Mireia Yurrita

Mireia Yurrita, Dave Murray-Rust, Agathe Balayn et al.

In an effort to regulate Machine Learning-driven (ML) systems, current auditing processes mostly focus on detecting harmful algorithmic biases. While these strategies have proven to be impactful, some values outlined in documents dealing with ethics in ML-driven systems are still underrepresented in auditing processes. Such unaddressed values mainly deal with contextual factors that cannot be easily quantified. In this paper, we develop a value-based assessment framework that is not limited to bias auditing and that covers prominent ethical principles for algorithmic systems. Our framework presents a circular arrangement of values with two bipolar dimensions that make common motivations and potential tensions explicit. In order to operationalize these high-level principles, values are then broken down into specific criteria and their manifestations. However, some of these value-specific criteria are mutually exclusive and require negotiation. As opposed to some other auditing frameworks that merely rely on ML researchers' and practitioners' input, we argue that it is necessary to include stakeholders that present diverse standpoints to systematically negotiate and consolidate value and criteria tensions. To that end, we map stakeholders with different insight needs, and assign tailored means for communicating value manifestations to them. We, therefore, contribute to current ML auditing practices with an assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values and we give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.

Agathe Balayn, Yulu Pi, David Gray Widder et al.

This workshop will grow and consolidate a community of interdisciplinary CSCW researchers focusing on the topic of contestable AI. As an outcome of the workshop, we will synthesize the most pressing opportunities and challenges for contestability along AI value chains in the form of a research roadmap. This roadmap will help shape and inspire imminent work in this field. Considering the length and depth of AI value chains, it will especially spur discussions around the contestability of AI systems along various sites of such chains. The workshop will serve as a platform for dialogue and demonstrations of concrete, successful, and unsuccessful examples of AI systems that (could or should) have been contested, to identify requirements, obstacles, and opportunities for designing and deploying contestable AI in various contexts. This will be held primarily as an in-person workshop, with some hybrid accommodation. The day will consist of individual presentations and group activities to stimulate ideation and inspire broad reflections on the field of contestable AI. Our aim is to facilitate interdisciplinary dialogue by bringing together researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders to foster the design and deployment of contestable AI.

Timothée Schmude, Mireia Yurrita, Kars Alfrink et al.

Explainability and its emerging counterpart contestability have become important normative and design principles for trustworthy AI as they enable users and subjects to understand and challenge AI decisions. However, realizing these principles is difficult, as they assume different meanings in technical, legal, and organizational dimensions of AI regulation. To resolve this conceptual polysemy, in this paper, we present the findings of an interview study with 14 experts to examine the intersection and implementation of explainability and contestability, and their understanding in different research communities. We outline differentiations between descriptive and normative explainability, judicial and non-judicial channels of contestation, and individual and collective contestation action. We further describe the main points of friction in the realization of both principles, including the alignment between top-down and bottom-up regulation, the assignment of responsibility, and the need for interdisciplinary collaboration. Lastly, we formulate three recommendations for AI policy to implement both principles through a Regulation by Design perspective. We believe our contributions can inform policy-making and regulation of these core principles and enable more effective and equitable design, development, and deployment of trustworthy public AI systems.