Jatinder Singh

Wesley Hanwen Deng, Manish Nagireddy, Michelle Seng Ah Lee et al. · cmu

Recent years have seen the development of many open-source ML fairness toolkits aimed at helping ML practitioners assess and address unfairness in their systems. However, there has been little research investigating how ML practitioners actually use these toolkits in practice. In this paper, we conducted the first in-depth empirical exploration of how industry practitioners (try to) work with existing fairness toolkits. In particular, we conducted think-aloud interviews to understand how participants learn about and use fairness toolkits, and explored the generality of our findings through an anonymous online survey. We identified several opportunities for fairness toolkits to better address practitioner needs and scaffold them in using toolkits effectively and responsibly. Based on these findings, we highlight implications for the design of future open-source fairness toolkits that can support practitioners in better contextualizing, communicating, and collaborating around ML fairness efforts.

Jennifer Cobbe, Michael Veale, Jatinder Singh

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 allocating accountability stemming from distributed responsibility for systems between actors, limited visibility due to the accountability horizon, service models of use and liability, and cross-border supply chains and regulatory arbitrage

David Leslie, Michael Katell, Mhairi Aitken et al.

The Advancing Data Justice Research and Practice (ADJRP) project aims to widen the lens of current thinking around data justice and to provide actionable resources that will help policymakers, practitioners, and impacted communities gain a broader understanding of what equitable, freedom-promoting, and rights-sustaining data collection, governance, and use should look like in increasingly dynamic and global data innovation ecosystems. In this integrated literature review we hope to lay the conceptual groundwork needed to support this aspiration. The introduction motivates the broadening of data justice that is undertaken by the literature review which follows. First, we address how certain limitations of the current study of data justice drive the need for a re-location of data justice research and practice. We map out the strengths and shortcomings of the contemporary state of the art and then elaborate on the challenges faced by our own effort to broaden the data justice perspective in the decolonial context. The body of the literature review covers seven thematic areas. For each theme, the ADJRP team has systematically collected and analysed key texts in order to tell the critical empirical story of how existing social structures and power dynamics present challenges to data justice and related justice fields. In each case, this critical empirical story is also supplemented by the transformational story of how activists, policymakers, and academics are challenging longstanding structures of inequity to advance social justice in data innovation ecosystems and adjacent areas of technological practice.

Kornel Lewicki, Michelle Seng Ah Lee, Jennifer Cobbe et al.

"AI as a Service" (AIaaS) is a rapidly growing market, offering various plug-and-play AI services and tools. AIaaS enables its customers (users) - who may lack the expertise, data, and/or resources to develop their own systems - to easily build and integrate AI capabilities into their applications. Yet, it is known that AI systems can encapsulate biases and inequalities that can have societal impact. This paper argues that the context-sensitive nature of fairness is often incompatible with AIaaS' 'one-size-fits-all' approach, leading to issues and tensions. Specifically, we review and systematise the AIaaS space by proposing a taxonomy of AI services based on the levels of autonomy afforded to the user. We then critically examine the different categories of AIaaS, outlining how these services can lead to biases or be otherwise harmful in the context of end-user applications. In doing so, we seek to draw research attention to the challenges of this emerging area.

David Leslie, Michael Katell, Mhairi Aitken et al.

The Advancing Data Justice Research and Practice project aims to broaden understanding of the social, historical, cultural, political, and economic forces that contribute to discrimination and inequity in contemporary ecologies of data collection, governance, and use. This is the consultation draft of a guide for developers and organisations, which are producing, procuring, or using data-intensive technologies.In the first section, we introduce the field of data justice, from its early discussions to more recent proposals to relocate understandings of what data justice means. This section includes a description of the six pillars of data justice around which this guidance revolves. Next, to support developers in designing, developing, and deploying responsible and equitable data-intensive and AI/ML systems, we outline the AI/ML project lifecycle through a sociotechnical lens. To support the operationalisation data justice throughout the entirety of the AI/ML lifecycle and within data innovation ecosystems, we then present five overarching principles of responsible, equitable, and trustworthy data research and innovation practices, the SAFE-D principles-Safety, Accountability, Fairness, Explainability, and Data Quality, Integrity, Protection, and Privacy. The final section presents guiding questions that will help developers both address data justice issues throughout the AI/ML lifecycle and engage in reflective innovation practices that ensure the design, development, and deployment of responsible and equitable data-intensive and AI/ML systems.

