Measuring What Matters: Connecting AI Ethics Evaluations to System Attributes, Hazards, and Harms
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Over the past decade, an ecosystem of measures has emerged to evaluate the social and ethical implications of AI systems, largely shaped by high-level ethics principles. These measures are developed and used in fragmented ways, without adequate attention to how they are situated in AI systems. In this paper, we examine how existing measures used in the computing literature map to AI system components, attributes, hazards, and harms. Our analysis draws on a scoping review resulting in nearly 800 measures corresponding to 11 AI ethics principles. We find that most measures focus on four principles - fairness, transparency, privacy, and trust - and primarily assess model or output system components. Few measures account for interactions across system elements, and only a narrow set of hazards is typically considered for each harm type. Many measures are disconnected from where harm is experienced and lack guidance for setting meaningful thresholds. These patterns reveal how current evaluation practices remain fragmented, measuring in pieces rather than capturing how harms emerge across systems. Framing measures with respect to system attributes, hazards, and harms can strengthen regulatory oversight, support actionable practices in industry, and ground future research in systems-level understanding.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 34 of its 80 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Oct 2025.
Builds on
34 of 80 references.
References · 34
- 2020Explainability in Graph Neural Networks: A Taxonomic Surveycited by 384
- 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
- 2019Measurement and Fairnesscited by 308
- 2018Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretabilitycited by 256
- 2020Towards the Systematic Reporting of the Energy and Carbon Footprints of Machine Learningcited by 249
- 2020Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claimscited by 165
- 2023Sociotechnical Safety Evaluation of Generative AI Systemscited by 157
- 2017A Convex Framework for Fair Regressioncited by 148
- 2022Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reductioncited by 138
- 2024BetterBench: Assessing AI Benchmarks, Uncovering Issues, and Establishing Best Practicescited by 114
- 2021Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners' Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Supportcited by 63
- 2025Measurement to Meaning: A Validity-Centered Framework for AI Evaluationcited by 57
22 more
- 2023Rethinking Model Evaluation as Narrowing the Socio-Technical Gapcited by 56
- 2022Evaluation Gaps in Machine Learning Practicecited by 49
- 2023Evaluating Evaluation Metrics: A Framework for Analyzing NLG Evaluation Metrics using Measurement Theorycited by 43
- 2020A survey of bias in Machine Learning through the prism of Statistical Parity for the Adult Data Setcited by 35
- 2021Socially Aware Bias Measurements for Hindi Language Representationscited by 29
- 2024Towards AI Accountability Infrastructure: Gaps and Opportunities in AI Audit Toolingcited by 29
- 2021Outlining Traceability: A Principle for Operationalizing Accountability in Computing Systemscited by 26
- 2024Evaluating Generative AI Systems is a Social Science Measurement Challengecited by 23
- 2021Amazon SageMaker Clarify: Machine Learning Bias Detection and Explainability in the Cloudcited by 19
- 2021A Framework for Fairness: A Systematic Review of Existing Fair AI Solutionscited by 18
- 2018On Discrimination Discovery and Removal in Ranked Data using Causal Graphcited by 16
- 2020Not one but many Tradeoffs: Privacy Vs. Utility in Differentially Private Machine Learningcited by 13
- 2020MARS-Gym: A Gym framework to model, train, and evaluate Recommender Systems for Marketplacescited by 13
- 2023Beyond the ML Model: Applying Safety Engineering Frameworks to Text-to-Image Developmentcited by 9
- 2021Measurement as governance in and for responsible AIcited by 8
- 2021DP-UTIL: Comprehensive Utility Analysis of Differential Privacy in Machine Learningcited by 8
- 2023STPA for Learning-Enabled Systems: A Survey and A New Practicecited by 7
- 2025Rigor in AI: Doing Rigorous AI Work Requires a Broader, Responsible AI-Informed Conception of Rigorcited by 7
- 2024From Silos to Systems: Process-Oriented Hazard Analysis for AI Systemscited by 6
- 2022Sustainable AI Processing at the Edgecited by 4
- 2019Maximal Information Leakage based Privacy Preserving Data Disclosure Mechanismscited by 3
- 2019Privacy-Preserving Public Release of Datasets for Support Vector Machine Classificationcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 4.
5 papers.
- 2026From Use to Oversight: How Mental Models Influence User Behavior and Output in AI Writing Assistantscited by 1
- 2026To Build or Not to Build? Factors that Lead to Non-Development or Abandonment of AI Systemscited by 1
- 2025Exploring Human Perceptions of AI Responses: Insights from a Mixed-Methods Study on Risk Mitigation in Generative Modelscited by 0
- 2026Unsafe at any AUC: Unlearned Lessons from Sociotechnical Disasters for Responsible AIcited 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
- 2026Unsafe at any AUC: Unlearned Lessons from Sociotechnical Disasters for Responsible AI15 Jul 2026
- 2026To Build or Not to Build? Factors that Lead to Non-Development or Abandonment of AI Systems30 Apr 2026
- 2026From Use to Oversight: How Mental Models Influence User Behavior and Output in AI Writing Assistants6 Apr 2026
- 2025Exploring Human Perceptions of AI Responses: Insights from a Mixed-Methods Study on Risk Mitigation in Generative Models1 Dec 2025