System Cards for AI-Based Decision-Making for Public Policy
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 130 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Mar 2022.
Builds on
25 of 130 references.
References · 25
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
- 2019Federated Learning: Challenges, Methods, and Future Directionscited by 1,531
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,371
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,068
- 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
- 2018Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learningcited by 508
- 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 380
- 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
- 2018Aequitas: A Bias and Fairness Audit Toolkitcited by 145
- 2019The Hidden Assumptions Behind Counterfactual Explanations and Principal Reasonscited by 115
13 more
- 2020Why Fairness Cannot Be Automated: Bridging the Gap Between EU Non-Discrimination Law and AIcited by 81
- 2020Interpretability and Explainability: A Machine Learning Zoo Mini-tourcited by 55
- 2021Everyday algorithm auditing: Understanding the power of everyday users in surfacing harmful algorithmic behaviorscited by 47
- 2021Outlining Traceability: A Principle for Operationalizing Accountability in Computing Systemscited by 26
- 2018Data Poisoning Attacks against Online Learningcited by 24
- 2021Problematic Machine Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review of Algorithm Auditscited by 20
- 2019On the Legal Compatibility of Fairness Definitionscited by 19
- 2017Responsible Autonomycited by 18
- 2021A Survey on AI Assurancecited by 16
- 2018Enslaving the Algorithm: From a "Right to an Explanation" to a "Right to Better Decisions"?cited by 14
- 2021Ethics-Based Auditing of Automated Decision-Making Systems: Nature, Scope, and Limitationscited by 14
- 2021Towards Accountability in the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Public Administrationscited by 12
- 2020Next Wave Artificial Intelligence: Robust, Explainable, Adaptable, Ethical, and Accountablecited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 3; 2024: 1; 2025: 3; 2026: 2.
11 papers.
- 2026The 2025 AI Agent Index: Documenting Technical and Safety Features of Deployed Agentic AI Systemscited by 27
- 2023Market Concentration Implications of Foundation Modelscited by 15
- 2025STREAM (ChemBio): A Standard for Transparently Reporting Evaluations in AI Model Reportscited by 9
- 2025Eval Factsheets: A Structured Framework for Documenting AI Evaluationscited by 8
- 2022Error Parity Fairness: Testing for Group Fairness in Regression Taskscited by 5
- 2023Equal Confusion Fairness: Measuring Group-Based Disparities in Automated Decision Systemscited by 3
- 2023Both eyes open: Vigilant Incentives help Regulatory Markets improve AI Safetycited by 2
- 2025AI Data Development: A Scorecard for the System Card Frameworkcited by 1
- 2022The "Collections as ML Data" Checklist for Machine Learning & Cultural Heritagecited by 0
- 2024Mitigating Downstream Model Risks via Model Provenancecited by 0
- 2026A Chain Is Only as Strong as Its Weakest Link: A Scoping Review of System Integration Audits in AIcited by 0
- 2026A Chain Is Only as Strong as Its Weakest Link: A Scoping Review of System Integration Audits in AI5 Aug 2026
- 2026The 2025 AI Agent Index: Documenting Technical and Safety Features of Deployed Agentic AI Systems19 Feb 2026
- 2025Eval Factsheets: A Structured Framework for Documenting AI Evaluations3 Dec 2025
- 2025STREAM (ChemBio): A Standard for Transparently Reporting Evaluations in AI Model Reports13 Aug 2025
- 2025AI Data Development: A Scorecard for the System Card Framework2 Jun 2025
- 2024Mitigating Downstream Model Risks via Model Provenance3 Oct 2024
- 2023Market Concentration Implications of Foundation Models2 Nov 2023
- 2023Equal Confusion Fairness: Measuring Group-Based Disparities in Automated Decision Systems2 Jul 2023
- 2023Both eyes open: Vigilant Incentives help Regulatory Markets improve AI Safety6 Mar 2023
- 2022Error Parity Fairness: Testing for Group Fairness in Regression Tasks16 Aug 2022
- 2022The "Collections as ML Data" Checklist for Machine Learning & Cultural Heritage6 Jul 2022