Yulu Pi, Wenlong Li, Jatinder Singh

Algorithm registers are increasingly being both considered and deployed as instruments in AI governance. They are often expected to deliver transparency; however, in practice their design, scope, and implementation vary substantially. Currently, we lack a holistic understanding of the potential roles that registers might play in AI governance, and how different design choices both shape and reflect those roles. This paper therefore asks how do algorithm registers differ across jurisdictions, and what do these differences reveal about their roles in AI governance? Towards this, we conduct a comparative analysis of two influential but contrasting algorithm registration mechanisms, China's Beian system and the UK's Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS), drawing on publicly available regulatory documents, registration guidelines, and registry data. Crucially, our analysis shows that an algorithm register, depending on its design and implementation, can serve functions beyond transparency, including pre-market approval, enabling ecosystem-level understanding, and acting as a broader regulatory infrastructure. As algorithm registries proliferate globally, we stress the importance of researchers and policymakers considering and examining the concrete governance functions that algorithm registries can perform as a result of their design and institutional context, rather than approaching them primarily through a transparency lens.

Shreya Chappidi, Jatinder Singh, Andra V. Krauze

LLMs are increasingly supporting decision-making across high-stakes domains, requiring critical reflection on the socio-technical factors that shape how humans and LLMs are assigned roles and interact during human-in-the-loop decision-making. This paper introduces the concept of human-LLM archetypes -- defined as re-curring socio-technical interaction patterns that structure the roles of humans and LLMs in collaborative decision-making. We describe 17 human-LLM archetypes derived from a scoping literature review and thematic analysis of 113 LLM-supported decision-making papers. Then, we evaluate these diverse archetypes across real-world clinical diagnostic cases to examine the potential effects of adopting distinct human-LLM archetypes on LLM outputs and decision outcomes. Finally, we present relevant tradeoffs and design choices across human-LLM archetypes, including decision control, social hierarchies, cognitive forcing strategies, and information requirements. Through our analysis, we show that selection of human-LLM interaction archetype can influence LLM outputs and decisions, bringing important risks and considerations for the designers of human-AI decision-making systems

Yulu Pi, Lucas Lichner, Jae Woo Lee et al.

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 strategies to limit their accountability. Based on these insights, we offer guidance for researchers, policymakers, advocates, and other stakeholders seeking to support effective AI contestation, with particular attention to anticipating and countering institutional strategies used to evade accountability.

Raluca Diaconu, Jean Bacon, Jie Deng et al.

Technology is becoming increasingly pervasive. At present, the system components working together to provide functionality, be they purely software or with a physical element, tend to operate within silos, bound to a particular application or usage. This is counter to the wider vision of pervasive computing, where a potentially limitless number of applications can be realised through the dynamic and seamless interactions of system components. We believe this application composition should be externally controlled, driven by policy and subject to access control. We present ComFlux, our open source middleware, and show through a number of designs and implementations, how it supports this functionality with acceptable overhead.

