Structural transparency of societal AI alignment through Institutional Logics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.08246v1
• Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2026 03:51:20 GMT
• Title: Structural transparency of societal AI alignment through Institutional Logics
• Authors: Atrisha Sarkar, Isam Faik,
• Abstract summary: We develop a framework of emphstructural transparency for analyzing organizational and institutional decisions concerning AI alignment.<n>We operationalize the framework through five analytical components, each with an accompanying "analyst recipe"
• Score: 2.320417845168326
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The field of AI alignment is increasingly concerned with the questions of how values are integrated into the design of generative AI systems and how their integration shapes the social consequences of AI. However, existing transparency frameworks focus on the informational aspects of AI models, data, and procedures, while the institutional and organizational forces that shape alignment decisions and their downstream effects remain underexamined in both research and practice. To address this gap, we develop a framework of \emph{structural transparency} for analyzing organizational and institutional decisions concerning AI alignment, drawing on the theoretical lens of Institutional Logics. We develop a categorization of organizational decisions that are present in the governance of AI alignment, and provide an explicit analytical approach to examining them. We operationalize the framework through five analytical components, each with an accompanying "analyst recipe" that collectively identify the primary institutional logics and their internal relationships, external disruptions to existing social orders, and finally, how the structural risks of each institutional logic are mapped to a catalogue of sociotechnical harms. The proposed concept of structural transparency enables analysts to complement existing approached based on informational transparency with macro-level analyses that capture the institutional dynamics and consequences of decisions regarding AI alignment.

Related papers

• Understanding AI Trustworthiness: A Scoping Review of AIES & FAccT Articles [41.419459280691605]
  Trustworthy AI serves as a foundational pillar for two major AI ethics conferences: AIES and FAccT.<n>This scoping review aims to examine how the AIES and FAccT communities conceptualize, measure, and validate AI trustworthiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T09:40:38Z)
• Alignment and Safety in Large Language Models: Safety Mechanisms, Training Paradigms, and Emerging Challenges [47.14342587731284]
  This survey provides a comprehensive overview of alignment techniques, training protocols, and empirical findings in large language models (LLMs) alignment.<n>We analyze the development of alignment methods across diverse paradigms, characterizing the fundamental trade-offs between core alignment objectives.<n>We discuss state-of-the-art techniques, including Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), Constitutional AI, brain-inspired methods, and alignment uncertainty quantification (AUQ)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-25T20:52:58Z)
• From Firms to Computation: AI Governance and the Evolution of Institutions [0.0]
  This article synthesizes three frameworks: multi-level selection theory, Aoki's view of firms as computational processes, and Ostrom's design principles for robust institutions.<n>We develop a framework where selection operates concurrently across organizational levels, firms implement distributed inference via game-theoretic architectures, and Ostrom-style rules evolve as alignment mechanisms that address AI-related risks.<n>We conclude by proposing a set of design principles that operationalize alignment between humans and AI across institutional layers, enabling scalable, adaptive, and inclusive governance of agential AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-18T02:52:58Z)
• KERAIA: An Adaptive and Explainable Framework for Dynamic Knowledge Representation and Reasoning [46.85451489222176]
  KERAIA is a novel framework and software platform for symbolic knowledge engineering.<n>It addresses the persistent challenges of representing, reasoning with, and executing knowledge in dynamic, complex, and context-sensitive environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-07T10:56:05Z)
• Media and responsible AI governance: a game-theoretic and LLM analysis [61.132523071109354]
  This paper investigates the interplay between AI developers, regulators, users, and the media in fostering trustworthy AI systems.<n>Using evolutionary game theory and large language models (LLMs), we model the strategic interactions among these actors under different regulatory regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T21:39:38Z)
• Making Sense of AI Limitations: How Individual Perceptions Shape Organizational Readiness for AI Adoption [0.0]
  This study investigates how individuals' perceptions of artificial intelligence (AI) limitations influence organizational readiness for AI adoption.<n>The research reveals that organizational readiness emerges through dynamic interactions between individual sensemaking, social learning, and formal integration processes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T18:31:08Z)
• AI and the Transformation of Accountability and Discretion in Urban Governance [1.9152655229960793]
  The study synthesizes insights to propose guiding principles for responsible AI integration in decision-making processes.<n>The analysis argues that AI does not simply restrict or enhance discretion but redistributes it across institutional levels.<n>It may simultaneously strengthen managerial oversight, enhance decision-making consistency, and improve operational efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T18:11:39Z)
• Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI [53.28828093836034]
  We propose a framework for classifying the capabilities and behavior of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) models and their precursors.<n>This framework introduces levels of AGI performance, generality, and autonomy, providing a common language to compare models, assess risks, and measure progress along the path to AGI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-04T17:44:58Z)
• 'Team-in-the-loop': Ostrom's IAD framework 'rules in use' to map and measure contextual impacts of AI [0.0]
  This article explores how the 'rules in use' from Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IAD) can be developed as a context analysis approach for AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-24T14:01:00Z)
• Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
  We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings. The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms. Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z)
• A Framework for Understanding AI-Induced Field Change: How AI Technologies are Legitimized and Institutionalized [0.0]
  This paper presents a conceptual framework to analyze and understand AI-induced field-change. The introduction of novel AI-agents into new or existing fields creates a dynamic in which algorithms (re)shape organizations and institutions. The institutional infrastructure surrounding AI-induced fields is generally little elaborated, which could be an obstacle to the broader institutionalization of AI-systems going forward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-18T14:06:08Z)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)

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.