This page is still being polished. If you have thoughts, please share them via the feedback form.
Data on this page is preliminary and may change. Please do not share or cite these figures publicly.
Practices governing how AI systems are designed and built, including research norms, development workflows, review processes, and engineering standards.
Also in Organisation
Reasoning
Mitigation name lacks definition and evidence; insufficient information to identify focal activity or implementation location.
Model evaluations
2.2.2 Testing & EvaluationModel evaluations > General evaluations
2.2.2 Testing & EvaluationModel evaluations > Benchmarking
3.2.1 Benchmarks & EvaluationModel evaluations > Red teaming
2.2.2 Testing & EvaluationModel evaluations > Auditing
2.2.3 Auditing & ComplianceModel evaluations > Interpretability/explainability
1.1 ModelRisk Sources and Risk Management Measures in Support of Standards for General-Purpose AI Systems
Gipiškis, Rokas; San Joaquin, Ayrton; Chin, Ze Shen; Regenfuß, Adrian; Gil, Ariel; Holtman, Koen (2024)
Organizations and governments that develop, deploy, use, and govern AI must coordinate on effective risk mitigation. However, the landscape of AI risk mitigation frameworks is fragmented, uses inconsistent terminology, and has gaps in coverage. This paper introduces a preliminary AI Risk Mitigation Taxonomy to organize AI risk mitigations and provide a common frame of reference. The Taxonomy was developed through a rapid evidence scan of 13 AI risk mitigation frameworks published between 2023-2025, which were extracted into a living database of 831 distinct AI risk mitigations.
Build and Use Model
Training, fine-tuning, and integrating the AI model
Developer
Entity that creates, trains, or modifies the AI system
Unable to classify
Could not be classified to a specific AIRM function
