Research Papers

This paper addresses the ways AI ethics research operates on an ideology of ideal theory, in the sense discussed by Mills (2005) and recently applied to AI ethics by Fazelpour \& Lipton (2020). I address the structural and methodological conditions that attract AI ethics researchers to ideal theorizing, and the consequences this approach has for the quality and future of our research community. Finally, I discuss the possibilities for a nonideal future in AI ethics.

Report prepared by the Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) on Publication Norms for Responsible AI

Abhishek Gupta, Camylle Lanteigne, Victoria Heath

The history of science and technology shows that seemingly innocuous developments in scientific theories and research have enabled real-world applications with significant negative consequences for humanity. In order to ensure that the science and technology of AI is developed in a humane manner, we must develop research publication norms that are informed by our growing understanding of AI's potential threats and use cases. Unfortunately, it's difficult to create a set of publication norms for responsible AI because the field of AI is currently fragmented in terms of how this technology is researched, developed, funded, etc. To examine this challenge and find solutions, the Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) co-hosted two public consultations with the Partnership on AI in May 2020. These meetups examined potential publication norms for responsible AI, with the goal of creating a clear set of recommendations and ways forward for publishers. In its submission, MAIEI provides six initial recommendations, these include: 1) create tools to navigate publication decisions, 2) offer a page number extension, 3) develop a network of peers, 4) require broad impact statements, 5) require the publication of expected results, and 6) revamp the peer-review process. After considering potential concerns regarding these recommendations, including constraining innovation and creating a "black market" for AI research, MAIEI outlines three ways forward for publishers, these include: 1) state clearly and consistently the need for established norms, 2) coordinate and build trust as a community, and 3) change the approach.

Montreal AI Ethics Institute's (MAIEI) Submission to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Conversation on Intellectual Property (IP) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) Second Session

Allison Cohen, Abhishek Gupta

This document posits that, at best, a tenuous case can be made for providing AI exclusive IP over their "inventions". Furthermore, IP protections for AI are unlikely to confer the benefit of ensuring regulatory compliance. Rather, IP protections for AI "inventors" present a host of negative externalities and obscures the fact that the genuine inventor, deserving of IP, is the human agent. This document will conclude by recommending strategies for WIPO to bring IP law into the 21st century, enabling it to productively account for AI "inventions". Theme: IP Protection for AI-Generated and AI-Assisted Works Based on insights from the Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) staff and supplemented by workshop contributions from the AI Ethics community convened by MAIEI on July 5, 2020.

The State of AI Ethics Report (June 2020)

Abhishek Gupta, Camylle Lanteigne, Victoria Heath +6

These past few months have been especially challenging, and the deployment of technology in ways hitherto untested at an unrivalled pace has left the internet and technology watchers aghast. Artificial intelligence has become the byword for technological progress and is being used in everything from helping us combat the COVID-19 pandemic to nudging our attention in different directions as we all spend increasingly larger amounts of time online. It has never been more important that we keep a sharp eye out on the development of this field and how it is shaping our society and interactions with each other. With this inaugural edition of the State of AI Ethics we hope to bring forward the most important developments that caught our attention at the Montreal AI Ethics Institute this past quarter. Our goal is to help you navigate this ever-evolving field swiftly and allow you and your organization to make informed decisions. This pulse-check for the state of discourse, research, and development is geared towards researchers and practitioners alike who are making decisions on behalf of their organizations in considering the societal impacts of AI-enabled solutions. We cover a wide set of areas in this report spanning Agency and Responsibility, Security and Risk, Disinformation, Jobs and Labor, the Future of AI Ethics, and more. Our staff has worked tirelessly over the past quarter surfacing signal from the noise so that you are equipped with the right tools and knowledge to confidently tread this complex yet consequential domain.

Underestimation Bias and Underfitting in Machine Learning

Padraig Cunningham, Sarah Jane Delany

Often, what is termed algorithmic bias in machine learning will be due to historic bias in the training data. But sometimes the bias may be introduced (or at least exacerbated) by the algorithm itself. The ways in which algorithms can actually accentuate bias has not received a lot of attention with researchers focusing directly on methods to eliminate bias - no matter the source. In this paper we report on initial research to understand the factors that contribute to bias in classification algorithms. We believe this is important because underestimation bias is inextricably tied to regularization, i.e. measures to address overfitting can accentuate bias.

The ability to create artificial intelligence (AI) capable of performing complex tasks is rapidly outpacing our ability to ensure the safe and assured operation of AI-enabled systems. Fortunately, a landscape of AI safety research is emerging in response to this asymmetry and yet there is a long way to go. In particular, recent simulation environments created to illustrate AI safety risks are relatively simple or narrowly-focused on a particular issue. Hence, we see a critical need for AI safety research environments that abstract essential aspects of complex real-world applications. In this work, we introduce the AI safety TanksWorld as an environment for AI safety research with three essential aspects: competing performance objectives, human-machine teaming, and multi-agent competition. The AI safety TanksWorld aims to accelerate the advancement of safe multi-agent decision-making algorithms by providing a software framework to support competitions with both system performance and safety objectives. As a work in progress, this paper introduces our research objectives and learning environment with reference code and baseline performance metrics to follow in a future work.

