Third-Party AI Vendor Risk: Developing Assessment Frameworks for Machine Learning Service Providers

Authors

  • Sivaramakrishnan Narayanan Toyota Financial Services, USA Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32628/CSEIT2425454

Keywords:

AI vendor risk, machine learning governance, model transparency, data provenance, algorithmic bias, drift monitoring, third-party risk management

Abstract

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies into enterprise operations has fundamentally altered the vendor risk landscape. Organizations increasingly rely on third-party AI vendors for mission-critical processes such as fraud analytics, credit decisioning, underwriting, customer segmentation, and transportation route optimization. Traditional vendor risk methodologies, designed around static information systems, fail to account for model-dependent variability, training data sensitivity, algorithmic opacity, and the dynamic behaviors inherent to continuously learning systems. This research develops a comprehensive assessment framework explicitly tailored to the characteristics of AI vendors. Drawing from more than two hundred vendor assessments performed across the banking, insurance, and transportation sectors, the study identifies four emergent risk domains uniquely associated with AI service providers: model transparency risks, data lineage and provenance uncertainties, algorithmic bias vulnerabilities, and drift susceptibility associated with real-time or periodic retraining cycles. The proposed hybrid conceptual-quantitative framework integrates governance evaluation, model assurance, fairness testing, explainability analysis, and continuous monitoring. The methodology introduces novel mechanisms for assessing proprietary models without requiring model access and presents a composite risk scoring model for quantifying AI-specific vendor exposures. Empirical validation at a Fortune 500 financial services organization demonstrates that the framework enables materially improved risk visibility, more defensible regulatory compliance, and more accurate long-term vendor management strategies. This work provides the first end-to-end, AI-focused vendor risk assessment methodology capable of operating under real-world constraints of opacity and limited disclosure, addressing a significant and urgent gap in third-party risk management practices.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

S. Barocas, M. Hardt, and A. Narayanan, Fairness and Machine Learning, 2019.

S. Wachter, B. Mittelstadt, and C. Russell, “Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box,” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3063289

D. Ribeiro et al., “Model interpretability through LIME,” KDD, 2017.

Uttama Reddy Sanepalli, “GitOps Security Architecture with Zero Trust: Identity-Driven Control Planes for Cloud-Native Deployments”, Int. J. Sci. Res. Comput. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1198–1209, Apr. 2024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.32628/CSEIT24102255

Z. Lipton, “The mythos of model interpretability,” Communications of the ACM, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3233231

Ravi Kumar Ireddy, " AI Driven Predictive Vulnerability Intelligence for Cloud-Native Ecosystems" International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology (IJSRCSEIT), ISSN : 2456-3307, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp.894-903, March-April-2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32628/CSEIT2342438

T. Gebru et al., “Datasheets for datasets,” Communications of the ACM, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3458723

M. Mitchell et al., “Model cards for model reporting,” FAT, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287596

European Commission, “Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI,” 2019.

Y. Zhang et al., “A survey on model drift,” IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 2020.

Sandeep Kamadi. (2022). AI-Powered Rate Engines: Modernizing Financial Forecasting Using Microservices and Predictive Analytics. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Technology (IJCET), 13(2), 220-233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34218/IJCET_13_02_024

J. Buolamwini and T. Gebru, “Gender shades,” FAT, 2018.

NIST, “AI Risk Management Framework draft,” 2021.

M. Veale and L. Edwards, “Clarity on algorithmic accountability,” Computer Law & Security Review, 2018.

OCC, “Model Risk Management Guidance,” 2017.

L. Sweeney, “Discrimination in algorithmic decision-making,” Science, 2018.

A. Amershi et al., “Guidelines for human-AI interaction,” CHI, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300233

B. Goodman and S. Flaxman, “European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making,” AI Magazine, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v38i3.2741

Downloads

Published

25-07-2024

Issue

Section

Research Articles

How to Cite

[1]
Sivaramakrishnan Narayanan, “Third-Party AI Vendor Risk: Developing Assessment Frameworks for Machine Learning Service Providers”, Int. J. Sci. Res. Comput. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1133–1142, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.32628/CSEIT2425454.