Co-constructing sociotechnical AI governance: participatory system mapping using algorithm registers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12166v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 15:27:45 GMT
• Title: Co-constructing sociotechnical AI governance: participatory system mapping using algorithm registers
• Abstract summary: Algorithm registers have been championed as a means of providing transparency on the use of algorithms in public services.<n>Yet potential publics differ in their expectations of what should be made transparent and how.<n>It remains unclear how these instruments can represent the sociotechnical systems in which these algorithms are embedded.
• Score: 0.6999740786886536
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Algorithm registers have been championed as a means of providing transparency on the use of algorithms in public services. Yet potential publics differ in their expectations of what should be made transparent and how, as well as in their interest in and ability to parse the information currently published in the registers. Moreover, it remains unclear how these instruments can represent the sociotechnical systems in which these algorithms are embedded, and how system-level transparency can facilitate accountability. In this paper, we ask, what do algorithm registers reveal (and occlude) about the sociotechnical systems governing algorithmic systems, and how can diverse stakeholder perspectives inform a more pluralistic system-theoretic safety analysis? To do this, we probe the municipal algorithm register of a Dutch city through a case study of a decision-support tool for caseworkers' assessment of citizens' welfare benefits eligibility based on legal automation through a business rule engine. Through interviews, surveys, and participatory system mapping workshops (with municipal staff, civil society organisations, and ombudsmen, N=8), we seek to understand to what extent the register allows stakeholders to map the algorithmic system in question. These maps inform a System-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) that situates the register within a wider sociotechnical governance structure. Participants' contributions allow us to identify potential safety hazards which would not have been possible to see using the algorithm register alone, including benefits eligibility denial, system performance deterioration, and inability to contest wrongful decisions. By engaging both direct and indirect stakeholders, we reflect on the normative dimensions of algorithm governance efforts and how politics shape the practice of system safety analysis.

Related papers

• Understanding the Role of Algorithm Registers in AI Governance Through Comparative Analysis of China and the UK [9.40272719135206]
  This paper asks how do algorithm registers differ across jurisdictions, and what do these differences reveal about their roles in AI governance?<n>We compare China's Beian system and the UK's Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS)<n>Our analysis shows that an algorithm register, depending on its design and implementation, can serve functions beyond transparency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-25T09:57:02Z)
• Bureaucratic Silences: What the Canadian AI Register Reveals, Omits, and Obscures [28.163187835238478]
  In November 2025, the Government of Canada operationalized its commitment to transparency by releasing its first Federal AI Register.<n>We argue that such registers are not neutral mirrors of government activity, but active instruments of ontological design that configure the boundaries of accountability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-16T20:48:35Z)
• Frontier AI Auditing: Toward Rigorous Third-Party Assessment of Safety and Security Practices at Leading AI Companies [57.521647436515785]
  We define frontier AI auditing as rigorous third-party verification of frontier AI developers' safety and security claims.<n>We introduce AI Assurance Levels (AAL-1 to AAL-4), ranging from time-bounded system audits to continuous, deception-resilient verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T18:44:09Z)
• Collective dynamics of strategic classification [49.14942990735098]
  We apply evolutionary game theory to the problem of feedback loops between collectives of users and institutions.<n>We show that increased detection capabilities reduce social costs and could lead to users' improvement.<n>The speed at which the institutions re-adapt to the user's population plays a role in the final outcome.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T20:57:17Z)
• In-House Evaluation Is Not Enough: Towards Robust Third-Party Flaw Disclosure for General-Purpose AI [93.33036653316591]
  We call for three interventions to advance system safety.<n>First, we propose using standardized AI flaw reports and rules of engagement for researchers.<n>Second, we propose GPAI system providers adopt broadly-scoped flaw disclosure programs.<n>Third, we advocate for the development of improved infrastructure to coordinate distribution of flaw reports.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T05:09:46Z)
• Fairness and Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: a Multidisciplinary Survey [43.463169774689646]
  This survey caters to practitioners and researchers with a balanced and integrated coverage of systems, biases, measures, mitigation strategies, datasets, and legal aspects of algorithmic hiring and fairness.<n>Our work supports a contextualized understanding and governance of this technology by highlighting current opportunities and limitations, providing recommendations for future work to ensure shared benefits for all stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-25T08:04:18Z)
• 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)
• FAT Forensics: A Python Toolbox for Implementing and Deploying Fairness, Accountability and Transparency Algorithms in Predictive Systems [69.24490096929709]
  We developed an open source Python package called FAT Forensics. It can inspect important fairness, accountability and transparency aspects of predictive algorithms. Our toolbox can evaluate all elements of a predictive pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-08T13:25:02Z)
• Justice in Misinformation Detection Systems: An Analysis of Algorithms, Stakeholders, and Potential Harms [2.5372245630249632]
  We show how injustices materialize for stakeholders across three algorithmic stages in the misinformation detection pipeline. This framework should help researchers, policymakers, and practitioners reason about potential harms or risks associated with algorithmic misinformation detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-28T15:31:13Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Bias in Multimodal AI: Testbed for Fair Automatic Recruitment [73.85525896663371]
  We study how current multimodal algorithms based on heterogeneous sources of information are affected by sensitive elements and inner biases in the data. We train automatic recruitment algorithms using a set of multimodal synthetic profiles consciously scored with gender and racial biases. Our methodology and results show how to generate fairer AI-based tools in general, and in particular fairer automated recruitment systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-15T15:58:05Z)

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.