Research Papers

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a widely developed and adopted technology across entire industry sectors. Integrating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations with AI investments is crucial for ensuring ethical and sustainable technological advancement. Particularly from an investor perspective, this integration not only mitigates risks but also enhances long-term value creation by aligning AI initiatives with broader societal goals. Yet, this area has been less explored in both academia and industry. To bridge the gap, we introduce a novel ESG-AI framework, which is developed based on insights from engagements with 28 companies and comprises three key components. The framework provides a structured approach to this integration, developed in collaboration with industry practitioners. The ESG-AI framework provides an overview of the environmental and social impacts of AI applications, helping users such as investors assess the materiality of AI use. Moreover, it enables investors to evaluate a company's commitment to responsible AI through structured engagements and thorough assessment of specific risk areas. We have publicly released the framework and toolkit in April 2024, which has received significant attention and positive feedback from the investment community. This paper details each component of the framework, demonstrating its applicability in real-world contexts and its potential to guide ethical AI investments.

Organizations that develop and deploy artificial intelligence (AI) systems need to take measures to reduce the associated risks. In this paper, we examine how AI companies could design an AI ethics board in a way that reduces risks from AI. We identify five high-level design choices: (1) What responsibilities should the board have? (2) What should its legal structure be? (3) Who should sit on the board? (4) How should it make decisions and should its decisions be binding? (5) What resources does it need? We break down each of these questions into more specific sub-questions, list options, and discuss how different design choices affect the board's ability to reduce risks from AI. Several failures have shown that designing an AI ethics board can be challenging. This paper provides a toolbox that can help AI companies to overcome these challenges.

Write It Like You See It: Detectable Differences in Clinical Notes By Race Lead To Differential Model Recommendations

Hammaad Adam, Ming Ying Yang, Kenrick Cato +6

Clinical notes are becoming an increasingly important data source for machine learning (ML) applications in healthcare. Prior research has shown that deploying ML models can perpetuate existing biases against racial minorities, as bias can be implicitly embedded in data. In this study, we investigate the level of implicit race information available to ML models and human experts and the implications of model-detectable differences in clinical notes. Our work makes three key contributions. First, we find that models can identify patient self-reported race from clinical notes even when the notes are stripped of explicit indicators of race. Second, we determine that human experts are not able to accurately predict patient race from the same redacted clinical notes. Finally, we demonstrate the potential harm of this implicit information in a simulation study, and show that models trained on these race-redacted clinical notes can still perpetuate existing biases in clinical treatment decisions.

Deep learning models for medical image segmentation can fail unexpectedly and spectacularly for pathological cases and images acquired at different centers than training images, with labeling errors that violate expert knowledge. Such errors undermine the trustworthiness of deep learning models for medical image segmentation. Mechanisms for detecting and correcting such failures are essential for safely translating this technology into clinics and are likely to be a requirement of future regulations on artificial intelligence (AI). In this work, we propose a trustworthy AI theoretical framework and a practical system that can augment any backbone AI system using a fallback method and a fail-safe mechanism based on Dempster-Shafer theory. Our approach relies on an actionable definition of trustworthy AI. Our method automatically discards the voxel-level labeling predicted by the backbone AI that violate expert knowledge and relies on a fallback for those voxels. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed trustworthy AI approach on the largest reported annotated dataset of fetal MRI consisting of 540 manually annotated fetal brain 3D T2w MRIs from 13 centers. Our trustworthy AI method improves the robustness of a state-of-the-art backbone AI for fetal brain MRIs acquired across various centers and for fetuses with various brain abnormalities.

Explainable artificial intelligence (xAI) is seen as a solution to making AI systems less of a black box. It is essential to ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability, which are especially paramount in the financial sector. The aim of this study was a preliminary investigation of the perspectives of supervisory authorities and regulated entities regarding the application of xAI in the fi-nancial sector. Three use cases (consumer credit, credit risk, and anti-money laundering) were examined using semi-structured interviews at three banks and two supervisory authorities in the Netherlands. We found that for the investigated use cases a disparity exists between supervisory authorities and banks regarding the desired scope of explainability of AI systems. We argue that the financial sector could benefit from clear differentiation between technical AI (model) ex-plainability requirements and explainability requirements of the broader AI system in relation to applicable laws and regulations.

Joint Optimization of AI Fairness and Utility: A Human-Centered Approach

Yunfeng Zhang, Rachel K. E. Bellamy, Kush R. Varshney

Today, AI is increasingly being used in many high-stakes decision-making applications in which fairness is an important concern. Already, there are many examples of AI being biased and making questionable and unfair decisions. The AI research community has proposed many methods to measure and mitigate unwanted biases, but few of them involve inputs from human policy makers. We argue that because different fairness criteria sometimes cannot be simultaneously satisfied, and because achieving fairness often requires sacrificing other objectives such as model accuracy, it is key to acquire and adhere to human policy makers' preferences on how to make the tradeoff among these objectives. In this paper, we propose a framework and some exemplar methods for eliciting such preferences and for optimizing an AI model according to these preferences.

