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.
Cannot be confidently classified due to insufficient information, excessive vagueness, or ambiguity.
Reasoning
Mitigation name "Bias" lacks definition and evidence; cannot identify focal activity or mechanism.
Impacts of AI
Diverse data labeling and algorithm fairness audits
To mitigate biases in AI models, model providers may want to prioritize diversity among data labelers and conduct regular fairness audits on their algorithms. Data labeling teams that represent different backgrounds and demographic groups can help create more balanced datasets
1.1.1 Training DataDebiasing methods
Providers of AI models can apply techniques to reduce the biases of their models. Current debiasing methods focus on three main types of bias: • Racial and religious bias - Stereotypes based on religious beliefs or racial beliefs. • Gender bias - Stereotypes tied to gender roles and expectations. • Political and cultural bias - Propagation of dominant ideologies or extremist attitudes. Debiasing methods can be categorized based on their application during AI development: • Data pre-processing - Removing or correcting unwanted and biased data, and augmenting quality data to offset data bias, such as rebalancing datasets with counterfactual data augmentation. • During training - Intervening on the training dynamics of the AI model, such as introducing debiasing terms in the objective function or by negatively reinforcing biased outputs. • Post-training - Applying techniques to correct a trained but biased model, such as modifying the embedding space.
1.1 ModelModel development
2.4 Engineering & DevelopmentModel development > Data-related
1.1 ModelModel 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 & EvaluationRisk 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.
Unable to classify
Could not be classified to a specific lifecycle stage
Unable to classify
Could not be classified to a specific actor type
Unable to classify
Could not be classified to a specific AIRM function