Shreya Chappidi, Jatinder Singh

Responsible AI research typically focuses on examining the use and impacts of deployed AI systems. Yet, there is currently limited visibility into the pre-deployment decisions to pursue building such systems in the first place. Decisions taken in the earlier stages of development shape which systems are ultimately released, and therefore represent potential, but underexplored, points for intervention. As such, this paper investigates factors influencing AI non-development and abandonment throughout the development lifecycle. Specifically, we first perform a scoping review of academic literature, civil society resources, and grey literature including journalism and industry reports. Through thematic analysis of these sources, we develop a taxonomy of six categories of factors contributing to AI abandonment: ethical concerns, stakeholder feedback, development lifecycle challenges, organizational dynamics, resource constraints, and legal/regulatory concerns. Then, we collect data on real-world case of AI system abandonment via an AI incident database and a practitioner survey to evidence and compare factors that drive abandonment both prior to and following system deployment. While academic responsible AI communities often emphasize ethical risks as reasons to not develop AI, our empirical analysis of these cases demonstrates the diverse, and often non-ethics-related, levers that motivate organizations to abandon AI development. Synthesizing evidence from our taxonomy and related case study analyses, we identify gaps and opportunities in current responsible AI research to (1) engage with the diverse range of levers that influence organizations to abandon AI development, and (2) better support appropriate (dis)engagement with AI system development.

Anna Neumann, Elisabeth Kirsten, Muhammad Bilal Zafar et al.

System prompts in Large Language Models (LLMs) are predefined directives that guide model behaviour, taking precedence over user inputs in text processing and generation. LLM deployers increasingly use them to ensure consistent responses across contexts. While model providers set a foundation of system prompts, deployers and third-party developers can append additional prompts without visibility into others' additions, while this layered implementation remains entirely hidden from end-users. As system prompts become more complex, they can directly or indirectly introduce unaccounted for side effects. This lack of transparency raises fundamental questions about how the position of information in different directives shapes model outputs. As such, this work examines how the placement of information affects model behaviour. To this end, we compare how models process demographic information in system versus user prompts across six commercially available LLMs and 50 demographic groups. Our analysis reveals significant biases, manifesting in differences in user representation and decision-making scenarios. Since these variations stem from inaccessible and opaque system-level configurations, they risk representational, allocative and potential other biases and downstream harms beyond the user's ability to detect or correct. Our findings draw attention to these critical issues, which have the potential to perpetuate harms if left unexamined. Further, we argue that system prompt analysis must be incorporated into AI auditing processes, particularly as customisable system prompts become increasingly prevalent in commercial AI deployments.

Michelle Seng Ah Lee, Kirtan Padh, David Watson et al.

Fair machine learning (ML) methods help identify and mitigate the risk that algorithms encode or automate social injustices. Algorithmic approaches alone cannot resolve structural inequalities, but they can support socio-technical decision systems by surfacing discriminatory biases, clarifying trade-offs, and enabling governance. Although fairness is well studied in supervised learning, many real ML applications are online and sequential, with prior decisions informing future ones. Each decision is taken under uncertainty due to unobserved counterfactuals and finite samples, with dire consequences for under-represented groups, systematically under-observed due to historical exclusion and selective feedback. A bank cannot know whether a denied loan would have been repaid, and may have less data on marginalized populations. This paper introduces a taxonomy of uncertainty in sequential decision-making -- model, feedback, and prediction uncertainty -- providing shared vocabulary for assessing systems where uncertainty is unevenly distributed across groups. We formalize model and feedback uncertainty via counterfactual logic and reinforcement learning, and illustrate harms to decision makers (unrealized gains/losses) and subjects (compounding exclusion, reduced access) of policies that ignore the unobserved space. Algorithmic examples show it is possible to reduce outcome variance for disadvantaged groups while preserving institutional objectives (e.g. expected utility). Experiments on data simulated with varying bias show how unequal uncertainty and selective feedback produce disparities, and how uncertainty-aware exploration alters fairness metrics. The framework equips practitioners to diagnose, audit, and govern fairness risks. Where uncertainty drives unfairness rather than incidental noise, accounting for it is essential to fair and effective decision-making.

