A taxonomic system for failure cause analysis of open source AI incidents
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
While certain industrial sectors (e.g., aviation) have a long history of mandatory incident reporting complete with analytical findings, the practice of artificial intelligence (AI) safety benefits from no such mandate and thus analyses must be performed on publicly known ``open source'' AI incidents. Although the exact causes of AI incidents are seldom known by outsiders, this work demonstrates how to apply expert knowledge on the population of incidents in the AI Incident Database (AIID) to infer the potential and likely technical causative factors that contribute to reported failures and harms. We present early work on a taxonomic system that covers a cascade of interrelated incident factors, from system goals (nearly always known) to methods / technologies (knowable in many cases) and technical failure causes (subject to expert analysis) of the implicated systems. We pair this ontology structure with a comprehensive classification workflow that leverages expert knowledge and community feedback, resulting in taxonomic annotations grounded by incident data and human expertise.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Nov 2022.
Builds on
6 of 19 references.
References · 6
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2018Quantifying Generalization in Reinforcement Learningcited by 345
- 2018Categorizing Variants of Goodhart's Lawcited by 132
- 2020Preventing Repeated Real World AI Failures by Cataloging Incidents: The AI Incident Databasecited by 95
- 2016Artificial Intelligence Safety and Cybersecurity: a Timeline of AI Failurescited by 9
- 2020AI Failures: A Review of Underlying Issuescited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 1; 2025: 3; 2026: 3.
9 papers.
- 2025RealHarm: A Collection of Real-World Language Model Application Failurescited by 7
- 2024Lessons for Editors of AI Incidents from the AI Incident Databasecited by 5
- 2025Incident Analysis for AI Agentscited by 5
- 2023AI Risk Profiles: A Standards Proposal for Pre-Deployment AI Risk Disclosurescited by 4
- 2026The Agent Incident Registry: Toward Preventing Repeated AI Agent Failurescited by 2
- 2023Towards Safer Operations: An Expert-involved Dataset of High-Pressure Gas Incidents for Preventing Future Failurescited by 1
- 2025Dimensional Characterization and Pathway Modeling for Catastrophic AI Riskscited by 0
- 2026Designing escalation criteria for international AI incident response: criteria, triggers, and thresholdscited by 0
- 2026Physiological Noise Augmentation Improves Non-Invasive Brain-to-Speechcited by 0
- 2026The Agent Incident Registry: Toward Preventing Repeated AI Agent Failures10 Sep 2026
- 2026Physiological Noise Augmentation Improves Non-Invasive Brain-to-Speech6 Jul 2026
- 2026Designing escalation criteria for international AI incident response: criteria, triggers, and thresholds25 Apr 2026
- 2025Incident Analysis for AI Agents19 Aug 2025
- 2025Dimensional Characterization and Pathway Modeling for Catastrophic AI Risks8 Aug 2025
- 2025RealHarm: A Collection of Real-World Language Model Application Failures14 Apr 2025
- 2024Lessons for Editors of AI Incidents from the AI Incident Database24 Sep 2024
- 2023Towards Safer Operations: An Expert-involved Dataset of High-Pressure Gas Incidents for Preventing Future Failures18 Oct 2023
- 2023AI Risk Profiles: A Standards Proposal for Pre-Deployment AI Risk Disclosures22 Sep 2023