 (visited on 05/26/2026)

    2024

  56. [65]

    How Many Op- erational Design Domains, Objects, and Events?

    Philip Koopman and Frank Fratrik. “How Many Op- erational Design Domains, Objects, and Events?” In: SafeAI@AAAI. V ol. 2301. CEUR Workshop Proceed- ings. CEUR-WS.org, 2019.URL: https://ceur-ws.org/ V ol-2301/paper 6.pdf

    2019

  57. [66]

    Philip Koopman and William Widen.Redefining Safety for Autonomous Vehicles. Aug. 12, 2024.DOI: 10 . 48550/arXiv.2404.16768. arXiv: 2404.16768[cs.RO]. URL: http : / / arxiv. org / abs / 2404 . 16768 (visited on 05/27/2026)

    2024

  58. [67]

    Digital tech- nologies: civilian vs. military trajectories

    Dario Guarascio and Mario Pianta. “Digital tech- nologies: civilian vs. military trajectories”. In:LEM Working Papers(2025). Ed. by Federico Tamagni. Publisher: Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, pp. 2025/08. ISSN: 2284-0400.DOI: 10.57838/SSSA/DKB0-WB35. URL: https : / / ideas . repe...

    2025 doi

  59. [68]

    Unlocking the strategic power of dual-use technologies

    Tobias Aebi et al. “Unlocking the strategic power of dual-use technologies”. In:VIEWPOINT. ARTHUR D. LITTLE (2025).URL: https : / / www . adlittle . com / sites/default/files/viewpoints/ADL%20Dual%20use% 20technologies%202025.pdf

    2025

  60. [69]

    Public procurement and innovation: is defence different?

    Oishee Kundu. “Public procurement and innovation: is defence different?” PhD thesis. Alliance Manch- ester Business School: The University of Manchester, Dec. 6, 2021.URL: https://research.manchester.ac.uk/ en/studentTheses/public-procurement-and-innovation- is-defence-differe...

    2021

  61. [70]

    Drezner, and Elizabeth M

    Brodi Kotila, Jeffrey A. Drezner, and Elizabeth M. Bartels.Fostering Innovation in Military Technol- ogy: Strengthening DoD’s Commercial Technology Pipeline. RR-A1352-1. RAND Corporation, 2023. DOI: 10.7249/RBA1352- 1.URL: https://www.rand. org/pubs/research briefs/RBA1352-1.h...

    2023 doi

  62. [71]

    Navigating the landscape of operational design domains: A comprehensive map- ping study

    Daniel Hillen et al. “Navigating the landscape of operational design domains: A comprehensive map- ping study”. In:Next Research2.4 (Dec. 1, 2025), p. 101036.ISSN: 3050-4759.DOI: 10.1016/j.nexres. 2025.101036.URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science / article / pii / S30504...

    2025 doi

  63. [72]

    Unknown knowns: Tacit knowledge in requirements engineering

    Peter Sawyer, Vincenzo Gervasi, and Bashar Nuseibeh. “Unknown knowns: Tacit knowledge in requirements engineering”. In:RE ’11: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 19th International Requirements Engineering Conference(2011). Publisher: IEEE, p. 329.ISSN: 978-1-4577-0921-0.DOI: 10.110...

    2011 doi

  64. [73]

    Operational Design Domain (ODD) framework for driver-automation integrated systems

    HongSeok Cho. “Operational Design Domain (ODD) framework for driver-automation integrated systems”. PhD thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2020.URL: https : / / hdl . handle . net / 1721 . 1 / 129156 (visited on 05/27/2026). 8TH JUNE 2025 18

    2020

  65. [74]

    Hodge, Colin Paterson, and Ibrahim Habli

    Victoria J. Hodge, Colin Paterson, and Ibrahim Habli. Out-of-Distribution Detection for Safety Assurance of AI and Autonomous Systems. Oct. 24, 2025.DOI: 10. 48550/arXiv.2510.21254. arXiv: 2510.21254[cs.AI]. URL: http : / / arxiv. org / abs / 2510 . 21254 (visited on 05/27/2026)

    2025

  66. [75]

    Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse

    Raja Parasuraman and Victor Riley. “Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse”. In:Human Factors39.2 (June 1, 1997). Publisher: SAGE Publi- cations Inc, pp. 230–253.ISSN: 0018-7208.DOI: 10. 1518/001872097778543886.URL: https://doi.org/10. 1518/001872097778543886 (visit...

