Research Papers

Political biases in Large Language Model (LLM)-based artificial intelligence (AI) systems, such as OpenAI's ChatGPT or Google's Gemini, have been previously reported. While several prior studies have attempted to quantify these biases using political orientation tests, such approaches are limited by potential tests' calibration biases and constrained response formats that do not reflect real-world human-AI interactions. This study employs a multi-method approach to assess political bias in leading AI systems, integrating four complementary methodologies: (1) linguistic comparison of AI-generated text with the language used by Republican and Democratic U.S. Congress members, (2) analysis of political viewpoints embedded in AI-generated policy recommendations, (3) sentiment analysis of AI-generated text toward politically affiliated public figures, and (4) standardized political orientation testing. Results indicate a consistent left-leaning bias across most contemporary AI systems, with arguably varying degrees of intensity. However, this bias is not an inherent feature of LLMs; prior research demonstrates that fine-tuning with politically skewed data can realign these models across the ideological spectrum. The presence of systematic political bias in AI systems poses risks, including reduced viewpoint diversity, increased societal polarization, and the potential for public mistrust in AI technologies. To mitigate these risks, AI systems should be designed to prioritize factual accuracy while maintaining neutrality on most lawful normative issues. Furthermore, independent monitoring platforms are necessary to ensure transparency, accountability, and responsible AI development.

In this work we challenge arguments for robot rights on metaphysical, ethical and legal grounds. Metaphysically, we argue that machines are not the kinds of things that may be denied or granted rights. Building on theories of phenomenology and post-Cartesian approaches to cognitive science, we ground our position in the lived reality of actual humans in an increasingly ubiquitously connected, controlled, digitized, and surveilled society. Ethically, we argue that, given machines current and potential harms to the most marginalized in society, limits on (rather than rights for) machines should be at the centre of current AI ethics debate. From a legal perspective, the best analogy to robot rights is not human rights but corporate rights, a highly controversial concept whose most important effect has been the undermining of worker, consumer, and voter rights by advancing the power of capital to exercise outsized influence on politics and law. The idea of robot rights, we conclude, acts as a smoke screen, allowing theorists and futurists to fantasize about benevolently sentient machines with unalterable needs and desires protected by law. While such fantasies have motivated fascinating fiction and art, once they influence legal theory and practice articulating the scope of rights claims, they threaten to immunize from legal accountability the current AI and robotics that is fuelling surveillance capitalism, accelerating environmental destruction, and entrenching injustice and human suffering.

The proliferation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has sparked an overwhelming number of AI ethics guidelines, boards and codes of conduct. These outputs primarily analyse competing theories, principles and values for AI development and deployment. However, as a series of recent problematic incidents about AI ethics/ethicists demonstrate, this orientation is insufficient. Before proceeding to evaluate other professions, AI ethicists should critically evaluate their own; yet, such an evaluation should be more explicitly and systematically undertaken in the literature. I argue that these insufficiencies could be mitigated by developing a research agenda for a feminist metaethics of AI. Contrary to traditional metaethics, which reflects on the nature of morality and moral judgements in a non-normative way, feminist metaethics expands its scope to ask not only what ethics is but also what our engagement with it should be like. Applying this perspective to the context of AI, I suggest that a feminist metaethics of AI would examine: (i) the continuity between theory and action in AI ethics; (ii) the real-life effects of AI ethics; (iii) the role and profile of those involved in AI ethics; and (iv) the effects of AI on power relations through methods that pay attention to context, emotions and narrative.

With the increasing application of machine learning in high-stake decision-making problems, potential algorithmic bias towards people from certain social groups poses negative impacts on individuals and our society at large. In the real-world scenario, many such problems involve positive and unlabeled data such as medical diagnosis, criminal risk assessment and recommender systems. For instance, in medical diagnosis, only the diagnosed diseases will be recorded (positive) while others will not (unlabeled). Despite the large amount of existing work on fairness-aware machine learning in the (semi-)supervised and unsupervised settings, the fairness issue is largely under-explored in the aforementioned Positive and Unlabeled Learning (PUL) context, where it is usually more severe. In this paper, to alleviate this tension, we propose a fairness-aware PUL method named FairPUL. In particular, for binary classification over individuals from two populations, we aim to achieve similar true positive rates and false positive rates in both populations as our fairness metric. Based on the analysis of the optimal fair classifier for PUL, we design a model-agnostic post-processing framework, leveraging both the positive examples and unlabeled ones. Our framework is proven to be statistically consistent in terms of both the classification error and the fairness metric. Experiments on the synthetic and real-world data sets demonstrate that our framework outperforms state-of-the-art in both PUL and fair classification.

