An evidence-based methodology for human rights impact assessment (HRIA) in the development of AI data-intensive systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.20951v1
• Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 16:27:52 GMT
• Title: An evidence-based methodology for human rights impact assessment (HRIA) in the development of AI data-intensive systems
• Authors: Alessandro Mantelero, Maria Samantha Esposito,
• Abstract summary: We show that human rights already underpin the decisions in the field of data use. This work presents a methodology and a model for a Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) The proposed methodology is tested in concrete case-studies to prove its feasibility and effectiveness.
• Score: 49.1574468325115
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Different approaches have been adopted in addressing the challenges of Artificial Intelligence (AI), some centred on personal data and others on ethics, respectively narrowing and broadening the scope of AI regulation. This contribution aims to demonstrate that a third way is possible, starting from the acknowledgement of the role that human rights can play in regulating the impact of data-intensive systems. The focus on human rights is neither a paradigm shift nor a mere theoretical exercise. Through the analysis of more than 700 decisions and documents of the data protection authorities of six countries, we show that human rights already underpin the decisions in the field of data use. Based on empirical analysis of this evidence, this work presents a methodology and a model for a Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA). The methodology and related assessment model are focused on AI applications, whose nature and scale require a proper contextualisation of HRIA methodology. Moreover, the proposed models provide a more measurable approach to risk assessment which is consistent with the regulatory proposals centred on risk thresholds. The proposed methodology is tested in concrete case-studies to prove its feasibility and effectiveness. The overall goal is to respond to the growing interest in HRIA, moving from a mere theoretical debate to a concrete and context-specific implementation in the field of data-intensive applications based on AI.

Related papers

• Revisiting Technical Bias Mitigation Strategies [0.11510009152620666]
  Efforts to mitigate bias and enhance fairness in the artificial intelligence (AI) community have predominantly focused on technical solutions. While numerous reviews have addressed bias in AI, this review uniquely focuses on the practical limitations of technical solutions in healthcare settings. We illustrate each limitation with empirical studies focusing on healthcare and biomedical applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-22T21:17:19Z)
• On the meaning of uncertainty for ethical AI: philosophy and practice [10.591284030838146]
  We argue that this is a significant way to bring ethical considerations into mathematical reasoning. We demonstrate these ideas within the context of competing models used to advise the UK government on the spread of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 during December 2021.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-11T15:13:36Z)
• Human-Centric Multimodal Machine Learning: Recent Advances and Testbed on AI-based Recruitment [66.91538273487379]
  There is a certain consensus about the need to develop AI applications with a Human-Centric approach. Human-Centric Machine Learning needs to be developed based on four main requirements: (i) utility and social good; (ii) privacy and data ownership; (iii) transparency and accountability; and (iv) fairness in AI-driven decision-making processes. We study how current multimodal algorithms based on heterogeneous sources of information are affected by sensitive elements and inner biases in the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-13T16:44:44Z)
• Ground(less) Truth: A Causal Framework for Proxy Labels in Human-Algorithm Decision-Making [29.071173441651734]
  We identify five sources of target variable bias that can impact the validity of proxy labels in human-AI decision-making tasks. We develop a causal framework to disentangle the relationship between each bias. We conclude by discussing opportunities to better address target variable bias in future research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-13T16:29:11Z)
• Reinforcement Learning with Heterogeneous Data: Estimation and Inference [84.72174994749305]
  We introduce the K-Heterogeneous Markov Decision Process (K-Hetero MDP) to address sequential decision problems with population heterogeneity. We propose the Auto-Clustered Policy Evaluation (ACPE) for estimating the value of a given policy, and the Auto-Clustered Policy Iteration (ACPI) for estimating the optimal policy in a given policy class. We present simulations to support our theoretical findings, and we conduct an empirical study on the standard MIMIC-III dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-31T20:58:47Z)
• Achieving a Data-driven Risk Assessment Methodology for Ethical AI [3.523208537466128]
  We show that a multidisciplinary research approach is the foundation of a pragmatic definition of ethical and societal risks faced by organizations using AI. We propose a novel data-driven risk assessment methodology, entitled DRESS-eAI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-29T12:55:33Z)
• Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space [62.997667081978825]
  Counterfactual explanations aim to provide to end users a set of features that need to be changed in order to achieve a desired outcome. Current approaches rarely take into account the feasibility of actions needed to achieve the proposed explanations. We present Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space (CEILS), a methodology to generate counterfactual explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-14T20:48:48Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)
• Interpretable Off-Policy Evaluation in Reinforcement Learning by Highlighting Influential Transitions [48.91284724066349]
  Off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning offers the chance of using observational data to improve future outcomes in domains such as healthcare and education. Traditional measures such as confidence intervals may be insufficient due to noise, limited data and confounding. We develop a method that could serve as a hybrid human-AI system, to enable human experts to analyze the validity of policy evaluation estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-10T00:26:43Z)

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.