mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

From Silos to Systems: Process-Oriented Hazard Analysis for AI Systems

arXiv 2410.22526 ↗First posted 29 Oct 2024cs.AI cs.HCcited by 6

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

  1. 2022Photorealistic Text-to-Image Diffusion Models with Deep Language Understandingcited by 6,355
  2. 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 384
  3. 2021The Values Encoded in Machine Learning Researchcited by 172
  4. 2021Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners' Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Supportcited by 63
  5. 2023The Gradient of Generative AI Release: Methods and Considerationscited by 63
  6. 2023Typology of Risks of Generative Text-to-Image Modelscited by 55
  7. 2022Dislocated Accountabilities in the AI Supply Chain: Modularity and Developers' Notions of Responsibilitycited by 33
  8. 2022From plane crashes to algorithmic harm: applicability of safety engineering frameworks for responsible MLcited by 27
  9. 2021Outlining Traceability: A Principle for Operationalizing Accountability in Computing Systemscited by 26
  10. 2021Machine Learning Practices Outside Big Tech: How Resource Constraints Challenge Responsible Developmentcited by 21
  11. 2022Current and Near-Term AI as a Potential Existential Risk Factorcited by 14
  12. 2022Putting AI Ethics into Practice: The Hourglass Model of Organizational AI Governancecited by 7
2 more
  1. 2023On the Challenges of using Reinforcement Learning in Precision Drug Dosing: Delay and Prolongedness of Action Effectscited by 4
  2. 2024An evidence-based methodology for human rights impact assessment (HRIA) in the development of AI data-intensive systemscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 3.

6 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026RL-STPA: Adapting System-Theoretic Hazard Analysis for Safety-Critical Reinforcement Learning
  2. 2025Safety by Measurement: A Systematic Literature Review of AI Safety Evaluation Methods
  3. 2025A Safety and Security Framework for Real-World Agentic Systems
  4. 2025A Frontier AI Risk Management Framework: Bridging the Gap Between Current AI Practices and Established Risk Management
  5. 2026Quantifying Automation Risk in High-Automation AI Systems: A Bayesian Framework for Failure Propagation and Optimal Oversight
  6. 2026The safety failures we are not instrumenting: a perspective on hidden safety-critical challenges in modern AI systems
  7. 2026Reliability Engineering for AI Systems: Challenges, Methods, and Directions
  8. 2026Risk Architecture for AI-Native Engineering Teams: An Organizational Framework for Agentic System Governance