How Supply Chain Dependencies Complicate Bias Measurement and Accountability Attribution in AI Hiring Applications

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.22679v1
• Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 16:01:35 GMT
• Title: How Supply Chain Dependencies Complicate Bias Measurement and Accountability Attribution in AI Hiring Applications
• Abstract summary: Modern AI hiring systems operate within complex supply chains where responsibility fragments across data vendors, model developers, platform providers, and deploying organizations.<n>This paper investigates how these dependency chains complicate bias evaluation and accountability attribution.<n>We propose multi-layered interventions including system-level audits, vendor guidelines, continuous monitoring mechanisms, and documentation across dependency chains.
• Score: 1.0742675209112622
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The increasing adoption of AI systems in hiring has raised concerns about algorithmic bias and accountability, prompting regulatory responses including the EU AI Act, NYC Local Law 144, and Colorado's AI Act. While existing research examines bias through technical or regulatory lenses, both perspectives overlook a fundamental challenge: modern AI hiring systems operate within complex supply chains where responsibility fragments across data vendors, model developers, platform providers, and deploying organizations. This paper investigates how these dependency chains complicate bias evaluation and accountability attribution. Drawing on literature review and regulatory analysis, we demonstrate that fragmented responsibilities create two critical problems. First, bias emerges from component interactions rather than isolated elements, yet proprietary configurations prevent integrated evaluation. A resume parser may function without bias independently but contribute to discrimination when integrated with specific ranking algorithms and filtering thresholds. Second, information asymmetries mean deploying organizations bear legal responsibility without technical visibility into vendor-supplied algorithms, while vendors control implementations without meaningful disclosure requirements. Each stakeholder may believe they are compliant; nevertheless, the integrated system may produce biased outcomes. Analysis of implementation ambiguities reveals these challenges in practice. We propose multi-layered interventions including system-level audits, vendor guidelines, continuous monitoring mechanisms, and documentation across dependency chains. Our findings reveal that effective governance requires coordinated action across technical, organizational, and regulatory domains to establish meaningful accountability in distributed development environments.

Related papers

• FLARE-AI: Flaw Reporting for AI [51.64618567247884]
  Flaw reporting for deployed AI systems is fundamental to identifying system failures and improving AI safety.<n>Yet the AI reporting ecosystem is fragmented: researchers who identify flaws often do not know what to report, and groups who receive reports rarely share them with other relevant stakeholders.<n>We audit 12 reporting systems published by AI developers, cybersecurity groups, and AI flaw aggregators.<n>We introduce FLARE-AI, an open-source AI flaw reporting system designed for interoperability with existing systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-30T12:27:09Z)
• Towards trustworthy agentic AI: a comprehensive survey of safety, robustness, privacy, and system security [57.35851886874902]
  Agentic AI systems execute complex tasks autonomously, but their multi-step trajectories introduce new failure modes that challenge trustworthiness.<n>This survey provides a focused examination of trustworthy agentic AI through two core dimensions that are critical for high-risk deployments.<n>For each dimension, we clarify key concepts, identify where risks emerge along the agent workflow, and summarize stage-targeted mitigation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T10:26:37Z)
• AgentReputation: A Decentralized Agentic AI Reputation Framework [3.6704226968275253]
  We propose textbfAgentReputation, a decentralized, three-layer reputation framework for agentic AI systems.<n>The framework separates task execution, reputation services, and tamper-proof persistence to both leverage their respective strengths and enable independent evolution.<n>In quantifying, AgentReputation provides a decision-facing policy engine that supports resource allocation, access control, and adaptive verification escalation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T12:33:39Z)
• COMPASS: The explainable agentic framework for Sovereignty, Sustainability, Compliance, and Ethics [0.0]
  This paper introduces a novel multi-agent orchestration system designed to enforce value-aligned AI.<n>The framework comprises an Orchestrator and four specialised sub-agents addressing sovereignty, carbon-aware computing, compliance, and ethics.<n>By employing an LLM-as-a-judge methodology, the system assigns quantitative scores and generates explainable justifications for each assessment dimension.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T20:14:35Z)
• Steering LLMs via Scalable Interactive Oversight [74.12746881843044]
  Large Language Models increasingly automate complex, long-horizon tasks such as emphvibe coding, a supervision gap has emerged.<n>It presents a critical challenge in scalable oversight: enabling humans to responsibly steer AI systems on tasks that surpass their own ability to specify or verify.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T04:52:00Z)
• Agentic AI for Financial Crime Compliance [0.0]
  This paper presents the design and deployment of an agentic AI system for financial crime compliance (FCC) in digitally native financial platforms.<n>The contribution includes a reference architecture, a real-world prototype, and insights into how Agentic AI can reconfigure under regulatory constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-16T14:53:51Z)
• Safe and Certifiable AI Systems: Concepts, Challenges, and Lessons Learned [45.44933002008943]
  This white paper presents the T"UV AUSTRIA Trusted AI framework.<n>It is an end-to-end audit catalog and methodology for assessing and certifying machine learning systems.<n>Building on three pillars - Secure Software Development, Functional Requirements, and Ethics & Data Privacy - it translates the high-level obligations of the EU AI Act into specific, testable criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T17:52:08Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Explainable AI Systems Must Be Contestable: Here's How to Make It Happen [2.5875936082584623]
  This paper presents the first rigorous formal definition of contestability in explainable AI.<n>We introduce a modular framework of by-design and post-hoc mechanisms spanning human-centered interfaces, technical processes, and organizational architectures.<n>Our work equips practitioners with the tools to embed genuine recourse and accountability into AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T13:32:05Z)
• 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)
• Understanding accountability in algorithmic supply chains [7.971065005161566]
  Academic and policy proposals on algorithmic accountability often seek to understand algorithmic systems in their socio-technical context. Increasingly, algorithmic systems are also produced, deployed, and used within a supply chain comprising multiple actors. We argue that algorithmic accountability discussions must consider supply chains and the difficult implications they raise for the governance and accountability of algorithmic systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-28T10:43:39Z)

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.