    1997

  67. [76]

    When Human-AI Interactions Become Parasocial: Agency and Anthropomorphism in Affective Design

    Takuya Maeda and Anabel Quan-Haase. “When Human-AI Interactions Become Parasocial: Agency and Anthropomorphism in Affective Design”. In:Pro- ceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. FAccT ’24. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computi...

    2024 doi

  68. [77]

    Architecting princi- ples for systems-of-systems

    Mark W. Maier. “Architecting princi- ples for systems-of-systems”. In:Sys- tems Engineering1.4 (1998). eprint: https://incose.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/%28SICI%291520- 6858%281998%291%3A4%3C267%3A%3AAID- SYS3%3E3.0.CO%3B2-D, pp. 267–284.ISSN: 1520-6858.DOI: 10.10...

    1998 doi

  69. [79]

    Traceability for Trust- worthy AI: A Review of Models and Tools

    Marc ¸al Mora-Cantallops et al. “Traceability for Trust- worthy AI: A Review of Models and Tools”. In:Big Data and Cognitive Computing5.2 (June 2021). Pub- lisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, p. 20.ISSN: 2504-2289.DOI: 10.3390/bdcc5020020. URL: https : / / ...

    2021 doi

  70. [80]

    Towards Trustworthy and Understandable AI: Unraveling Explainability Strategies on Simplify- ing Algorithms, Appropriate Information Disclosure, and High-level Collaboration

    Shuren Yu. “Towards Trustworthy and Understandable AI: Unraveling Explainability Strategies on Simplify- ing Algorithms, Appropriate Information Disclosure, and High-level Collaboration”. In:26th International Academic Mindtrek Conference. Mindtrek ’23: 26th International Acad...

    2023 doi

  71. [81]

    Designing Emer- gence in Systems of Systems Using Information Streams

    Uriel Hochmann and Yoram Reich. “Designing Emer- gence in Systems of Systems Using Information Streams”. In:Proceedings of the Design Society3 (July 2023), pp. 1357–1366.ISSN: 2732-527X.DOI: 10.1017/pds.2023.136.URL: https://www.cambridge. org/core/product/identifier/S2732527X...

    2023 doi

  72. [82]

    Learning from the Failure of Au- tonomous and Intelligent Systems: Accidents, Safety, and Sociotechnical Sources of Risk

    Carl Macrae. “Learning from the Failure of Au- tonomous and Intelligent Systems: Accidents, Safety, and Sociotechnical Sources of Risk”. In:Risk Analysis 42.9 (Sept. 2022), pp. 1999–2025.ISSN: 0272-4332, 1539-6924.DOI: 10 . 1111 / risa . 13850.URL: https : / / onlinelibrary. w...

    2022

  73. [83]

    Adversarial Machine Learning Attacks and Defences in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

    Maxwell Standen, Junae Kim, and Claudia Szabo. “Adversarial Machine Learning Attacks and Defences in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning”. In:ACM Computing Surveys57.5 (Jan. 24, 2025), 124:1– 124:35.ISSN: 0360-0300.DOI: 10 . 1145 / 3708320. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3...

    2025 doi

  74. [84]

    Version Number: 1

    Lewis Hammond et al.Multi-Agent Risks from Ad- vanced AI. Version Number: 1. 2025.DOI: 10.48550/ ARXIV.2502.14143.URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502. 14143 (visited on 05/27/2026)

    2025

  75. [85]

    Systems engineering barriers to legacy system evolution: Legacy system as- sessment

    Sian Terry and V . Chandrasekar. “Systems engineering barriers to legacy system evolution: Legacy system as- sessment”. In:Systems Engineering28.2 (Mar. 2025), pp. 207–223.ISSN: 1098-1241, 1520-6858.DOI: 10. 1002 / sys . 21788.URL: https : / / incose . onlinelibrary. wiley . c...

    2025

  76. [86]

    Mode confusion of human–machine interfaces for automated vehicles

    Hwisoo Eom and Sang Hun Lee. “Mode confusion of human–machine interfaces for automated vehicles”. In:Journal of Computational Design and Engineering 9.5 (Oct. 1, 2022), pp. 1995–2009.ISSN: 2288-5048. DOI: 10.1093/jcde/qwac088.URL: https://doi.org/10. 1093/jcde/qwac088 (visited...

