Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.02521v1
• Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2023 01:40:03 GMT
• Title: Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem
• Authors: Sasha Costanza-Chock, Emma Harvey, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Martha Czernuszenko, Joy Buolamwini
• Abstract summary: We provide the first comprehensive field scan of the AI audit ecosystem. We identify emerging best practices as well as methods and tools that are becoming commonplace. We outline policy recommendations to improve the quality and impact of these audits.
• Score: 0.971392598996499
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: AI audits are an increasingly popular mechanism for algorithmic accountability; however, they remain poorly defined. Without a clear understanding of audit practices, let alone widely used standards or regulatory guidance, claims that an AI product or system has been audited, whether by first-, second-, or third-party auditors, are difficult to verify and may exacerbate, rather than mitigate, bias and harm. To address this knowledge gap, we provide the first comprehensive field scan of the AI audit ecosystem. We share a catalog of individuals (N=438) and organizations (N=189) who engage in algorithmic audits or whose work is directly relevant to algorithmic audits; conduct an anonymous survey of the group (N=152); and interview industry leaders (N=10). We identify emerging best practices as well as methods and tools that are becoming commonplace, and enumerate common barriers to leveraging algorithmic audits as effective accountability mechanisms. We outline policy recommendations to improve the quality and impact of these audits, and highlight proposals with wide support from algorithmic auditors as well as areas of debate. Our recommendations have implications for lawmakers, regulators, internal company policymakers, and standards-setting bodies, as well as for auditors. They are: 1) require the owners and operators of AI systems to engage in independent algorithmic audits against clearly defined standards; 2) notify individuals when they are subject to algorithmic decision-making systems; 3) mandate disclosure of key components of audit findings for peer review; 4) consider real-world harm in the audit process, including through standardized harm incident reporting and response mechanisms; 5) directly involve the stakeholders most likely to be harmed by AI systems in the algorithmic audit process; and 6) formalize evaluation and, potentially, accreditation of algorithmic auditors.

Related papers

• A Game-Theoretic Analysis of Auditing Differentially Private Algorithms with Epistemically Disparate Herd [16.10098472773814]
  This study examines the impact of herd audits on algorithm developers using the Stackelberg game approach. By enhancing transparency and accountability, herd audit contributes to the responsible development of privacy-preserving algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-24T20:34:27Z)
• Auditing Work: Exploring the New York City algorithmic bias audit regime [0.4580134784455941]
  Local Law 144 (LL 144) mandates NYC-based employers using automated employment decision-making tools (AEDTs) in hiring to undergo annual bias audits conducted by an independent auditor. This paper examines lessons from LL 144 for other national algorithm auditing attempts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T22:37:15Z)
• The Decisive Power of Indecision: Low-Variance Risk-Limiting Audits and Election Contestation via Marginal Mark Recording [51.82772358241505]
  Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) are techniques for verifying the outcomes of large elections. We define new families of audits that improve efficiency and offer advances in statistical power. New audits are enabled by revisiting the standard notion of a cast-vote record so that it can declare multiple possible mark interpretations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T16:23:54Z)
• A Framework for Assurance Audits of Algorithmic Systems [2.2342503377379725]
  We propose the criterion audit as an operationalizable compliance and assurance external audit framework. We argue that AI audits should similarly provide assurance to their stakeholders about AI organizations' ability to govern their algorithms in ways that harms and uphold human values. We conclude by offering a critical discussion on the benefits, inherent limitations, and implementation challenges of applying practices of the more mature financial auditing industry to AI auditing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T14:38:54Z)
• The right to audit and power asymmetries in algorithm auditing [68.8204255655161]
  We elaborate on the challenges and asymmetries mentioned by Sandvig at the IC2S2 2021. We also contribute a discussion of the asymmetries that were not covered by Sandvig. We discuss the implications these asymmetries have for algorithm auditing research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T13:57:41Z)
• Tight Auditing of Differentially Private Machine Learning [77.38590306275877]
  For private machine learning, existing auditing mechanisms are tight. They only give tight estimates under implausible worst-case assumptions. We design an improved auditing scheme that yields tight privacy estimates for natural (not adversarially crafted) datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-15T21:40:33Z)
• Having your Privacy Cake and Eating it Too: Platform-supported Auditing of Social Media Algorithms for Public Interest [70.02478301291264]
  Social media platforms curate access to information and opportunities, and so play a critical role in shaping public discourse. Prior studies have used black-box methods to show that these algorithms can lead to biased or discriminatory outcomes. We propose a new method for platform-supported auditing that can meet the goals of the proposed legislation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-18T17:32:35Z)
• Algorithmic Fairness and Vertical Equity: Income Fairness with IRS Tax Audit Models [73.24381010980606]
  This study examines issues of algorithmic fairness in the context of systems that inform tax audit selection by the IRS. We show how the use of more flexible machine learning methods for selecting audits may affect vertical equity. Our results have implications for the design of algorithmic tools across the public sector.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-20T16:27:06Z)
• Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance [3.8997087223115634]
  We discuss the challenges of third party oversight in the current AI landscape. We show that the institutional design of such audits are far from monolithic. We conclude that the turn toward audits alone is unlikely to achieve actual algorithmic accountability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-09T19:18:47Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)
• System Cards for AI-Based Decision-Making for Public Policy [5.076419064097733]
  This work proposes a system accountability benchmark for formal audits of artificial intelligence-based decision-aiding systems. It consists of 56 criteria organized within a four-by-four matrix composed of rows focused on (i) data, (ii) model, (iii) code, (iv) system, and columns focused on (a) development, (b) assessment, (c) mitigation, and (d) assurance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-01T18:56:45Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.