AI Response Rating Using Stock Queries for Bias Detection

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing AI systems are often trained on corrupted and outdated data, leading to biased and inaccurate results, with users unaware of these limitations and lacking effective evaluation methods to assess their reliability and potential harm to intellectual property or individuals.

Innovation Solution

A system comprising an AI computer, an evaluating computer, and a database that evaluates AI software by comparing its responses to pre-defined queries and accuracy data, providing users with reports on bias and accuracy, and protecting proprietary data through a registry and monitoring system.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If AI software is trained on existing databases, then the AI system can operate and provide responses, but the accuracy and reliability of the AI system deteriorates due to corrupted and outdated data

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveAI system operational capabilityVSAvoidAI response accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by establishing an evaluation system that proactively assesses AI reliability before deployment and operation. The system pre-evaluates AI responses against known accurate information and maintains a registry of accurate data, enabling users to identify reliability issues before they cause harm.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements feedback mechanisms where AI system responses are continuously evaluated against a registry of accurate information. The evaluation results are fed back to users through reliability indicators, and the system learns from discrepancies between AI responses and verified accurate data, enabling continuous improvement of AI reliability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Ease of operation

If users rely on AI software responses without evaluation, then ease of operation is improved, but harmful factors increase due to undisclosed bias and inaccuracy

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveUser interaction simplicityVSAvoidBias and inaccuracy impact
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces an intermediary evaluation system that sits between the user and the AI system. This intermediary automatically assesses AI responses for reliability and presents the evaluation results to users, mediating the interaction and protecting users from harmful AI outputs while maintaining ease of operation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent enables self-service by providing users with automated reliability evaluation tools that they can use independently. Users can query the evaluation system to assess AI responses without requiring expert knowledge, making the protection mechanism accessible and easy to use for all users.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

3Reliability

If comprehensive evaluation of AI software is implemented, then reliability and accuracy assessment is improved, but device complexity increases due to multiple systems and databases

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveAI system evaluation capabilityVSAvoidEvaluation system structure
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies universality by designing an evaluation system that performs multiple functions: evaluating AI responses, maintaining a registry of accurate information, providing reliability indicators, and protecting proprietary data. This multi-functional approach consolidates what could be separate complex systems into a unified evaluation framework.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent merges the evaluation functionality, accurate data registry, and reliability assessment into an integrated system. By combining these elements that could operate separately, the patent reduces overall system complexity while maintaining comprehensive evaluation capabilities.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

4Measurement precision

If AI systems are evaluated using stock queries and accuracy responses, then measurement precision of AI performance is improved, but loss of time increases due to sequential evaluation process

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveAI performance assessment accuracyVSAvoidEvaluation time
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies partial action by evaluating only the most critical aspects of AI responses using a curated set of stock queries focused on reliability, bias, and accuracy. Rather than exhaustively evaluating all possible aspects, the system targets key evaluation points that provide sufficient measurement precision with reduced time investment.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentUS12475017B1Rating system
Publication Date: 2025.11.18 OGRAM MARK
  • US12475017B1 patent drawing
  • US12475017B1 patent drawing
  • US12475017B1 patent drawing

AI summary

The invention is an evaluation system for artificial intelligence (AI) software. The AI software receives a query, generates a response, and communicate the response back to the querying computer. Using a database of stock queries and accuracy responses, an evaluating computer presents these stock queries to the AI software and compares the AI response to the accuracy responses in determining how accurate/biased the AI software is.