Marija Slavkovik

Than Htut Soe, Cristiana Teixeira Santos, Marija Slavkovik

Cookie banners, the pop ups that appear to collect your consent for data collection, are a tempting ground for dark patterns. Dark patterns are design elements that are used to influence the user's choice towards an option that is not in their interest. The use of dark patterns renders consent elicitation meaningless and voids the attempts to improve a fair collection and use of data. Can machine learning be used to automatically detect the presence of dark patterns in cookie banners? In this work, a dataset of cookie banners of 300 news websites was used to train a prediction model that does exactly that. The machine learning pipeline we used includes feature engineering, parameter search, training a Gradient Boosted Tree classifier and evaluation. The accuracy of the trained model is promising, but allows a lot of room for improvement. We provide an in-depth analysis of the interdisciplinary challenges that automated dark pattern detection poses to artificial intelligence. The dataset and all the code created using machine learning is available at the url to repository removed for review.

Inga Strümke, Marija Slavkovik, Clemens Stachl

Decisions such as which movie to watch next, which song to listen to, or which product to buy online, are increasingly influenced by recommender systems and user models that incorporate information on users' past behaviours, preferences, and digitally created content. Machine learning models that enable recommendations and that are trained on user data may unintentionally leverage information on human characteristics that are considered vulnerabilities, such as depression, young age, or gambling addiction. The use of algorithmic decisions based on latent vulnerable state representations could be considered manipulative and could have a deteriorating impact on the condition of vulnerable individuals. In this paper, we are concerned with the problem of machine learning models inadvertently modelling vulnerabilities, and want to raise awareness for this issue to be considered in legislation and AI ethics. Hence, we define and describe common vulnerabilities, and illustrate cases where they are likely to play a role in algorithmic decision-making. We propose a set of requirements for methods to detect the potential for vulnerability modelling, detect whether vulnerable groups are treated differently by a model, and detect whether a model has created an internal representation of vulnerability. We conclude that explainable artificial intelligence methods may be necessary for detecting vulnerability exploitation by machine learning-based recommendation systems.

Valerie Bürger, Marlie Besouw, Jana Fehr et al.

Meta-research and Trustworthy AI (TAI) share common goals, namely improving evidence, robustness, and transparency, yet there is very little interplay between the two fields. To investigate the potential benefits of closer collaboration between the domains of TAI in healthcare and meta-research, we convened an interdisciplinary workshop funded by the Volkswagen Foundation in February 2025. The workshop aimed to collaboratively examine key tensions in translating AI ethics principles into practice and to identify potential solutions informed by meta-research approaches. A Design Thinking-informed co-creation approach was followed by an inductive descriptive analysis of the outputs. Our results demonstrate how meta-research can offer concrete contributions to address pressing challenges of TAI in healthcare. These challenges include achieving robustness, reproducibility, and replicability; late-stage development and the integration of AI into clinical practice; the selection of appropriate evaluation metrics; specific AI-related challenges in preclinical and biomedical research; gaps of transparency in medical AI, as well as the need for improved conceptual clarity and AI literacy among stakeholders. Finally, we offer a catalog of ideas and roadmap for future research to inform scholars in both fields on existing interconnections and serve as a foundation for guiding future interdisciplinary efforts.

Nieves Montes, Nardine Osman, Carles Sierra et al.

Machine Ethics (ME) is concerned with the design of Artificial Moral Agents (AMAs), i.e. autonomous agents capable of reasoning and behaving according to moral values. Previous approaches have treated values as labels associated with some actions or states of the world, rather than as integral components of agent reasoning. It is also common to disregard that a value-guided agent operates alongside other value-guided agents in an environment governed by norms, thus omitting the social dimension of AMAs. In this blue sky paper, we propose a new AMA paradigm grounded in moral and social psychology, where values are instilled into agents as context-dependent goals. These goals intricately connect values at individual levels to norms at a collective level by evaluating the outcomes most incentivized by the norms in place. We argue that this type of normative reasoning, where agents are endowed with an understanding of norms' moral implications, leads to value-awareness in autonomous agents. Additionally, this capability paves the way for agents to align the norms enforced in their societies with respect to the human values instilled in them, by complementing the value-based reasoning on norms with agreement mechanisms to help agents collectively agree on the best set of norms that suit their human values. Overall, our agent model goes beyond the treatment of values as inert labels by connecting them to normative reasoning and to the social functionalities needed to integrate value-aware agents into our modern hybrid human-computer societies.