Shreya Chappidi, Jennifer Cobbe, Chris Norval et al. · cambridge

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, we show that implementing record-keeping to support transparency in algorithmic accountability regimes can itself bring wider implications -- an issue requiring greater attention from practitioners, researchers, and policymakers alike.

Alexandra Brintrup, George Baryannis, Ashutosh Tiwari et al.

While the increased use of AI in the manufacturing sector has been widely noted, there is little understanding on the risks that it may raise in a manufacturing organisation. Although various high level frameworks and definitions have been proposed to consolidate potential risks, practitioners struggle with understanding and implementing them. This lack of understanding exposes manufacturing to a multitude of risks, including the organisation, its workers, as well as suppliers and clients. In this paper, we explore and interpret the applicability of responsible, ethical, and trustworthy AI within the context of manufacturing. We then use a broadened adaptation of a machine learning lifecycle to discuss, through the use of illustrative examples, how each step may result in a given AI trustworthiness concern. We additionally propose a number of research questions to the manufacturing research community, in order to help guide future research so that the economic and societal benefits envisaged by AI in manufacturing are delivered safely and responsibly.

Jennifer Cobbe, Michelle Seng Ah Lee, Jatinder Singh

This paper introduces reviewability as a framework for improving the accountability of automated and algorithmic decision-making (ADM) involving machine learning. We draw on an understanding of ADM as a socio-technical process involving both human and technical elements, beginning before a decision is made and extending beyond the decision itself. While explanations and other model-centric mechanisms may assist some accountability concerns, they often provide insufficient information of these broader ADM processes for regulatory oversight and assessments of legal compliance. Reviewability involves breaking down the ADM process into technical and organisational elements to provide a systematic framework for determining the contextually appropriate record-keeping mechanisms to facilitate meaningful review - both of individual decisions and of the process as a whole. We argue that a reviewability framework, drawing on administrative law's approach to reviewing human decision-making, offers a practical way forward towards more a more holistic and legally-relevant form of accountability for ADM.

Jatinder Singh, Jennifer Cobbe

Data protection regulations give individuals rights to obtain the information that entities have on them. However, providing such information can also reveal aspects of the underlying technical infrastructure and organisational processes. This article explores the security implications this raises, and highlights the need to consider such in rights fulfillment processes. To appear in IEEE Security & Privacy

Fakhar ul Hassan, Anwaar Ali, Mohamed Rahouti et al.

Blockchain is challenging the status quo of the central trust infrastructure currently prevalent in the Internet towards a design principle that is underscored by decentralization, transparency, and trusted auditability. In ideal terms, blockchain advocates a decentralized, transparent, and more democratic version of the Internet. Essentially being a trusted and decentralized database, blockchain finds its applications in fields as varied as the energy sector, forestry, fisheries, mining, material recycling, air pollution monitoring, supply chain management, and their associated operations. In this paper, we present a survey of blockchain-based network applications. Our goal is to cover the evolution of blockchain-based systems that are trying to bring in a renaissance in the existing, mostly centralized, space of network applications. While re-imagining the space with blockchain, we highlight various common challenges, pitfalls, and shortcomings that can occur. Our aim is to make this work as a guiding reference manual for someone interested in shifting towards a blockchain-based solution for one's existing use case or automating one from the ground up.

Chris Norval, Jennifer Cobbe, Heleen Janssen et al.

Data protection regulations generally afford individuals certain rights over their personal data, including the rights to access, rectify, and delete the data held on them. Exercising such rights naturally requires those with data management obligations (service providers) to be able to match an individual with their data. However, many mobile apps collect personal data, without requiring user registration or collecting details of a user's identity (email address, names, phone number, and so forth). As a result, a user's ability to exercise their rights will be hindered without means for an individual to link themselves with this 'nameless' data. Current approaches often involve those seeking to exercise their legal rights having to give the app's provider more personal information, or even to register for a service; both of which seem contrary to the spirit of data protection law. This paper explores these concerns, and indicates simple means for facilitating data subject rights through both application and mobile platform (OS) design.

