Accountability Capture: How Record-Keeping to Support AI Transparency and Accountability (Re)shapes Algorithmic Oversight

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04609v1
• Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2025 09:20:27 GMT
• Title: Accountability Capture: How Record-Keeping to Support AI Transparency and Accountability (Re)shapes Algorithmic Oversight
• Authors: Shreya Chappidi, Jennifer Cobbe, Chris Norval, Anjali Mazumder, Jatinder Singh,
• Abstract summary: This paper examines how record-keeping practices bring algorithmic systems within accountability regimes.<n>We show that implementing record-keeping to support transparency in algorithmic accountability regimes can itself bring wider implications.
• Score: 8.915312467851532
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• Agents of Chaos [50.53354213047402]
  We report an exploratory red-teaming study of autonomous language-model-powered agents deployed in a live laboratory environment.<n>Twenty AI researchers interacted with the agents under benign and adversarial conditions.<n>Our findings establish the existence of security-, privacy-, and governance-relevant vulnerabilities in realistic deployment settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T16:28:48Z)
• A Law Reasoning Benchmark for LLM with Tree-Organized Structures including Factum Probandum, Evidence and Experiences [76.73731245899454]
  We propose a transparent law reasoning schema enriched with hierarchical factum probandum, evidence, and implicit experience.<n>Inspired by this schema, we introduce the challenging task, which takes a textual case description and outputs a hierarchical structure justifying the final decision.<n>This benchmark paves the way for transparent and accountable AI-assisted law reasoning in the Intelligent Court''
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-02T10:26:54Z)
• Do We Need to Verify Step by Step? Rethinking Process Supervision from a Theoretical Perspective [59.61868506896214]
  We show that under standard data coverage assumptions, reinforcement learning is no more statistically difficult than through process supervision.<n>We prove that any policy's advantage function can serve as an optimal process reward model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-14T22:21:56Z)
• 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)
• Accountability in Offline Reinforcement Learning: Explaining Decisions with a Corpus of Examples [70.84093873437425]
  This paper introduces the Accountable Offline Controller (AOC) that employs the offline dataset as the Decision Corpus. AOC operates effectively in low-data scenarios, can be extended to the strictly offline imitation setting, and displays qualities of both conservation and adaptability. We assess AOC's performance in both simulated and real-world healthcare scenarios, emphasizing its capability to manage offline control tasks with high levels of performance while maintaining accountability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T17:20:32Z)
• Socratic Pretraining: Question-Driven Pretraining for Controllable Summarization [89.04537372465612]
  Socratic pretraining is a question-driven, unsupervised pretraining objective designed to improve controllability in summarization tasks. Our results show that Socratic pretraining cuts task-specific labeled data requirements in half.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T17:27:10Z)
• Transparency, Compliance, And Contestability When Code Is(n't) Law [91.85674537754346]
  Both technical security mechanisms and legal processes serve as mechanisms to deal with misbehaviour according to a set of norms. While they share general similarities, there are also clear differences in how they are defined, act, and the effect they have on subjects. This paper considers the similarities and differences between both types of mechanisms as ways of dealing with misbehaviour.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-08T18:03:07Z)
• A relationship and not a thing: A relational approach to algorithmic accountability and assessment documentation [3.4438724671481755]
  We argue that developers largely have a monopoly on information about how their systems actually work. We argue that robust accountability regimes must establish opportunities for publics to cohere around shared experiences and interests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-02T23:22:03Z)
• Accountability in AI: From Principles to Industry-specific Accreditation [4.033641609534416]
  Recent AI-related scandals have shed a spotlight on accountability in AI. This paper draws on literature from public policy and governance to make two contributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-08T16:37:11Z)
• Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence and Process Mining: Challenges and Opportunities [0.8602553195689513]
  We show that process mining can provide a useful framework for gaining fact-based visibility to AI compliance process execution. We provide for an automated approach to analyze, remediate and monitor uncertainty in AI regulatory compliance processes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-06T12:50:47Z)
• Towards Accountability in the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Public Administrations [0.0]
  We argue that the phenomena of distributed responsibility, induced acceptance, and acceptance through ignorance constitute instances of imperfect delegation when tasks are delegated to computationally-driven systems. We hold that both direct public accountability via public transparency and indirect public accountability via transparency to auditors in public organizations can be both instrumentally ethically valuable and required as a matter of deontology from the principle of democratic self-government.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-04T11:50:04Z)

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.