Inga Strümke, Marija Slavkovik

If a prediction model identifies vulnerable individuals or groups, the use of that model may become an ethical issue. But can we know that this is what a model does? Machine learning fairness as a field is focused on the just treatment of individuals and groups under information processing with machine learning methods. While considerable attention has been given to mitigating discrimination of protected groups, vulnerable groups have not received the same attention. Unlike protected groups, which can be regarded as always vulnerable, a vulnerable group may be vulnerable in one context but not in another. This raises new challenges on how and when to protect vulnerable individuals and groups under machine learning. Methods from explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), in contrast, do consider more contextual issues and are concerned with answering the question "why was this decision made?". Neither existing fairness nor existing explainability methods allow us to ascertain if a prediction model identifies vulnerability. We discuss this problem and propose approaches for analysing prediction models in this respect.

Ana Ozaki, Anum Rehman, Philip Turk et al.

Autonomous systems that operate in a shared environment with people need to be able to follow the rules of the society they occupy. While laws are unique for one society, different people and institutions may use different rules to guide their conduct. We study the problem of reaching a common ground among possibly incoherent rules of conduct. We formally define a notion of common ground and discuss the main properties of this notion. Then, we identify three sufficient conditions on the class of Horn expressions for which common grounds are guaranteed to exist. We provide a polynomial time algorithm that computes common grounds, under these conditions. We also show that if any of the three conditions is removed then common grounds for the resulting (larger) class may not exist.

Ajay Vishwanath, Louise A. Dennis, Marija Slavkovik

Machine ethics is the field that studies how ethical behaviour can be accomplished by autonomous systems. While there exist some systematic reviews aiming to consolidate the state of the art in machine ethics prior to 2020, these tend to not include work that uses reinforcement learning agents as entities whose ethical behaviour is to be achieved. The reason for this is that only in the last years we have witnessed an increase in machine ethics studies within reinforcement learning. We present here a systematic review of reinforcement learning for machine ethics and machine ethics within reinforcement learning. Additionally, we highlight trends in terms of ethics specifications, components and frameworks of reinforcement learning, and environments used to result in ethical behaviour. Our systematic review aims to consolidate the work in machine ethics and reinforcement learning thus completing the gap in the state of the art machine ethics landscape

Juliett Suárez Ferreira, Marija Slavkovik, Jorge Casillas

Algorithmic decision-making systems sometimes produce errors or skewed predictions toward a particular group, leading to unfair results. Debiasing practices, applied at different stages of the development of such systems, occasionally introduce new forms of unfairness or exacerbate existing inequalities. We focus on post-processing techniques that modify algorithmic predictions to achieve fairness in classification tasks, examining the unintended consequences of these interventions. To address this challenge, we develop a set of measures that quantify the disparity in the flips applied to the solution in the post-processing stage. The proposed measures will help practitioners: (1) assess the proportionality of the debiasing strategy used, (2) have transparency to explain the effects of the strategy in each group, and (3) based on those results, analyze the possibility of the use of some other approaches for bias mitigation or to solve the problem. We introduce a methodology for applying the proposed metrics during the post-processing stage and illustrate its practical application through an example. This example demonstrates how analyzing the proportionality of the debiasing strategy complements traditional fairness metrics, providing a deeper perspective to ensure fairer outcomes across all groups.

Juliett Suárez Ferreira, Marija Slavkovik, Jorge Casillas

Fairness constitutes a concern within machine learning (ML) applications. Currently, there is no study on how disparities in classification complexity between privileged and unprivileged groups could influence the fairness of solutions, which serves as a preliminary indicator of potential unfairness. In this work, we investigate this gap, specifically, we focus on synthetic datasets designed to capture a variety of biases ranging from historical bias to measurement and representational bias to evaluate how various complexity metrics differences correlate with group fairness metrics. We then apply association rule mining to identify patterns that link disproportionate complexity differences between groups with fairness-related outcomes, offering data-centric indicators to guide bias mitigation. Our findings are also validated by their application in real-world problems, providing evidence that quantifying group-wise classification complexity can uncover early indicators of potential fairness challenges. This investigation helps practitioners to proactively address bias in classification tasks.

