mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

Towards Accountability in the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Public Administrations

arXiv 2105.01434 ↗First posted 4 May 2021cs.AI cs.CYcited by 12

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We argue that the phenomena of distributed responsibility, induced acceptance, and acceptance through ignorance constitute instances of imperfect delegation when tasks are delegated to computationally-driven systems. Imperfect delegation challenges human accountability. We hold that both direct public accountability via public transparency and indirect public accountability via transparency to auditors in public organizations can be both instrumentally ethically valuable and required as a matter of deontology from the principle of democratic self-government. We analyze the regulatory content of 16 guideline documents about the use of AI in the public sector, by mapping their requirements to those of our philosophical account of accountability, and conclude that while some guidelines refer to processes that amount to auditing, it seems that the debate would benefit from more clarity about the nature of the entitlement of auditors and the goals of auditing, also in order to develop ethically meaningful standards with respect to which different forms of auditing can be evaluated and compared.

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 61 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 May 2021.

Builds on

3 of 61 references.

References · 3

  1. 2019Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AIcited by 1,547
  2. 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,088
  3. 2019Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safetycited by 68

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 4; 2023: 4; 2024: 3; 2025: 1.

12 papers.