Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Kerstin Waxnegger

Publications and source records attributed to Kerstin Waxnegger.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Self-Certification of High-Risk AI Systems: The Example of AI-based Facial Emotion Recognition

The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act establishes comprehensive requirements for high-risk AI systems, yet the harmonized standards necessary for demonstrating compliance remain not fully developed. In this paper, we investigate the practical application of the Fraunhofer AI assessment catalogue as a certification framework through a complete self-certification cycle of an AI-based facial emotion recognition system. Beginning with a baseline model that has deficiencies, including inadequate demographic representation and prediction uncertainty, we document an enhancement process guided by AI certification requirements. The enhanced system achieves higher accuracy with improved reliability metrics and comprehensive fairness across demographic groups. We focused our assessment on two of the six Fraunhofer catalogue dimensions, reliability and fairness, the enhanced system successfully satisfies the certification criteria for these examined dimensions. We find that the certification framework provides value as a proactive development tool, driving concrete technical improvements and generating documentation naturally through integration into the development process. However, fundamental gaps separate structured self-certification from legal compliance: harmonized European standards are not fully available, and AI assessment frameworks and catalogues cannot substitute for them on their own. These findings establish the Fraunhofer AI assessment catalogue as a valuable preparatory tool that complements rather than replaces formal compliance requirements at this time.

cs.CY↗

Practical Application and Limitations of AI Certification Catalogues in the Light of the AI Act

In this work-in-progress, we investigate the certification of AI systems, focusing on the practical application and limitations of existing certification catalogues in the light of the AI Act by attempting to certify a publicly available AI system. We aim to evaluate how well current approaches work to effectively certify an AI system, and how publicly accessible AI systems, that might not be actively maintained or initially intended for certification, can be selected and used for a sample certification process. Our methodology involves leveraging the Fraunhofer AI Assessment Catalogue as a comprehensive tool to systematically assess an AI model's compliance with certification standards. We find that while the catalogue effectively structures the evaluation process, it can also be cumbersome and time-consuming to use. We observe the limitations of an AI system that has no active development team anymore and highlighted the importance of complete system documentation. Finally, we identify some limitations of the certification catalogues used and proposed ideas on how to streamline the certification process.

cs.CY↗

Establishing and Evaluating Trustworthy AI: Overview and Research Challenges

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies (re-)shape modern life, driving innovation in a wide range of sectors. However, some AI systems have yielded unexpected or undesirable outcomes or have been used in questionable manners. As a result, there has been a surge in public and academic discussions about aspects that AI systems must fulfill to be considered trustworthy. In this paper, we synthesize existing conceptualizations of trustworthy AI along six requirements: 1) human agency and oversight, 2) fairness and non-discrimination, 3) transparency and explainability, 4) robustness and accuracy, 5) privacy and security, and 6) accountability. For each one, we provide a definition, describe how it can be established and evaluated, and discuss requirement-specific research challenges. Finally, we conclude this analysis by identifying overarching research challenges across the requirements with respect to 1) interdisciplinary research, 2) conceptual clarity, 3) context-dependency, 4) dynamics in evolving systems, and 5) investigations in real-world contexts. Thus, this paper synthesizes and consolidates a wide-ranging and active discussion currently taking place in various academic sub-communities and public forums. It aims to serve as a reference for a broad audience and as a basis for future research directions.

cs.LG↗