Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 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

classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords algorithmssystemauditsaccountabilityanalysisworkbenchmarkcards
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
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). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

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

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    L2-Bench provides a 1,000-task, expert-validated rubric benchmark showing that frontier LLMs score 50–86% on applied second-language learning-design competencies, with notable weakness on open-ended tasks.

  2. A Chain Is Only as Strong as Its Weakest Link: A Scoping Review of System Integration Audits in AI

    cs.SE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AI auditing that targets system integration is emerging but fragmented, and can be categorized into inter-component, system-environment, and multi-system sites serving four audit functions.

  3. BiMi Sheets: Infosheets for bias mitigation methods

    cs.LG 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    BiMi Sheets provide a uniform documentation format for bias mitigation methods, with six standardized sections and 24 pre-filled example sheets.

  4. AI Data Development: A Scorecard for the System Card Framework

    cs.CY 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A five-area scoring rubric for AI dataset documentation, applied to four datasets, shows consistent gaps in collection ethics and preprocessing details.

Pith tools