Juliett Suárez Ferreira, Marija Slavkovik, Jorge Casillas

Current fairness metrics and mitigation techniques provide tools for practitioners to asses how non-discriminatory Automatic Decision Making (ADM) systems are. What if I, as an individual facing a decision taken by an ADM system, would like to know: Am I being treated fairly? We explore how to create the affordance for users to be able to ask this question of ADM. In this paper, we argue for the reification of fairness not only as a property of ADM, but also as an epistemic right of an individual to acquire information about the decisions that affect them and use that information to contest and seek effective redress against those decisions, in case they are proven to be discriminatory. We examine key concepts from existing research not only in algorithmic fairness but also in explainable artificial intelligence, accountability, and contestability. Integrating notions from these domains, we propose a conceptual framework to ascertain fairness by combining different tools that empower the end-users of ADM systems. Our framework shifts the focus from technical solutions aimed at practitioners to mechanisms that enable individuals to understand, challenge, and verify the fairness of decisions, and also serves as a blueprint for organizations and policymakers, bridging the gap between technical requirements and practical, user-centered accountability.

Inga Strümke, Marija Slavkovik, Vince I. Madai

While the demand for ethical artificial intelligence (AI) systems increases, the number of unethical uses of AI accelerates, even though there is no shortage of ethical guidelines. We argue that a possible underlying cause for this is that AI developers face a social dilemma in AI development ethics, preventing the widespread adaptation of ethical best practices. We define the social dilemma for AI development and describe why the current crisis in AI development ethics cannot be solved without relieving AI developers of their social dilemma. We argue that AI development must be professionalised to overcome the social dilemma, and discuss how medicine can be used as a template in this process.

Marija Slavkovik, Clemens Stachl, Caroline Pitman et al.

An institution, be it a body of government, commercial enterprise, or a service, cannot interact directly with a person. Instead, a model is created to represent us. We argue the existence of a new high-fidelity type of person model which we call a digital voodoo doll. We conceptualize it and compare its features with existing models of persons. Digital voodoo dolls are distinguished by existing completely beyond the influence and control of the person they represent. We discuss the ethical issues that such a lack of accountability creates and argue how these concerns can be mitigated.

Sirin Botan, Ronald de Haan, Marija Slavkovik et al.

Egalitarian considerations play a central role in many areas of social choice theory. Applications of egalitarian principles range from ensuring everyone gets an equal share of a cake when deciding how to divide it, to guaranteeing balance with respect to gender or ethnicity in committee elections. Yet, the egalitarian approach has received little attention in judgment aggregation -- a powerful framework for aggregating logically interconnected issues. We make the first steps towards filling that gap. We introduce axioms capturing two classical interpretations of egalitarianism in judgment aggregation and situate these within the context of existing axioms in the pertinent framework of belief merging. We then explore the relationship between these axioms and several notions of strategyproofness from social choice theory at large. Finally, a novel egalitarian judgment aggregation rule stems from our analysis; we present complexity results concerning both outcome determination and strategic manipulation for that rule.

Than Htut Soe, Oda Elise Nordberg, Frode Guribye et al.

To ensure that users of online services understand what data are collected and how they are used in algorithmic decision-making, the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) specifies informed consent as a minimal requirement. For online news outlets consent is commonly elicited through interface design elements in the form of a pop-up. We have manually analyzed 300 data collection consent notices from news outlets that are built to ensure compliance with GDPR. The analysis uncovered a variety of strategies or dark patterns that circumvent the intent of GDPR by design. We further study the presence and variety of these dark patterns in these "cookie consents" and use our observations to specify the concept of dark pattern in the context of consent elicitation.

Magdalena Ivanovska, Marija Slavkovik

In this paper we explore the application of methods for classical judgment aggregation in pooling probabilistic opinions on logically related issues. For this reason, we first modify the Boolean judgment aggregation framework in the way that allows handling probabilistic judgments and then define probabilistic aggregation functions obtained by generalization of the classical ones. In addition, we discuss essential desirable properties for the aggregation functions and explore impossibility results.

