Luca Deck

Luca Deck, Jakob Schoeffer, Maria De-Arteaga et al.

In this critical survey, we analyze typical claims on the relationship between explainable AI (XAI) and fairness to disentangle the multidimensional relationship between these two concepts. Based on a systematic literature review and a subsequent qualitative content analysis, we identify seven archetypal claims from 175 scientific articles on the alleged fairness benefits of XAI. We present crucial caveats with respect to these claims and provide an entry point for future discussions around the potentials and limitations of XAI for specific fairness desiderata. Importantly, we notice that claims are often (i) vague and simplistic, (ii) lacking normative grounding, or (iii) poorly aligned with the actual capabilities of XAI. We suggest to conceive XAI not as an ethical panacea but as one of many tools to approach the multidimensional, sociotechnical challenge of algorithmic fairness. Moreover, when making a claim about XAI and fairness, we emphasize the need to be more specific about what kind of XAI method is used, which fairness desideratum it refers to, how exactly it enables fairness, and who is the stakeholder that benefits from XAI.

Simeon Allmendinger, Luca Deck, Lucas Mueller

Rapid advances in Generative AI are giving rise to increasingly sophisticated Multi-Agent AI (MAAI) systems. While AI fairness has been extensively studied in traditional predictive scenarios, its examination in MAAI remains nascent and fragmented. This scoping review critically synthesizes existing research on fairness in MAAI systems. Through a qualitative content analysis of 23 selected studies, we identify five archetypal approaches. Our findings reveal that fairness in MAAI systems is often addressed superficially, lacks robust normative foundations, and frequently overlooks the complex dynamics introduced by agent autonomy and system-level interactions. We argue that fairness must be embedded structurally throughout the development lifecycle of MAAI, rather than appended as a post-hoc consideration. Meaningful evaluation requires explicit human oversight, normative clarity, and a precise articulation of fairness objectives and beneficiaries. This review provides a foundation for advancing fairness research in MAAI systems by highlighting critical gaps, exposing prevailing limitations, and suggesting pathways.

Luca Deck, Simeon Allmendinger, Lucas Müller et al.

In the late 2010s, the fashion trend NormCore framed sameness as a signal of belonging, illustrating how norms emerge through collective coordination. Today, similar forms of normative coordination can be observed in systems based on Multi-agent Artificial Intelligence (MAAI), as AI-based agents deliberate, negotiate, and converge on shared decisions in fairness-sensitive domains. Yet, existing empirical approaches often treat norms as targets for alignment or replication, implicitly assuming equivalence between human subjects and AI agents and leaving collective normative dynamics insufficiently examined. To address this gap, we propose Normative Common Ground Replication (NormCoRe), a novel methodological framework to systematically translate the design of human subject experiments into MAAI environments. Building on behavioral science, replication research, and state-of-the-art MAAI architectures, NormCoRe maps the structural layers of human subject studies onto the design of AI agent studies, enabling systematic documentation of study design and analysis of norms in MAAI. We demonstrate the utility of NormCoRe by replicating a seminal experimental study on distributive justice, in which participants negotiate fairness principles under a "veil of ignorance". We show that normative judgments in AI agent studies can differ from human baselines and are sensitive to the choice of the foundation model and the language used to instantiate agent personas. Our work provides a principled pathway for analyzing norms in MAAI and helps to guide, reflect, and document design choices whenever AI agents are used to automate or support tasks formerly carried out by humans.

Luca Deck, Jan-Laurin Müller, Conradin Braun et al.

The topic of fairness in AI, as debated in the FATE (Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, and Ethics in AI) communities, has sparked meaningful discussions in the past years. However, from a legal perspective, particularly from the perspective of European Union law, many open questions remain. Whereas algorithmic fairness aims to mitigate structural inequalities at design-level, European non-discrimination law is tailored to individual cases of discrimination after an AI model has been deployed. The AI Act might present a tremendous step towards bridging these two approaches by shifting non-discrimination responsibilities into the design stage of AI models. Based on an integrative reading of the AI Act, we comment on legal as well as technical enforcement problems and propose practical implications on bias detection and bias correction in order to specify and comply with specific technical requirements.

Luca Deck, Astrid Schomäcker, Timo Speith et al.

The widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems across various domains is increasingly surfacing issues related to algorithmic fairness, especially in high-stakes scenarios. Thus, critical considerations of how fairness in AI systems might be improved -- and what measures are available to aid this process -- are overdue. Many researchers and policymakers see explainable AI (XAI) as a promising way to increase fairness in AI systems. However, there is a wide variety of XAI methods and fairness conceptions expressing different desiderata, and the precise connections between XAI and fairness remain largely nebulous. Besides, different measures to increase algorithmic fairness might be applicable at different points throughout an AI system's lifecycle. Yet, there currently is no coherent mapping of fairness desiderata along the AI lifecycle. In this paper, we we distill eight fairness desiderata, map them along the AI lifecycle, and discuss how XAI could help address each of them. We hope to provide orientation for practical applications and to inspire XAI research specifically focused on these fairness desiderata.

Max-Paul Förster, Luca Deck, Raimund Weidlich et al.

The growing availability and use of deepfake technologies increases risks for democratic societies, e.g., for political communication on online platforms. The EU has responded with transparency obligations for providers and deployers of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems and online platforms. This includes marking deepfakes during generation and labeling deepfakes when they are shared. However, the lack of industry and enforcement standards poses an ongoing challenge. Through a multivocal literature review, we summarize methods for marking, detecting, and labeling deepfakes and assess their effectiveness under EU regulation. Our results indicate that individual methods fail to meet regulatory and practical requirements. Therefore, we propose a multi-level strategy combining the strengths of existing methods. To account for the masses of content on online platforms, our multi-level strategy provides scalability and practicality via a simple scoring mechanism. At the same time, it is agnostic to types of deepfake technology and allows for context-specific risk weighting.