pith. sign in

arxiv: 2410.22526 · v2 · pith:QGB7XR7Nnew · submitted 2024-10-29 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.HC

From Silos to Systems: Process-Oriented Hazard Analysis for AI Systems

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.HC
keywords systemsstpasystemanalysisharmshazardssafetyaddress
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

To effectively address potential harms from Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, it is essential to identify and mitigate system-level hazards. Current analysis approaches focus on individual components of an AI system, like training data or models, in isolation, overlooking hazards from component interactions or how they are situated within a company's development process. To this end, we draw from the established field of system safety, which considers safety as an emergent property of the entire system. In this work, we translate System Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) - a recognized system safety framework - for analyzing AI development and operation processes. We focus on systems that rely on machine learning algorithms and conduct STPA on three case studies involving linear regression, reinforcement learning, and transformer-based generative models. Our analysis explored how STPA's control and system-theoretic perspectives apply to AI systems and whether unique AI traits - such as model opacity, capability uncertainty, and output complexity - necessitate modifications to the framework. We find that the key concepts and steps of conducting an STPA apply to AI systems but require targeted adaptations to address AI-specific challenges that arise to differing degrees across three case studies. We present the Process-oriented Hazard Analysis for AI Systems (PHASE) as a guideline that adapts STPA concepts for AI. Applying and interpreting STPA using the PHASE guidelines enables four key affordances for analysts responsible for managing AI system harms: 1) detection of system-level hazards, including those from accumulation of disparate issues; 2) explicit acknowledgment of social factors contributing to algorithmic harms; 3) creation of traceable accountability chains between harms and those who can mitigate them; and 4) ongoing monitoring and mitigation of new hazards.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

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. Exploring Systems-Thinking Approaches to Loss of Control Risk

    cs.CY 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Systems analyses of a frontier-lab AI coding agent scenario using STECA, STPA, and FRAM reveal unverifiable governance loops, ineffective control delays, and gradual safeguard erosion, supporting the addition of syste...

  2. Exploring Systems-Thinking Approaches to Loss of Control Risk

    cs.CY 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Systems-thinking analyses of a frontier-lab AI coding scenario identify unverifiable governance loops, monitoring delays, and gradual safeguard erosion that model evaluations may miss, arguing for paired systems-level...

  3. AI Assurance in UK Defence: Challenges in Operationalising JSP 936

    cs.HC 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    A structured review of JSP 936 identifies eight challenge areas in operationalising AI assurance for UK Defence and concludes that further methods, guidance, and organisational capability are required.