Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Use case cards: a use case reporting framework inspired by the European AI Act

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 2306.13701 v1 pith:I6A5T3AV submitted 2023-06-23 cs.CY cs.AI

classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords casecardscasesframeworkassessingco-designdifferentdocumentation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Despite recent efforts by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) community to move towards standardised procedures for documenting models, methods, systems or datasets, there is currently no methodology focused on use cases aligned with the risk-based approach of the European AI Act (AI Act). In this paper, we propose a new framework for the documentation of use cases, that we call "use case cards", based on the use case modelling included in the Unified Markup Language (UML) standard. Unlike other documentation methodologies, we focus on the intended purpose and operational use of an AI system. It consists of two main parts. Firstly, a UML-based template, tailored to allow implicitly assessing the risk level of the AI system and defining relevant requirements. Secondly, a supporting UML diagram designed to provide information about the system-user interactions and relationships. The proposed framework is the result of a co-design process involving a relevant team of EU policy experts and scientists. We have validated our proposal with 11 experts with different backgrounds and a reasonable knowledge of the AI Act as a prerequisite. We provide the 5 "use case cards" used in the co-design and validation process. "Use case cards" allows framing and contextualising use cases in an effective way, and we hope this methodology can be a useful tool for policy makers and providers for documenting use cases, assessing the risk level, adapting the different requirements and building a catalogue of existing usages of AI.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Justified Evidence Collection for Argument-based AI Fairness Assurance

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper introduces a dynamic argument-based assurance framework that gathers evidence from model, data, and use case transparency artefacts to support fairness claims, illustrated on a finance sentiment analysis use case.

Pith tools