    2022 doi

  77. [87]

    Toward a science of hu- man–AI teaming for decision making: A complemen- tarity framework

    Cleotilde Gonzalez et al. “Toward a science of hu- man–AI teaming for decision making: A complemen- tarity framework”. In:PNAS Nexus5.3 (Mar. 1, 2026), pgag030.ISSN: 2752-6542.DOI: 10.1093/pnasnexus/ pgag030.URL: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1093 / pnasnexus / pgag030 (visited...

    2026 doi

  78. [88]

    AC-ROS: assurance case driven adaptation for the robot operating system

    Betty H. C. Cheng et al. “AC-ROS: assurance case driven adaptation for the robot operating system”. In:Proceedings of the 23rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. MODELS ’20. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machiner...

    2020

  79. [89]

    PerMetrics: A Framework of Performance Metrics forMachine Learning Models

    Nguyen Van Thieu. “PerMetrics: A Framework of Performance Metrics forMachine Learning Models”. In:Journal of Open Source Software9.95 (Mar. 9, 2024), p. 6143.ISSN: 2475-9066.DOI: 10.21105/joss. 06143.URL: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/ joss.06143 (visited on 05/28/2026)

    2024 doi

  80. [91]

    STPA enabled safety assessment in the ar- chitecting of complex systems

    Sergio Jimeno Altelarrea, Atif Riaz, and Marin D. Guenov. “STPA enabled safety assessment in the ar- chitecting of complex systems”. In:Safety and Relia- bility41.4 (Oct. 2, 2022), pp. 197–224.ISSN: 0961- 7353, 2469-4126.DOI: 10 . 1080 / 09617353 . 2022 . 2145647.URL: https : ...

    2022

  81. [92]

    From Silos to Systems: Process-Oriented Hazard Anal- ysis for AI Systems

    Shalaleh Rismani, Roel Dobbe, and AJung Moon. From Silos to Systems: Process-Oriented Hazard Anal- ysis for AI Systems. Version Number: 1. 2024.DOI: 10.48550/ARXIV.2410.22526.URL: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2410.22526 (visited on 05/28/2026)

    2024 doi

  82. [93]

    The MIT Press, Dec

    Joaquin Qui ˜nonero-Candela et al., eds.Dataset Shift in Machine Learning. The MIT Press, Dec. 12, 2008. ISBN: 978-0-262-25510-3.DOI: 10 . 7551 / mitpress / 9780262170055.001.0001.URL: https://direct.mit.edu/ books/book/3841/Dataset-Shift-in-Machine-Learning (visited on 05/28/2026)

    2008

  83. [94]

    Version Number: 2

    Krzysztof Czarnecki and Hiroshi Kuwajima.STEAM & MoSAFE: SOTIF Error-and-Failure Model & Anal- ysis for AI-Enabled Driving Automation. Version Number: 2. 2023.DOI: 10.48550/ARXIV .2312.09559. URL: https : / / arxiv. org / abs / 2312 . 09559 (visited on 05/28/2026)

    2023 doi

  84. [95]

    Architectural Patterns for Inte- grating AI Technology into Safety-Critical Systems

    Georg Macher et al. “Architectural Patterns for Inte- grating AI Technology into Safety-Critical Systems”. In:26th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs. EuroPLoP’21: European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs 2021. Graz Austria: ACM, July 7, 2021, pp....

    2021 doi

  85. [96]

    Engineering trustworthy secure systems

    Ron Ross, Mark Winstead, and Michael McEvilley. Engineering trustworthy secure systems. NIST SP 800- 160v1r1. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Stan- dards and Technology (U.S.), Nov. 16, 2022, NIST SP 800–160v1r1.DOI: 10 . 6028 / NIST . SP . 800 - 160v1r1.URL: https : /...

    2022

  86. [97]

    NIST 100-2e2023

    Apostol Vassilev et al.Adversarial machine learning : a taxonomy and terminology of attacks and mitiga- tions. NIST 100-2e2023. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.), Jan. 4, 2024, NIST 100–2e2023.DOI: 10.6028/NIST.AI.100- 2e2023.URL: https : ...

