NIST AI RMF: Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework
The NIST Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) is a voluntary guidance document published by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology on January 26, 2023, as NIST.AI.100-1.
It provides a structured approach for organizations to identify, assess, and manage risks arising from the design, development, deployment, evaluation, and decommissioning of AI systems throughout their lifecycle.
The framework is sector- and technology-agnostic: it applies to AI systems across autonomous vehicles, healthcare, finance, cybersecurity, and all other domains.
Unlike a prescriptive standard, it defines a risk management process rather than a fixed set of controls, allowing organizations to adapt implementation to their specific context, risk tolerance, and resources.
Brief History
- January 2023: AI RMF 1.0 published (NIST.AI.100-1)
- March 2023: NIST AI Resource Center (AIRC) launched to support implementation
- July 2024: NIST AI 600-1 — Generative AI Profile published as a companion document addressing risks specific to generative AI and large language models
- Ongoing: Crosswalk documents maintained mapping the AI RMF to ISO/IEC 42001, OECD AI Principles, EU AI Act, and other frameworks
Seven Trustworthiness Characteristics
The AI RMF defines trustworthiness through seven characteristics that AI systems should demonstrate:
| Characteristic |
Description |
| Valid and Reliable |
AI systems consistently deliver accurate, dependable results aligned with their intended purpose; performance generalizes appropriately across operating contexts |
| Safe |
AI systems avoid imposing unacceptable risks to health, safety, or property of users and the broader public |
| Secure and Resilient |
AI systems are robust against cybersecurity threats, adversarial inputs, and unexpected operating conditions while maintaining operational integrity |
| Accountable and Transparent |
Organizations are open about AI use; decisions and outcomes are traceable; stakeholders can understand and contest results |
| Explainable and Interpretable |
The reasoning behind AI outputs is knowable and communicable in terms meaningful to the intended audience |
| Privacy Enhanced |
AI systems protect individual autonomy, identity, dignity, and sensitive personal information throughout the data lifecycle |
| Fair with Harmful Bias Managed |
AI systems are free from unjustified bias and discrimination; harmful biases in data, models, and processes are identified and mitigated |
These characteristics are interdependent: optimizing for one (e.g., explainability) may involve trade-offs with another (e.g., accuracy). The framework does not mandate a hierarchy; organizations must evaluate trade-offs in their specific context.
The AI RMF Core: Four Functions
The operational core of the framework is organized into four functions that together constitute a full AI risk management lifecycle:
| Function |
Purpose |
Key focus areas |
| GOVERN |
Establish organizational culture, policies, and accountability for AI risk management |
Culture; accountability; workforce; third-party risk |
| MAP |
Identify and contextualize AI systems, intended use, stakeholders, and associated risks |
Context; categorization; impacts; third-party components |
| MEASURE |
Select methods, metrics, and testing to evaluate AI risks quantitatively and qualitatively |
Measurement methods; testing; actor competency; monitoring |
| MANAGE |
Prioritize, respond to, and recover from identified AI risks |
Risk response; benefit–risk balance; ongoing monitoring; TEVV |
GOVERN is the cross-cutting function: its policies and accountability structures apply at all stages of MAP, MEASURE, and MANAGE. MAP, MEASURE, and MANAGE are applied iteratively throughout the AI lifecycle.
