搜索结果：Accountability

AI is transforming the healthcare domain and is increasingly helping practitioners to make health-related decisions. Therefore, accountability becomes a crucial concern for critical AI-driven decisions. Although regulatory bodies, such as the EU commission, provide guidelines, they are highlevel and focus on the ''what'' that should be done and less on the ''how'', creating a knowledge gap for actors. Through an extensive analysis, we found that the term accountability is perceived and dealt with in many different ways, depending on the actor's expertise and domain of work. With increasing concerns about AI accountability issues and the ambiguity around this term, this paper bridges the gap between the ''what'' and ''how'' of AI accountability, specifically for AI systems in healthcare. We do this by analysing the concept of accountability, formulating an accountability framework, and providing a three-tier structure for handling various accountability mechanisms. Our accountability framework positions the regulations of healthcare AI systems and the mechanisms adopted by the actors under a consistent accountability regime. Moreover, the three-tier structure guides the actors of th

Accountability regimes typically encourage record-keeping to enable the transparency that supports oversight, investigation, contestation, and redress. However, implementing such record-keeping can introduce considerations, risks, and consequences, which so far remain under-explored. This paper examines how record-keeping practices bring algorithmic systems within accountability regimes, providing a basis to observe and understand their effects. For this, we introduce, describe, and elaborate 'accountability capture' -- the re-configuration of socio-technical processes and the associated downstream effects relating to record-keeping for algorithmic accountability. Surveying 100 practitioners, we evidence and characterise record-keeping issues in practice, identifying their alignment with accountability capture. We further document widespread record-keeping practices, tensions between internal and external accountability requirements, and evidence of employee resistance to practices imposed through accountability capture. We discuss these and other effects for surveillance, privacy, and data protection, highlighting considerations for algorithmic accountability communities. In all,

Accountability is an innate part of social systems. It maintains stability and ensures positive pressure on individuals' decision-making. As actors in a social system, software developers are accountable to their team and organization for their decisions. However, the drivers of accountability and how it changes behavior in software development are less understood. In this study, we look at how the social aspects of code review affect software engineers' sense of accountability for code quality. Since software engineering (SE) is increasingly involving Large Language Models (LLM) assistance, we also evaluate the impact on accountability when introducing LLM-assisted code reviews. We carried out a two-phased sequential qualitative study (interviews -> focus groups). In Phase I (16 interviews), we sought to investigate the intrinsic drivers of software engineers influencing their sense of accountability for code quality, relying on self-reported claims. In Phase II, we tested these traits in a more natural setting by simulating traditional peer-led reviews with focus groups and then LLM-assisted review sessions. We found that there are four key intrinsic drivers of accountability

As AI becomes increasingly embedded in daily life, it has been shown to fail critically, cause harm, and spark public controversy, prompting affected communities, workers, and public-interest groups to contest it. Yet how these contestations unfold in practice remains underexplored. We address this gap by developing an empirically grounded account of AI contestation dynamics. We do so through a thematic analysis of 43 real-world cases in which affected actors direct demands toward those responsible for AI development and deployment, seeking redress, influence, or changes to AI practices. Situating our work within Bovens's relational model of accountability, we conceptualize contestation as accountability-seeking: a dynamic, iterative process in which actors "from below" direct explicit demands at actors "from above," who respond by accepting, resisting, or circumventing accountability. Our analysis produces empirically grounded categories of contestation strategies, institutional response tactics, outcome types, and the contextual factors that shape them, illuminating how accountability is pursued and evaded in practice. We show that those being contested often deploy a range of st

In the social and organizational sciences, accountability has been linked to the efficient operation of organizations. However, it has received limited attention in software engineering (SE) research, in spite of its central role in the most popular software development methods (e.g., Scrum). In this article, we explore the mechanisms of accountability in SE environments. We investigate the factors that foster software engineers' individual accountability within their teams through an interview study with 12 people. Our findings recognize two primary forms of accountability shaping software engineers individual senses of accountability: institutionalized and grassroots. While the former is directed by formal processes and mechanisms, like performance reviews, grassroots accountability arises organically within teams, driven by factors such as peers' expectations and intrinsic motivation. This organic form cultivates a shared sense of collective responsibility, emanating from shared team standards and individual engineers' inner commitment to their personal, professional values, and self-set standards. While institutionalized accountability relies on traditional "carrot and stick" a

In this Article, I explore the impending conflict between the protection of civil rights and artificial intelligence (AI). While both areas of law have amassed rich and well-developed areas of scholarly work and doctrinal support, a growing body of scholars are interrogating the intersection between them. This Article argues that the issues surrounding algorithmic accountability demonstrate a deeper, more structural tension within a new generation of disputes regarding law and technology. As I argue, the true promise of AI does not lie in the information we reveal to one another, but rather in the questions it raises about the interaction of technology, property, and civil rights. For this reason, I argue that we are looking in the wrong place if we look only to the state to address issues of algorithmic accountability. Instead, we must turn to other ways to ensure more transparency and accountability that stem from private industry, rather than public regulation. The issue of algorithmic bias represents a crucial new world of civil rights concerns, one that is distinct in nature from the ones that preceded it. Since we are in a world where the activities of private corporations, r