Despite interest in communicating ethical problems and social contexts within the undergraduate curriculum to advance Public Interest Technology (PIT) goals, interventions at the graduate level remain largely unexplored. This may be due to the conflicting ways through which distinct Artificial Intelligence (AI) research tracks conceive of their interface with social contexts. In this paper we track the historical emergence of sociotechnical inquiry in three distinct subfields of AI research: AI Safety, Fair Machine Learning (Fair ML) and Human-in-the-Loop (HIL) Autonomy. We show that for each subfield, perceptions of PIT stem from the particular dangers faced by past integration of technical systems within a normative social order. We further interrogate how these histories dictate the response of each subfield to conceptual traps, as defined in the Science and Technology Studies literature. Finally, through a comparative analysis of these currently siloed fields, we present a roadmap for a unified approach to sociotechnical graduate pedagogy in AI.

Symbolic AI for XAI: Evaluating LFIT Inductive Programming for Fair and Explainable Automatic Recruitment

Alfonso Ortega, Julian Fierrez, Aythami Morales +2

Machine learning methods are growing in relevance for biometrics and personal information processing in domains such as forensics, e-health, recruitment, and e-learning. In these domains, white-box (human-readable) explanations of systems built on machine learning methods can become crucial. Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) is a subfield of symbolic AI aimed to automatically learn declarative theories about the process of data. Learning from Interpretation Transition (LFIT) is an ILP technique that can learn a propositional logic theory equivalent to a given black-box system (under certain conditions). The present work takes a first step to a general methodology to incorporate accurate declarative explanations to classic machine learning by checking the viability of LFIT in a specific AI application scenario: fair recruitment based on an automatic tool generated with machine learning methods for ranking Curricula Vitae that incorporates soft biometric information (gender and ethnicity). We show the expressiveness of LFIT for this specific problem and propose a scheme that can be applicable to other domains.

Generating User-friendly Explanations for Loan Denials using GANs

Ramya Srinivasan, Ajay Chander, Pouya Pezeshkpour

Financial decisions impact our lives, and thus everyone from the regulator to the consumer is interested in fair, sound, and explainable decisions. There is increasing competitive desire and regulatory incentive to deploy AI mindfully within financial services. An important mechanism towards that end is to explain AI decisions to various stakeholders. State-of-the-art explainable AI systems mostly serve AI engineers and offer little to no value to business decision makers, customers, and other stakeholders. Towards addressing this gap, in this work we consider the scenario of explaining loan denials. We build the first-of-its-kind dataset that is representative of loan-applicant friendly explanations. We design a novel Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) that can accommodate smaller datasets, to generate user-friendly textual explanations. We demonstrate how our system can also generate explanations serving different purposes: those that help educate the loan applicants, or help them take appropriate action towards a future approval.

Over the past decade, an ecosystem of measures has emerged to evaluate the social and ethical implications of AI systems, largely shaped by high-level ethics principles. These measures are developed and used in fragmented ways, without adequate attention to how they are situated in AI systems. In this paper, we examine how existing measures used in the computing literature map to AI system components, attributes, hazards, and harms. Our analysis draws on a scoping review resulting in nearly 800 measures corresponding to 11 AI ethics principles. We find that most measures focus on four principles - fairness, transparency, privacy, and trust - and primarily assess model or output system components. Few measures account for interactions across system elements, and only a narrow set of hazards is typically considered for each harm type. Many measures are disconnected from where harm is experienced and lack guidance for setting meaningful thresholds. These patterns reveal how current evaluation practices remain fragmented, measuring in pieces rather than capturing how harms emerge across systems. Framing measures with respect to system attributes, hazards, and harms can strengthen regulatory oversight, support actionable practices in industry, and ground future research in systems-level understanding.

