R0058/2026-04-03/C001/SRC03
Mehrotra et al. (2025) — Scoping review of AIES & FAccT trustworthiness articles
Source
| Field |
Value |
| Title |
Understanding AI Trustworthiness: A Scoping Review of AIES & FAccT Articles |
| Publisher |
arXiv preprint |
| Author(s) |
Mehrotra et al. |
| Date |
2025-10 |
| URL |
https://arxiv.org/html/2510.21293v2 |
| Type |
Research paper (scoping review) |
| Origin |
Search-discovered |
Summary
| Dimension |
Rating |
| Reliability |
Medium |
| Relevance |
Medium |
| Bias: Missing data |
Some concerns |
| Bias: Measurement |
Low risk |
| Bias: Selective reporting |
Low risk |
| Bias: Randomization |
N/A — not an RCT |
| Bias: Protocol deviation |
N/A — not an RCT |
| Bias: COI/Funding |
Low risk |
Rationale
| Dimension |
Rationale |
| Reliability |
Medium — preprint scoping review using BERTopic analysis. Systematic methodology but limited to two venues (AIES and FAccT). |
| Relevance |
Medium — does not directly measure safety-ethics homophily, but its finding that safety is underrepresented in ethics-focused venues provides indirect corroboration of the divide. |
| Bias flags |
Missing data concern: examines only AIES and FAccT, both of which are ethics-leaning venues. Safety research is concentrated in different venues (e.g., NeurIPS SafeRL workshops), so the absence of safety themes may reflect venue selection rather than field-wide patterns. |
| Evidence ID |
Summary |
| SRC03-E01 |
Safety underrepresented in AIES/FAccT; topic clusters show separation between technical and ethical themes |