This study explores how AI-powered digital innovations are reshaping organisational accountability in a transnational governance context. As AI systems increasingly mediate decision-making in domains such as auditing and financial reporting, traditional mechanisms of accountability, based on control, transparency, and auditability, are being destabilised. We integrate the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Actor-Network Theory (ANT), and institutional theory to examine how organisations adopt AI technologies in response to regulatory, ethical, and cultural pressures that transcend national boundaries. We argue that accountability is co-constructed within global socio-technical networks, shaped not only by user perceptions but also by governance logics and normative expectations. Extending TAM, we incorporate compliance and legitimacy as key factors in perceived usefulness and usability. Drawing on ANT, we reconceptualise accountability as a relational and emergent property of networked assemblages. We propose two organisational strategies including internal governance reconfiguration and external actor-network engagement to foster responsible, legitimate, and globally accepted AI a

The widespread diffusion of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based systems offers many opportunities to contribute to the well-being of individuals and the advancement of economies and societies. This diffusion is, however, closely accompanied by public scandals causing harm to individuals, markets, or society, and leading to the increasing importance of accountability. AI accountability itself faces conceptual ambiguity, with research scattered across multiple disciplines. To address these issues, we review current research across multiple disciplines and identify key dimensions of accountability in the context of AI. We reveal six themes with 13 corresponding dimensions and additional accountability facilitators that future research can utilize to specify accountability scenarios in the context of AI-based systems.

A series of high-profile tragedies involving companion chatbots has triggered an unusually rapid regulatory response. Several jurisdictions, including Australia, California, and New York, have introduced enforceable regulation, while regulators elsewhere have signaled growing concern about risks posed by companion chatbots, particularly to children. In parallel, leading providers, notably OpenAI, appear to have strengthened their self-regulatory approaches. Drawing on legal textual analysis and insights from regulatory theory, psychology, and information systems research, this paper critically examines these recent interventions. We examine what is regulated and who is regulated, identifying regulatory targets, scope, and modalities. We classify interventions by method and priority, showing how emerging regimes combine "locks and blocks", such as access gating and content moderation, with measures addressing toxic relationship features and process-based accountability requirements. We argue that effective regulation of companion chatbots must integrate all three dimensions. More, however, is required. Current regimes tend to focus on discrete harms, narrow conceptions of vulnerabil

This study explores the application of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to AI-powered digital innovations within a transnational governance framework. By integrating Latourian actor-network theory (ANT), this study examines how institutional motivations, regulatory compliance, and ethical and cultural acceptance drive organisations to develop and adopt AI innovations, enhancing their market acceptance and transnational accountability. We extend the TAM framework by incorporating regulatory, ethical, and socio-technical considerations as key social pressures shaping AI adoption. Recognizing that AI is embedded within complex actor-networks, we argue that accountability is co-constructed among organisations, regulators, and societal actors rather than being confined to individual developers or adopters. To address these challenges, we propose two key solutions: (1) internal resource reconfiguration, where organisations restructure their governance and compliance mechanisms to align with global standards; and (2) reshaping organisational boundaries through actor-network management, fostering engagement with external stakeholders, regulatory bodies, and transnational governance in

Recent application programming interface (API) restrictions on major social media platforms challenge compliance with the EU Digital Services Act [20], which mandates data access for algorithmic transparency. We develop a structured audit framework to assess the growing misalignment between regulatory requirements and platform implementations. Our comparative analysis of X/Twitter, Reddit, TikTok, and Meta identifies critical ``audit blind-spots'' where platform content moderation and algorithmic amplification remain inaccessible to independent verification. Our findings reveal an ``accountability paradox'': as platforms increasingly rely on AI systems, they simultaneously restrict the capacity for independent oversight. We propose targeted policy interventions aligned with the AI Risk Management Framework of the National Institute of Standards and Technology [80], emphasizing federated access models and enhanced regulatory enforcement.

Automated eligibility systems increasingly determine access to essential public benefits, but the explanations they generate often fail to reflect the legal rules that authorize those decisions. This thesis develops a legally grounded explainability framework that links system-generated decision justifications to the statutory constraints of CalFresh, California's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The framework combines a structured ontology of eligibility requirements derived from the state's Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP), a rule extraction pipeline that expresses statutory logic in a verifiable formal representation, and a solver-based reasoning layer to evaluate whether the explanation aligns with governing law. Case evaluations demonstrate the framework's ability to detect legally inconsistent explanations, highlight violated eligibility rules, and support procedural accountability by making the basis of automated determinations traceable and contestable.