    2024 doi

  87. [98]

    AI Security: Demystifying the Distinction and Bound- aries

    Zhiqiang Lin, Huan Sun, and Ness Shroff.AI Safety vs. AI Security: Demystifying the Distinction and Bound- aries. Version Number: 1. 2025.DOI: 10 . 48550 / ARXIV.2506.18932.URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506. 18932 (visited on 05/28/2026)

    2025

  88. [99]

    Prompt Injection Attacks in Large Language Models and AI Agent Systems: A Comprehensive Review of Vulnerabilities, Attack Vectors, and Defense Mechanisms

    Saidakhror Gulyamov et al. “Prompt Injection Attacks in Large Language Models and AI Agent Systems: A Comprehensive Review of Vulnerabilities, Attack Vectors, and Defense Mechanisms”. In:Information 17.1 (Jan. 7, 2026), p. 54.ISSN: 2078-2489.DOI: 10. 3390 / info17010054.URL: h...

    2026

  89. [100]

    Building trust: Founda- tions of security, safety, and transparency in AI

    Huzaifa Sidhpurwala et al. “Building trust: Founda- tions of security, safety, and transparency in AI”. In: AI Magazine46.2 (June 2025), e70005.ISSN: 0738- 4602, 2371-9621.DOI: 10 . 1002 / aaai . 70005.URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aaai.70005 (visited on 05/28/2026)

    2025 doi

  90. [101]

    Red-Teaming LLM Multi-Agent Systems via Communication Attacks

    Pengfei He et al. “Red-Teaming LLM Multi-Agent Systems via Communication Attacks”. In:Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL

  91. [102]

    Findings 2025. Ed. by Wanxiang Che et al. Vi- enna, Austria: Association for Computational Linguis- tics, July 2025, pp. 6726–6747.ISBN: 979-8-89176- 256-5.DOI: 10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.349.URL: https://aclanthology.org/2025.findings-acl.349/ (visited on 05/28/2026)

    2025 doi

  92. [103]

    Risk Analysis Techniques for Gov- erned LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems

    Alistair Reid et al. “Risk Analysis Techniques for Gov- erned LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems”. In: (July 29, 2025).URL: https://www.gradientinstitute.org/assets/ gradient multiagent report.pdf

    2025

  93. [104]

    Stakeholder In- volvement for Responsible AI Development: A Pro- cess Framework

    Emma Kallina and Jatinder Singh. “Stakeholder In- volvement for Responsible AI Development: A Pro- cess Framework”. In:Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mech- anisms, and Optimization. EAAMO ’24: Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanis...

    2024 doi

  94. [105]

    Enter the metrics: critical theory and organizational operationalization of AI ethics

    Joris Krijger. “Enter the metrics: critical theory and organizational operationalization of AI ethics”. In:AI & SOCIETY37.4 (Dec. 2022), pp. 1427–1437.ISSN: 0951-5666, 1435-5655.DOI: 10 . 1007 / s00146 - 021 - 01256 - 3.URL: https : / / link . springer. com / 10 . 1007 / s0014...

    2022

  95. [106]

    Operationalizing AI ethics principles

    Cansu Canca. “Operationalizing AI ethics principles”. In:Communications of the ACM63.12 (Nov. 17, 2020), pp. 18–21.ISSN: 0001-0782, 1557-7317.DOI: 10.1145/3430368.URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10. 1145/3430368 (visited on 05/28/2026)

    2020 doi

  96. [107]

    Legal reviews of in situ learning in autonomous weapons

    Tim McFarland and Zena Assaad. “Legal reviews of in situ learning in autonomous weapons”. In:Ethics and Information Technology25.1 (Mar. 2023), p. 9. ISSN: 1388-1957, 1572-8439.DOI: 10.1007/s10676- 023-09688-9.URL: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/ s10676-023-09688-9 (visited...

    2023 doi

  97. [108]

    Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems

    Andrew D. Selbst et al. “Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems”. In:Proceedings of the Con- ference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. FAT* ’19: Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. Atlanta GA USA: ACM, Jan. 29, 2019, pp. 59–68.ISB...

    2019

  98. [109]

    No free lunch theorems for optimization

    D.H. Wolpert and W.G. Macready. “No free lunch theorems for optimization”. In:IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation1.1 (Apr. 1997), pp. 67–82. ISSN: 1089778X.DOI: 10.1109/4235.585893.URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/585893/ (visited on 05/29/2026)

    1997 doi

  99. [110]

    The Need for Biases in Learning Generalizations

    Tom M Mitchell. “The Need for Biases in Learning Generalizations”. In: (May 1980).URL: https://www. cs . cmu . edu / afs / cs / Web / People / tom / pubs / NeedForBias 1980.pdf

    1980

  100. [111]

    Inductive bi- ases for deep learning of higher-level cognition

    Anirudh Goyal and Yoshua Bengio. “Inductive bi- ases for deep learning of higher-level cognition”. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences478.2266 (Oct. 12, 2022), p. 20210068.ISSN: 1364-5021.DOI: 10.1098/ rspa.2021.0068.URL: htt...