We introduce a method, KL-LIME, for explaining predictions of Bayesian predictive models by projecting the information in the predictive distribution locally to a simpler, interpretable explanation model. The proposed approach combines the recent Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) method with ideas from Bayesian projection predictive variable selection methods. The information theoretic basis helps in navigating the trade-off between explanation fidelity and complexity. We demonstrate the method in explaining MNIST digit classifications made by a Bayesian deep convolutional neural network.

Efforts to ensure the safety of large language models (LLMs) include safety fine-tuning, evaluation, and red teaming. However, despite the widespread use of the Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) framework, AI safety work focuses on standard LLMs, which means we know little about how RAG use cases change a model's safety profile. We conduct a detailed comparative analysis of RAG and non-RAG frameworks with eleven LLMs. We find that RAG can make models less safe and change their safety profile. We explore the causes of this change and find that even combinations of safe models with safe documents can cause unsafe generations. In addition, we evaluate some existing red teaming methods for RAG settings and show that they are less effective than when used for non-RAG settings. Our work highlights the need for safety research and red-teaming methods specifically tailored for RAG LLMs.

Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly through the advent of large-scale generative AI (GenAI) models such as Large Language Models (LLMs), has become a transformative element in contemporary technology. While these models have unlocked new possibilities, they simultaneously present significant challenges, such as concerns over data privacy and the propensity to generate misleading or fabricated content. Current frameworks for Responsible AI (RAI) often fall short in providing the granular guidance necessary for tangible application, especially for Accountability-a principle that is pivotal for ensuring transparent and auditable decision-making, bolstering public trust, and meeting increasing regulatory expectations. This study bridges the accountability gap by introducing our effort towards a comprehensive metrics catalogue, formulated through a systematic multivocal literature review (MLR) that integrates findings from both academic and grey literature. Our catalogue delineates process metrics that underpin procedural integrity, resource metrics that provide necessary tools and frameworks, and product metrics that reflect the outputs of AI systems. This tripartite framework is designed to operationalize Accountability in AI, with a special emphasis on addressing the intricacies of GenAI.

One of the core goals of responsible AI development is ensuring high-quality training datasets. Many researchers have pointed to the importance of the annotation step in the creation of high-quality data, but less attention has been paid to the work that enables data annotation. We define this work as the design of ground truth schema and explore the challenges involved in the creation of datasets in the medical domain even before any annotations are made. Based on extensive work in three health-tech organisations, we describe five external and internal factors that condition medical dataset creation processes. Three external factors include regulatory constraints, the context of creation and use, and commercial and operational pressures. These factors condition medical data collection and shape the ground truth schema design. Two internal factors include epistemic differences and limits of labelling. These directly shape the design of the ground truth schema. Discussions of what constitutes high-quality data need to pay attention to the factors that shape and constrain what is possible to be created, to ensure responsible AI design.

The prevailing discourse around AI ethics lacks the language and formalism necessary to capture the diverse ethical concerns that emerge when AI systems interact with individuals. Drawing on Sen and Nussbaum's capability approach, we present a framework formalizing a network of ethical concepts and entitlements necessary for AI systems to confer meaningful benefit or assistance to stakeholders. Such systems enhance stakeholders' ability to advance their life plans and well-being while upholding their fundamental rights. We characterize two necessary conditions for morally permissible interactions between AI systems and those impacted by their functioning, and two sufficient conditions for realizing the ideal of meaningful benefit. We then contrast this ideal with several salient failure modes, namely, forms of social interactions that constitute unjustified paternalism, coercion, deception, exploitation and domination. The proliferation of incidents involving AI in high-stakes domains underscores the gravity of these issues and the imperative to take an ethics-led approach to AI systems from their inception.

Algorithmic Unfairness through the Lens of EU Non-Discrimination Law: Or Why the Law is not a Decision Tree

Hilde Weerts, Raphaële Xenidis, Fabien Tarissan +2

Concerns regarding unfairness and discrimination in the context of artificial intelligence (AI) systems have recently received increased attention from both legal and computer science scholars. Yet, the degree of overlap between notions of algorithmic bias and fairness on the one hand, and legal notions of discrimination and equality on the other, is often unclear, leading to misunderstandings between computer science and law. What types of bias and unfairness does the law address when it prohibits discrimination? What role can fairness metrics play in establishing legal compliance? In this paper, we aim to illustrate to what extent European Union (EU) non-discrimination law coincides with notions of algorithmic fairness proposed in computer science literature and where they differ. The contributions of this paper are as follows. First, we analyse seminal examples of algorithmic unfairness through the lens of EU non-discrimination law, drawing parallels with EU case law. Second, we set out the normative underpinnings of fairness metrics and technical interventions and compare these to the legal reasoning of the Court of Justice of the EU. Specifically, we show how normative assumptions often remain implicit in both disciplinary approaches and explain the ensuing limitations of current AI practice and non-discrimination law. We conclude with implications for AI practitioners and regulators.