Beishui Liao, Pere Pardo, Marija Slavkovik et al.

An autonomous system is constructed by a manufacturer, operates in a society subject to norms and laws, and interacts with end users. All of these actors are stakeholders affected by the behavior of the autonomous system. We address the challenge of how the ethical views of such stakeholders can be integrated in the behavior of an autonomous system. We propose an ethical recommendation component called Jiminy which uses techniques from normative systems and formal argumentation to reach moral agreements among stakeholders. A Jiminy represents the ethical views of each stakeholder by using normative systems, and has three ways of resolving moral dilemmas that involve the opinions of the stakeholders. First, the Jiminy considers how the arguments of the stakeholders relate to one another, which may already resolve the dilemma. Secondly, the Jiminy combines the normative systems of the stakeholders such that the combined expertise of the stakeholders may resolve the dilemma. Thirdly, and only if these two other methods have failed, the Jiminy uses context-sensitive rules to decide which of the stakeholders take preference over the others. At the abstract level, these three methods are characterized by adding arguments, adding attacks between arguments, and revising attacks between arguments. We show how a Jiminy can be used not only for ethical reasoning and collaborative decision-making, but also to provide explanations about ethical behavior.

Vicky Charisi, Louise Dennis, Michael Fisher et al.

Both the ethics of autonomous systems and the problems of their technical implementation have by now been studied in some detail. Less attention has been given to the areas in which these two separate concerns meet. This paper, written by both philosophers and engineers of autonomous systems, addresses a number of issues in machine ethics that are located at precisely the intersection between ethics and engineering. We first discuss the main challenges which, in our view, machine ethics posses to moral philosophy. We them consider different approaches towards the conceptual design of autonomous systems and their implications on the ethics implementation in such systems. Then we examine problematic areas regarding the specification and verification of ethical behavior in autonomous systems, particularly with a view towards the requirements of future legislation. We discuss transparency and accountability issues that will be crucial for any future wide deployment of autonomous systems in society. Finally we consider the, often overlooked, possibility of intentional misuse of AI systems and the possible dangers arising out of deliberately unethical design, implementation, and use of autonomous robots.

Jérôme Lang, Marija Slavkovik, Srdjan Vesic

One of the better studied properties for operators in judgment aggregation is independence, which essentially dictates that the collective judgment on one issue should not depend on the individual judgments given on some other issue(s) in the same agenda. Independence, although considered a desirable property, is too strong, because together with mild additional conditions it implies dictatorship. We propose here a weakening of independence, named agenda separability: a judgment aggregation rule satisfies it if, whenever the agenda is composed of several independent sub-agendas, the resulting collective judgment sets can be computed separately for each sub-agenda and then put together. We show that this property is discriminant, in the sense that among judgment aggregation rules so far studied in the literature, some satisfy it and some do not. We briefly discuss the implications of agenda separability on the computation of judgment aggregation rules.

Marija Slavkovik, Wojciech Jamroga

Judgment aggregation problems form a class of collective decision-making problems represented in an abstract way, subsuming some well known problems such as voting. A collective decision can be reached in many ways, but a direct one-step aggregation of individual decisions is arguably most studied. Another way to reach collective decisions is by iterative consensus building -- allowing each decision-maker to change their individual decision in response to the choices of the other agents until a consensus is reached. Iterative consensus building has so far only been studied for voting problems. Here we propose an iterative judgment aggregation algorithm, based on movements in an undirected graph, and we study for which instances it terminates with a consensus. We also compare the computational complexity of our iterative procedure with that of related judgment aggregation operators.

Jerôme Lang, Gabriella Pigozzi, Marija Slavkovik et al.

The literature on judgment aggregation is moving from studying impossibility results regarding aggregation rules towards studying specific judgment aggregation rules. Here we give a structured list of most rules that have been proposed and studied recently in the literature, together with various properties of such rules. We first focus on the majority-preservation property, which generalizes Condorcet-consistency, and identify which of the rules satisfy it. We study the inclusion relationships that hold between the rules. Finally, we consider two forms of unanimity, monotonicity, homogeneity, and reinforcement, and we identify which of the rules satisfy these properties.