    2022 doi

  101. [112]

    Fairness and Bias in Artificial In- telligence: A Brief Survey of Sources, Impacts, and Mitigation Strategies

    Emilio Ferrara. “Fairness and Bias in Artificial In- telligence: A Brief Survey of Sources, Impacts, and Mitigation Strategies”. In:Sci6.1 (Dec. 26, 2023), p. 3.ISSN: 2413-4155.DOI: 10.3390/sci6010003.URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/6/1/3 (visited on 05/29/2026)

    2023 doi

  102. [113]

    Ethical governance of artificial intel- ligence for defence: normative tradeoffs for principle to practice guidance

    Alexander Blanchard, Christopher Thomas, and Mari- arosaria Taddeo. “Ethical governance of artificial intel- ligence for defence: normative tradeoffs for principle to practice guidance”. In:AI & SOCIETY40.1 (Jan. 2025), pp. 185–198.ISSN: 0951-5666, 1435-5655. DOI: 10 . 1007 / ...

    2025

  103. [114]

    The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines

    Anna Jobin, Marcello Ienca, and Effy Vayena. “The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines”. In:Nature Machine Intelligence1.9 (Sept. 2, 2019), pp. 389–399. ISSN: 2522-5839.DOI: 10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2. URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256- 019- 0088-2 (visited on 05/28/2026)

    2019 doi

  104. [115]

    House of Lords, Dec

    AI in Weapon Systems Committee.Proceed with Cau- tion: Artificial Intelligence in Weapon Systems. House of Lords, Dec. 1, 2023.URL: https : / / publications . parliament.uk/pa/ld5804/ldselect/ldaiwe/16/16.pdf

    2023

  105. [116]

    ”Why Should I Trust You?

    Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. “”Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier”. In:Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. KDD ’16: The 22nd ACM SIGKDD International ...

    2016

  106. [117]

    Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead

    Cynthia Rudin. “Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead”. In:Nature Machine Intelligence1.5 (May 13, 2019), pp. 206–215.ISSN: 2522-5839.DOI: 10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x.URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/...

    2019 doi

  107. [118]

    Rapid Trust Calibration through Interpretable and Uncertainty-Aware AI

    Richard Tomsett et al. “Rapid Trust Calibration through Interpretable and Uncertainty-Aware AI”. In: Patterns1.4 (July 2020), p. 100049.ISSN: 26663899. DOI: 10 . 1016 / j . patter . 2020 . 100049.URL: https : / / linkinghub . elsevier . com / retrieve / pii / S266638992030060X...

    2020

  108. [119]

    The Mythos of Model Inter- pretability: In machine learning, the concept of inter- pretability is both important and slippery

    Zachary C. Lipton. “The Mythos of Model Inter- pretability: In machine learning, the concept of inter- pretability is both important and slippery.” In:Queue 16.3 (June 2018), pp. 31–57.ISSN: 1542-7730, 1542- 7749.DOI: 10 .1145 /3236386 . 3241340.URL: https : //dl.acm.org/doi/1...

    2018 doi

  109. [120]

    Trustworthy Artificial Intelli- gence in the Context of Metrology

    Tameem Adel et al. “Trustworthy Artificial Intelli- gence in the Context of Metrology”. In:Producing Artificial Intelligent Systems: The Roles of Bench- marking, Standardisation and Certification. Ed. by Maria Isabel Aldinhas Ferreira. Cham: Springer Na- ture Switzerland, 2024...

    2024 doi

  110. [121]

    Version Number: 2

    Chuan Guo et al.On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks. Version Number: 2. 2017.DOI: 10.48550/ ARXIV.1706.04599.URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706. 04599 (visited on 05/28/2026)

    2017 arXiv

  111. [122]

    Quantifying aleatoric and epis- temic uncertainty in machine learning: Are condi- tional entropy and mutual information appropriate measures?

    Lisa Wimmer et al. “Quantifying aleatoric and epis- temic uncertainty in machine learning: Are condi- tional entropy and mutual information appropriate measures?” In:Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Con- ference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. Un- certainty in Artifi...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed June 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.