A Framework for Assurance Audits of Algorithmic Systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
An increasing number of regulations propose AI audits as a mechanism for achieving transparency and accountability for artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Despite some converging norms around various forms of AI auditing, auditing for the purpose of compliance and assurance currently lacks agreed-upon practices, procedures, taxonomies, and standards. We propose the criterion audit as an operationalizable compliance and assurance external audit framework. We model elements of this approach after financial auditing practices, and argue that AI audits should similarly provide assurance to their stakeholders about AI organizations' ability to govern their algorithms in ways that mitigate harms and uphold human values. We discuss the necessary conditions for the criterion audit and provide a procedural blueprint for performing an audit engagement in practice. We illustrate how this framework can be adapted to current regulations by deriving the criteria on which bias audits can be performed for in-scope hiring algorithms, as required by the recently effective New York City Local Law 144 of 2021. We conclude by offering a critical discussion on the benefits, inherent limitations, and implementation challenges of applying practices of the more mature financial auditing industry to AI auditing where robust guardrails against quality assurance issues are only starting to emerge. Our discussion -- informed by experiences in performing these audits in practice -- highlights the critical role that an audit ecosystem plays in ensuring the effectiveness of audits.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 26 Jan 2024.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 7.
8 papers.
- 2024Introducing v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark from MLCommonscited by 60
- 2026Formal Methods Meet LLMs: Auditing, Monitoring, and Intervention for Compliance of Advanced AI Systemscited by 3
- 2026With a Little Help From My Friends: Collective Manipulation in Risk-Controlling Recommender Systemscited by 2
- 2026The Stability Trap: Evaluating the Reliability of LLM-Based Instruction Adherence Auditingcited by 1
- 2026Trustworthy AI Posture (TAIP): A Framework for Continuous AI Assurance of Agentic Systems at Horizontal and Vertical scalecited by 1
- 2026Compliant But Unsatisfactory: The Gap Between Auditing Standards and Practices for Probabilistic Genotyping Softwarecited by 0
- 2026Efficient Fairness Auditing Across Guidance Scales in Text-to-Image Diffusion Models via Causal Abstractioncited by 0
- 2026Who Audits Whom, on What Substrate, with What Evidence? An Independence-Graded Audit Protocol for Agentic AIcited by 0
- 2026Who Audits Whom, on What Substrate, with What Evidence? An Independence-Graded Audit Protocol for Agentic AI16 Sep 2026
- 2026Efficient Fairness Auditing Across Guidance Scales in Text-to-Image Diffusion Models via Causal Abstraction8 Sep 2026
- 2026Formal Methods Meet LLMs: Auditing, Monitoring, and Intervention for Compliance of Advanced AI Systems15 May 2026
- 2026Compliant But Unsatisfactory: The Gap Between Auditing Standards and Practices for Probabilistic Genotyping Software13 Apr 2026
- 2026With a Little Help From My Friends: Collective Manipulation in Risk-Controlling Recommender Systems30 Mar 2026
- 2026Trustworthy AI Posture (TAIP): A Framework for Continuous AI Assurance of Agentic Systems at Horizontal and Vertical scale15 Feb 2026
- 2026The Stability Trap: Evaluating the Reliability of LLM-Based Instruction Adherence Auditing16 Jan 2026
- 2024Introducing v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark from MLCommons18 Apr 2024