GOVERN — 6 Categories
| Category |
Focus |
| GOVERN 1 |
Policies, processes, procedures, and practices for AI risk management are in place, documented, and organizationally embedded |
| GOVERN 2 |
Accountability structures are established; teams are trained and empowered to perform AI risk management responsibilities |
| GOVERN 3 |
Workforce diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility are prioritized throughout the AI lifecycle |
| GOVERN 4 |
Organizational culture actively considers and communicates AI risks and benefits |
| GOVERN 5 |
Relevant AI actors and stakeholders are engaged in AI risk management processes |
| GOVERN 6 |
Risks from third-party entities — including software, data, and AI supply chains — are addressed by organizational policies |
MAP — 5 Categories
| Category |
Focus |
| MAP 1 |
Context is established: intended purpose, beneficial uses, applicable laws, user expectations, and potential negative impacts |
| MAP 2 |
AI system categorization based on capabilities, intended use, and potential risk level |
| MAP 3 |
AI capabilities, targeted usage, goals, and expected benefits and costs are characterized against relevant benchmarks |
| MAP 4 |
Risks and benefits are mapped across all AI system components, including third-party software and training data |
| MAP 5 |
Impacts to individuals, groups, communities, organizations, and society are characterized and documented |
MEASURE — 4 Categories
| Category |
Focus |
| MEASURE 1 |
Measurement approaches (methods and metrics) are selected to evaluate identified risks and trustworthiness characteristics |
| MEASURE 2 |
Testing, evaluation, verification, and validation (TEVV) procedures detect, track, and measure known risks and negative impacts |
| MEASURE 3 |
AI actor competency — including awareness of trustworthiness characteristics — is regularly evaluated and documented |
| MEASURE 4 |
External inputs (training data, third-party models, APIs) are monitored for impact on system performance and risk posture |
MANAGE — 4 Categories
| Category |
Focus |
| MANAGE 1 |
Risks are prioritized against the AI system’s intended purpose, objectives, and organizational risk tolerance |
| MANAGE 2 |
Negative risks are weighed against benefits; trustworthiness trade-offs are documented and accepted by accountable stakeholders |
| MANAGE 3 |
Continuous monitoring and documentation of system performance relative to trustworthiness characteristics throughout the deployment lifecycle |
| MANAGE 4 |
Outputs from TEVV activities are incorporated into organizational risk management decisions, change management, and decommissioning |
Relationship to Other Standards
| Standard |
Relationship |
| ISO/IEC 42001 |
ISO 42001 provides a certifiable AI Management System (AIMS); the NIST AI RMF provides the risk management process. The two are complementary: NIST publishes an official crosswalk mapping AI RMF categories to ISO 42001 clauses. Organizations pursuing ISO 42001 certification frequently use the AI RMF as their underlying risk assessment methodology. |
| ISO/IEC 24028 |
ISO 24028 addresses trustworthiness in AI systems and enumerates overlapping trustworthiness characteristics. The frameworks use compatible terminologies; AI RMF cites ISO 24028 in its bibliography. |
| NIST SP 800-53 |
NIST publishes an official crosswalk between the AI RMF and SP 800-53 security and privacy controls, allowing organizations to align AI-specific risk management with their existing cybersecurity control frameworks. |
| ISO/IEC 22989 |
Provides the AI concepts and terminology referenced throughout the AI RMF, including definitions of AI system, AI lifecycle, and trustworthiness. |
Quality Attributes Addressed
| Quality Attribute |
Relevance in NIST AI RMF |
| Safety |
The Safe trustworthiness characteristic (MEASURE 2, MANAGE 1) requires that AI systems avoid unacceptable risks to health, safety, and property; TEVV processes must include safety-focused testing. |
| Security |
The Secure and Resilient characteristic (GOVERN 6, MAP 4, MEASURE 2) requires assessment of adversarial robustness, supply chain risk, and cybersecurity controls across the AI lifecycle. |
| Resilience |
Resilience is explicitly embedded in the Secure and Resilient characteristic; MANAGE 3 requires monitoring that systems maintain operational integrity under unexpected conditions. |
| Reliability |
The Valid and Reliable characteristic (MEASURE 1, MEASURE 2) requires that AI systems deliver consistent, accurate results; performance metrics and benchmarking are mandated throughout MAP and MEASURE. |
| Accountability |
The Accountable and Transparent characteristic and GOVERN 1–2 require documented accountability structures, traceable decisions, and clear assignment of responsibility across the AI lifecycle. |
| Transparency |
Transparency is co-defined with accountability in the framework; GOVERN 4–5 require open communication of AI risks and stakeholder engagement in risk management processes. |
| Explainability |
The Explainable and Interpretable characteristic requires that AI reasoning be communicable to its intended audience; MEASURE 2 includes evaluation of explainability as part of TEVV. |
| Privacy |
The Privacy-Enhanced characteristic (MAP 5, MEASURE 2) requires data minimization, purpose limitation, and protection of personal information throughout the AI lifecycle, including in training data and model outputs. |
| Fairness |
The Fair with Harmful Bias Managed characteristic (MAP 5, MEASURE 2, MANAGE 2) requires identification, measurement, and mitigation of harmful biases in data, models, and deployment contexts. |
References
Official NIST Sources