From Silos to Systems: Process-Oriented Hazard Analysis for AI Systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
To effectively address potential harms from Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, it is essential to identify and mitigate system-level hazards. Current analysis approaches focus on individual components of an AI system, like training data or models, in isolation, overlooking hazards from component interactions or how they are situated within a company's development process. To this end, we draw from the established field of system safety, which considers safety as an emergent property of the entire system. In this work, we translate System Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) - a recognized system safety framework - for analyzing AI development and operation processes. We focus on systems that rely on machine learning algorithms and conduct STPA on three case studies involving linear regression, reinforcement learning, and transformer-based generative models. Our analysis explored how STPA's control and system-theoretic perspectives apply to AI systems and whether unique AI traits - such as model opacity, capability uncertainty, and output complexity - necessitate modifications to the framework. We find that the key concepts and steps of conducting an STPA apply to AI systems but require targeted adaptations to address AI-specific challenges that arise to differing degrees across three case studies. We present the Process-oriented Hazard Analysis for AI Systems (PHASE) as a guideline that adapts STPA concepts for AI. Applying and interpreting STPA using the PHASE guidelines enables four key affordances for analysts responsible for managing AI system harms: 1) detection of system-level hazards, including those from accumulation of disparate issues; 2) explicit acknowledgment of social factors contributing to algorithmic harms; 3) creation of traceable accountability chains between harms and those who can mitigate them; and 4) ongoing monitoring and mitigation of new hazards.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 62 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Oct 2024.
Builds on
14 of 62 references.
References · 14
- 2022Photorealistic Text-to-Image Diffusion Models with Deep Language Understandingcited by 6,355
- 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 384
- 2021The Values Encoded in Machine Learning Researchcited by 172
- 2021Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners' Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Supportcited by 63
- 2023The Gradient of Generative AI Release: Methods and Considerationscited by 63
- 2023Typology of Risks of Generative Text-to-Image Modelscited by 55
- 2022Dislocated Accountabilities in the AI Supply Chain: Modularity and Developers' Notions of Responsibilitycited by 33
- 2022From plane crashes to algorithmic harm: applicability of safety engineering frameworks for responsible MLcited by 27
- 2021Outlining Traceability: A Principle for Operationalizing Accountability in Computing Systemscited by 26
- 2021Machine Learning Practices Outside Big Tech: How Resource Constraints Challenge Responsible Developmentcited by 21
- 2022Current and Near-Term AI as a Potential Existential Risk Factorcited by 14
- 2022Putting AI Ethics into Practice: The Hourglass Model of Organizational AI Governancecited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 3.
6 papers.
- 2025From Hazard Identification to Controller Design: Proactive and LLM-Supported Safety Engineering for ML-Powered Systemscited by 7
- 2025Systematic Hazard Analysis for Frontier AI using STPAcited by 6
- 2025Measuring What Matters: Connecting AI Ethics Evaluations to System Attributes, Hazards, and Harmscited by 5
- 2026Compiling Sufficient Governance Context from Declared Losses and Reachable States: Exact Observation-Contract Synthesis with Cardinality and Cost Objectivescited by 1
- 2026AI Assurance in UK Defence: Challenges in Operationalising JSP 936cited by 0
- 2026Quantifying System-Level Harms from AI Adoption in Complex Sociotechnical Systemscited by 0
- 2026Compiling Sufficient Governance Context from Declared Losses and Reachable States: Exact Observation-Contract Synthesis with Cardinality and Cost Objectives22 Sep 2026
- 2026Quantifying System-Level Harms from AI Adoption in Complex Sociotechnical Systems24 Aug 2026
- 2026AI Assurance in UK Defence: Challenges in Operationalising JSP 9368 Jun 2026
- 2025Measuring What Matters: Connecting AI Ethics Evaluations to System Attributes, Hazards, and Harms11 Oct 2025
- 2025Systematic Hazard Analysis for Frontier AI using STPA2 Jun 2025
- 2025From Hazard Identification to Controller Design: Proactive and LLM-Supported Safety Engineering for ML-Powered Systems11 Feb 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026RL-STPA: Adapting System-Theoretic Hazard Analysis for Safety-Critical Reinforcement Learning
- 2025Safety by Measurement: A Systematic Literature Review of AI Safety Evaluation Methods
- 2025A Safety and Security Framework for Real-World Agentic Systems
- 2025A Frontier AI Risk Management Framework: Bridging the Gap Between Current AI Practices and Established Risk Management
- 2026Quantifying Automation Risk in High-Automation AI Systems: A Bayesian Framework for Failure Propagation and Optimal Oversight
- 2026The safety failures we are not instrumenting: a perspective on hidden safety-critical challenges in modern AI systems
- 2026Reliability Engineering for AI Systems: Challenges, Methods, and Directions
- 2026Risk Architecture for AI-Native Engineering Teams: An Organizational Framework for Agentic System Governance