Machine learning (ML) is increasingly applied across industries to automate decision-making, but concerns about ethical and legal compliance remain due to limited transparency, fairness, and accountability. Monitoring through logging a long-standing practice in traditional software offers a potential means for auditing ML applications, as logs provide traceable records of system behavior useful for debugging, performance analysis, and continuous auditing. systematically auditing models for compliance or accountability. The findings underscore the need for enhanced logging practices and tooling that systematically integrate responsible AI metrics. Such practices would support the development of auditable, transparent, and ethically responsible ML systems, aligning with growing regulatory requirements and societal expectations. By highlighting specific deficiencies and opportunities, this work provides actionable guidance for both practitioners and tool developers seeking to strengthen the accountability and trustworthiness of ML applications.

Human experts are often engaged in the development of machine learning systems to collect and validate data, consult on algorithm development, and evaluate system performance. At the same time, who counts as an 'expert' and what constitutes 'expertise' is not always explicitly defined. In this work, we review 112 academic publications that explicitly reference 'expert' and 'expertise' and that describe the development of machine learning (ML) systems to survey how expertise is characterized and the role experts play. We find that expertise is often undefined and forms of knowledge outside of formal education and professional certification are rarely sought, which has implications for the kinds of knowledge that are recognized and legitimized in ML development. Moreover, we find that expert knowledge tends to be utilized in ways focused on mining textbook knowledge, such as through data annotation. We discuss the ways experts are engaged in ML development in relation to deskilling, the social construction of expertise, and implications for responsible AI development. We point to a need for reflection and specificity in justifications of domain expert engagement, both as a matter of documentation and reproducibility, as well as a matter of broadening the range of recognized expertise.

Ethio-Fake: Cutting-Edge Approaches to Combat Fake News in Under-Resourced Languages Using Explainable AI

Mesay Gemeda Yigezu, Melkamu Abay Mersha, Girma Yohannis Bade +3

The proliferation of fake news has emerged as a significant threat to the integrity of information dissemination, particularly on social media platforms. Misinformation can spread quickly due to the ease of creating and disseminating content, affecting public opinion and sociopolitical events. Identifying false information is therefore essential to reducing its negative consequences and maintaining the reliability of online news sources. Traditional approaches to fake news detection often rely solely on content-based features, overlooking the crucial role of social context in shaping the perception and propagation of news articles. In this paper, we propose a comprehensive approach that integrates social context-based features with news content features to enhance the accuracy of fake news detection in under-resourced languages. We perform several experiments utilizing a variety of methodologies, including traditional machine learning, neural networks, ensemble learning, and transfer learning. Assessment of the outcomes of the experiments shows that the ensemble learning approach has the highest accuracy, achieving a 0.99 F1 score. Additionally, when compared with monolingual models, the fine-tuned model with the target language outperformed others, achieving a 0.94 F1 score. We analyze the functioning of the models, considering the important features that contribute to model performance, using explainable AI techniques.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has paved the way for revolutionary decision-making processes, which if harnessed appropriately, can contribute to advancements in various sectors, from healthcare to economics. However, its black box nature presents significant ethical challenges related to bias and transparency. AI applications are hugely impacted by biases, presenting inconsistent and unreliable findings, leading to significant costs and consequences, highlighting and perpetuating inequalities and unequal access to resources. Hence, developing safe, reliable, ethical, and Trustworthy AI systems is essential. Our team of researchers working with Trustworthy and Responsible AI, part of the Transdisciplinary Scholarship Initiative within the University of Calgary, conducts research on Trustworthy and Responsible AI, including fairness, bias mitigation, reproducibility, generalization, interpretability, and authenticity. In this paper, we review and discuss the intricacies of AI biases, definitions, methods of detection and mitigation, and metrics for evaluating bias. We also discuss open challenges with regard to the trustworthiness and widespread application of AI across diverse domains of human-centric decision making, as well as guidelines to foster Responsible and Trustworthy AI models.