Current reinforcement learning methods fail if the reward function is imperfect, i.e. if the agent observes reward different from what it actually receives. We study this problem within the formalism of Corrupt Reward Markov Decision Processes (CRMDPs). We show that if the reward corruption in a CRMDP is sufficiently "spiky", the environment is solvable. We fully characterize the regret bound of a Spiky CRMDP, and introduce an algorithm that is able to detect its corrupt states. We show that this algorithm can be used to learn the optimal policy with any common reinforcement learning algorithm. Finally, we investigate our algorithm in a pair of simple gridworld environments, finding that our algorithm can detect the corrupt states and learn the optimal policy despite the corruption.

Induction of Non-Monotonic Rules From Statistical Learning Models Using High-Utility Itemset Mining

Farhad Shakerin, Gopal Gupta

We present a fast and scalable algorithm to induce non-monotonic logic programs from statistical learning models. We reduce the problem of search for best clauses to instances of the High-Utility Itemset Mining (HUIM) problem. In the HUIM problem, feature values and their importance are treated as transactions and utilities respectively. We make use of TreeExplainer, a fast and scalable implementation of the Explainable AI tool SHAP, to extract locally important features and their weights from ensemble tree models. Our experiments with UCI standard benchmarks suggest a significant improvement in terms of classification evaluation metrics and running time of the training algorithm compared to ALEPH, a state-of-the-art Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) system.

This paper describes a design that can be used for Explainable AI. The lower level is a nested ensemble of patterns created by self-organisation. The upper level is a hierarchical tree, where nodes are linked through individual concepts, so there is a transition from mixed ensemble masses to specific categories. Lower-level pattern ensembles are learned in an unsupervsised manner and then split into branches when it is clear that the category has changed. Links between the two levels define that the concepts are learned and missing links define that they are guessed only. This paper proposes some new clustering algorithms for producing the pattern ensembles, that are themselves an ensemble which converges through aggregations. Multiple solutions are also combined, to make the final result more robust. One measure of success is how coherent these ensembles are, which means that every data row in the cluster belongs to the same category. The total number of clusters is also important and the teaching phase can correct the ensemble estimates with respect to both of these. A teaching phase would then help the classifier to learn the true category for each input row. During this phase, any classifier can learn or infer correct classifications from some other classifier's knowledge, thereby reducing the required number of presentations. As the information is added, cross-referencing between the two structures allows it to be used more widely, where a unique structure can build up that would not be possible by either method separately.

Knowing the reflection of game theory and ethics, we develop a mathematical representation to bridge the gap between the concepts in moral philosophy (e.g., Kantian and Utilitarian) and AI ethics industry technology standard (e.g., IEEE P7000 standard series for Ethical AI). As an application, we demonstrate how human value can be obtained from the experimental game theory (e.g., trust game experiment) so as to build an ethical AI. Moreover, an approach to test the ethics (rightness or wrongness) of a given AI algorithm by using an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma Game experiment is discussed as an example. Compared with existing mathematical frameworks and testing method on AI ethics technology, the advantages of the proposed approach are analyzed.

The Overstated Cost of AI Fairness in Criminal Justice

Ignacio Cofone, Warut Khern-am-nuai

A dominant critique of algorithmic fairness holds that increasing fairness reduces predictive accuracy, imposing a cost on society. We challenge that assumption by empirically analyzing the COMPAS dataset. We make two contributions. First, using causal inference methods, we show that racial bias is not only present in the COMPAS dataset but is also amplified by the models trained on it. Widely used models do more than replicate existing bias; they exacerbate it. This undercuts both the assumption that algorithmic decision-making offers a neutral improvement over human judgment and the weaker claim that it merely mirrors preexisting human bias. Second, we reframe the fairness-accuracy tradeoff. Applying fairness constraints does not necessarily cost predictive accuracy in criminal justice. Prediction systems operationalize concepts such as risk through implicit and often flawed normative choices about what to predict and how. The tradeoff claim assumes that the unconstrained model's prediction is an optimal baseline. Fairness constraints can instead correct distortions introduced by biased outcome variables: rearrest data, in this case, captures and magnifies systemic racial disparities. Under some interventions, therefore, fairness carries none of the cost presumed in policy debates. These dynamics extend beyond criminal justice to lending, hiring, and housing, where biased outcome variables reinforce inequality independently of proxy selection. We draw out what this implies for how law and policy should approach fairness adjustments in criminal law.

LLM-driven autonomous agents are reshaping offensive security. Unlike traditional penetration-testing tooling - deterministic, narrowly scoped, and operated by trained practitioners - agentic security tools exhibit indeterminacy along three independent dimensions. First, their actions are drawn from a non-deterministic policy whose outputs resist both ex-ante and ex-post explanation. This complicates incident attribution and pre-deployment safety reviews. Second, their impact is open-ended due to their non-deterministic actions, agency of utilized models, and opaque LLM supply-chains. Third, their user population is indeterminate in both size and required skill: the operating skill floor for using or developing offensive capabilities has dropped sharply. These three properties are linked thematically, but are not derivable from one another. Combined with the structural cost asymmetry between offense and defense, they enable the industrialization of offensive capability. The net short-term effect favors attackers, even if the same technology may, in the long run, democratize access to defensive practice. Existing dual-use cybersecurity and AI-ethics frameworks struggle to address this combination. Our work analyzes how moral attribution becomes diffuse between users, tool-makers, and third parties when employing autonomous AI agents for offensive security. We also examine the stakeholder impact of this technology and provide stratified recommendations.