Jatinder Singh, Jennifer Cobbe, Chris Norval

Demand is growing for more accountability regarding the technological systems that increasingly occupy our world. However, the complexity of many of these systems - often systems-of-systems - poses accountability challenges. A key reason for this is because the details and nature of the information flows that interconnect and drive systems, which often occur across technical and organisational boundaries, tend to be invisible or opaque. This paper argues that data provenance methods show much promise as a technical means for increasing the transparency of these interconnected systems. Specifically, given the concerns regarding ever-increasing levels of automated and algorithmic decision-making, and so-called 'algorithmic systems' in general, we propose decision provenance as a concept showing much promise. Decision provenance entails using provenance methods to provide information exposing decision pipelines: chains of inputs to, the nature of, and the flow-on effects from the decisions and actions taken (at design and run-time) throughout systems. This paper introduces the concept of decision provenance, and takes an interdisciplinary (tech-legal) exploration into its potential for assisting accountability in algorithmic systems. We argue that decision provenance can help facilitate oversight, audit, compliance, risk mitigation, and user empowerment, and we also indicate the implementation considerations and areas for research necessary for realising its vision. More generally, we make the case that considerations of data flow, and systems more broadly, are important to discussions of accountability, and complement the considerable attention already given to algorithmic specifics.

Thomas F. J. -M. Pasquier, Jatinder Singh, David Eyers et al.

A model of cloud services is emerging whereby a few trusted providers manage the underlying hardware and communications whereas many companies build on this infrastructure to offer higher level, cloud-hosted PaaS services and/or SaaS applications. From the start, strong isolation between cloud tenants was seen to be of paramount importance, provided first by virtual machines (VM) and later by containers, which share the operating system (OS) kernel. Increasingly it is the case that applications also require facilities to effect isolation and protection of data managed by those applications. They also require flexible data sharing with other applications, often across the traditional cloud-isolation boundaries; for example, when government provides many related services for its citizens on a common platform. Similar considerations apply to the end-users of applications. But in particular, the incorporation of cloud services within `Internet of Things' architectures is driving the requirements for both protection and cross-application data sharing. These concerns relate to the management of data. Traditional access control is application and principal/role specific, applied at policy enforcement points, after which there is no subsequent control over where data flows; a crucial issue once data has left its owner's control by cloud-hosted applications and within cloud-services. Information Flow Control (IFC), in addition, offers system-wide, end-to-end, flow control based on the properties of the data. We discuss the potential of cloud-deployed IFC for enforcing owners' dataflow policy with regard to protection and sharing, as well as safeguarding against malicious or buggy software. In addition, the audit log associated with IFC provides transparency, giving configurable system-wide visibility over data flows. [...]

Saboor Zahir, John Pak, Jatinder Singh et al.

Cyber literacy merits serious research attention because it addresses a confluence of specialization and generalization; cybersecurity is often conceived of as approachable only by a technological intelligentsia, yet its interdependent nature demands education for a broad population. Therefore, educational tools should lead participants to discover technical knowledge in an accessible and attractive framework. In this paper, we present Protection and Deception (P&G), a novel two-player board game. P&G has three main contributions. First, it builds cyber literacy by giving participants "hands-on" experience with game pieces that have the capabilities of cyber-attacks such as worms, masquerading attacks/spoofs, replay attacks, and Trojans. Second, P&G teaches the important game-theoretic concepts of asymmetric information and resource allocation implicitly and non-obtrusively through its game play. Finally, it strives for the important objective of security education for underrepresented minorities and people without explicit technical experience. We tested P&G at a community center in Manhattan with middle- and high school students, and observed enjoyment and increased cyber literacy along with suggestions for improvement of the game. Together with these results, our paper also presents images of the attractive board design and 3D printed game pieces, together with a Monte-Carlo analysis that we used to ensure a balanced gaming experience.