Including children's images in datasets has raised ethical concerns, particularly regarding privacy, consent, data protection, and accountability. These datasets, often built by scraping publicly available images from the Internet, can expose children to risks such as exploitation, profiling, and tracking. Despite the growing recognition of these issues, approaches for addressing them remain limited. We explore the ethical implications of using children's images in AI datasets and propose a pipeline to detect and remove such images. As a use case, we built the pipeline on a Vision-Language Model under the Visual Question Answering task and tested it on the #PraCegoVer dataset. We also evaluate the pipeline on a subset of 100,000 images from the Open Images V7 dataset to assess its effectiveness in detecting and removing images of children. The pipeline serves as a baseline for future research, providing a starting point for more comprehensive tools and methodologies. While we leverage existing models trained on potentially problematic data, our goal is to expose and address this issue. We do not advocate for training or deploying such models, but instead call for urgent community r

While the exact definition and implementation of accountability depend on the specific context, at its core accountability describes a mechanism that will make decisions transparent and often provides means to sanction "bad" decisions. As such, accountability is specifically relevant for Cyber-Physical Systems, such as robots or drones, that embed themselves into a human society, take decisions and might cause lasting harm. Without a notion of accountability, such systems could behave with impunity and would not fit into society. Despite its relevance, there is currently no agreement on its meaning and, more importantly, no way to express accountability properties for these systems. As a solution we propose to express the accountability properties of systems using Structural Causal Models. They can be represented as human-readable graphical models while also offering mathematical tools to analyze and reason over them. Our central contribution is to show how Structural Causal Models can be used to express and analyze the accountability properties of systems and that this approach allows us to identify accountability patterns. These accountability patterns can be catalogued and used

Knowledge Graphs (KGs), and Linked Open Data in particular, enable the generation and exchange of more and more information on the Web. In order to use and reuse these data properly, the presence of accountability information is essential. Accountability requires specific and accurate information about people's responsibilities and actions. In this article, we define KGAcc, a framework dedicated to the assessment of RDF graphs accountability. It consists of accountability requirements and a measure of accountability for KGs. Then, we evaluate KGs from the LOD cloud and describe the results obtained. Finally, we compare our approach with data quality and FAIR assessment frameworks to highlight the differences.

Agentic Artificial Intelligence (AI) can autonomously pursue long-term goals, make decisions, and execute complex, multi-turn workflows. Unlike traditional generative AI, which responds reactively to prompts, agentic AI proactively orchestrates processes, such as autonomously managing complex tasks or making real-time decisions. This transition from advisory roles to proactive execution challenges established legal, economic, and creative frameworks. In this paper, we explore challenges in three interrelated domains: creativity and intellectual property, legal and ethical considerations, and competitive effects. Central to our analysis is the tension between novelty and usefulness in AI-generated creative outputs, as well as the intellectual property and authorship challenges arising from AI autonomy. We highlight gaps in responsibility attribution and liability that create a "moral crumple zone"--a condition where accountability is diffused across multiple actors, leaving end-users and developers in precarious legal and ethical positions. We examine the competitive dynamics of two-sided algorithmic markets, where both sellers and buyers deploy AI agents, potentially mitigating or

Academic and policy proposals on algorithmic accountability often seek to understand algorithmic systems in their socio-technical context, recognising that they are produced by 'many hands'. Increasingly, however, algorithmic systems are also produced, deployed, and used within a supply chain comprising multiple actors tied together by flows of data between them. In such cases, it is the working together of an algorithmic supply chain of different actors who contribute to the production, deployment, use, and functionality that drives systems and produces particular outcomes. We argue that algorithmic accountability discussions must consider supply chains and the difficult implications they raise for the governance and accountability of algorithmic systems. In doing so, we explore algorithmic supply chains, locating them in their broader technical and political economic context and identifying some key features that should be understood in future work on algorithmic governance and accountability (particularly regarding general purpose AI services). To highlight ways forward and areas warranting attention, we further discuss some implications raised by supply chains: challenges for a

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of digital health solutions. This has presented significant challenges for software development teams to swiftly adjust to the market need and demand. To address these challenges, product management teams have had to adapt their approach to software development, reshaping their processes to meet the demands of the pandemic. Brighsquid implemented a new task assignment process aimed at enhancing developer accountability toward the customer. To assess the impact of this change on code ownership, we conducted a code change analysis. Additionally, we surveyed 67 developers to investigate the relationship between accountability and ownership more broadly. The findings of our case study indicate that the revised assignment model not only increased the perceived sense of accountability within the production team but also improved code resilience against ownership changes. Moreover, the survey results revealed that a majority of the participating developers (67.5%) associated perceived accountability with artifact ownership.

Audits are critical mechanisms for identifying the risks and limitations of deployed artificial intelligence (AI) systems. However, the effective execution of AI audits remains incredibly difficult, and practitioners often need to make use of various tools to support their efforts. Drawing on interviews with 35 AI audit practitioners and a landscape analysis of 435 tools, we compare the current ecosystem of AI audit tooling to practitioner needs. While many tools are designed to help set standards and evaluate AI systems, they often fall short in supporting accountability. We outline challenges practitioners faced in their efforts to use AI audit tools and highlight areas for future tool development beyond evaluation -- from harms discovery to advocacy. We conclude that the available resources do not currently support the full scope of AI audit practitioners' needs and recommend that the field move beyond tools for just evaluation and towards more comprehensive infrastructure for AI accountability.