mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems

arXiv 2205.04525 ↗First posted 9 May 2022cs.LG cs.HCcited by 12

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In an effort to regulate Machine Learning-driven (ML) systems, current auditing processes mostly focus on detecting harmful algorithmic biases. While these strategies have proven to be impactful, some values outlined in documents dealing with ethics in ML-driven systems are still underrepresented in auditing processes. Such unaddressed values mainly deal with contextual factors that cannot be easily quantified. In this paper, we develop a value-based assessment framework that is not limited to bias auditing and that covers prominent ethical principles for algorithmic systems. Our framework presents a circular arrangement of values with two bipolar dimensions that make common motivations and potential tensions explicit. In order to operationalize these high-level principles, values are then broken down into specific criteria and their manifestations. However, some of these value-specific criteria are mutually exclusive and require negotiation. As opposed to some other auditing frameworks that merely rely on ML researchers' and practitioners' input, we argue that it is necessary to include stakeholders that present diverse standpoints to systematically negotiate and consolidate value and criteria tensions. To that end, we map stakeholders with different insight needs, and assign tailored means for communicating value manifestations to them. We, therefore, contribute to current ML auditing practices with an assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values and we give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 74 of its 245 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 May 2022.

Builds on

74 of 245 references.

References · 74

  1. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
  2. 2016Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 2,221
  3. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  4. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  5. 2019Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AIcited by 1,543
  6. 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,371
  7. 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,068
  8. 2020Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLPcited by 951
  9. 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 802
  10. 2015Distillation as a Defense to Adversarial Perturbations against Deep Neural Networkscited by 675
  11. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
  12. 2018Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learningcited by 663
38 more
  1. 2019Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanationscited by 612
  2. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
  3. 2017Wild Patterns: Ten Years After the Rise of Adversarial Machine Learningcited by 411
  4. 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 381
  5. 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 380
  6. 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
  7. 2018Explanations based on the Missing: Towards Contrastive Explanations with Pertinent Negativescited by 261
  8. 2020Data and its (dis)contents: A survey of dataset development and use in machine learning researchcited by 259
  9. 2020Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiencescited by 251
  10. 2020Towards the Systematic Reporting of the Energy and Carbon Footprints of Machine Learningcited by 246
  11. 2019InterpretML: A Unified Framework for Machine Learning Interpretabilitycited by 243
  12. 2021Enhanced Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Modelscited by 237
  13. 2019Racial Bias in Hate Speech and Abusive Language Detection Datasetscited by 208
  14. 2019The What-If Tool: Interactive Probing of Machine Learning Modelscited by 207
  15. 2019A Framework for Understanding Sources of Harm throughout the Machine Learning Life Cyclecited by 192
  16. 2019MemGuard: Defending against Black-Box Membership Inference Attacks via Adversarial Examplescited by 183
  17. 2018Machine Learning with Membership Privacy using Adversarial Regularizationcited by 177
  18. 2021The Values Encoded in Machine Learning Researchcited by 172
  19. 2019Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practicescited by 170
  20. 2018FairGAN: Fairness-aware Generative Adversarial Networkscited by 164
  21. 2018Aequitas: A Bias and Fairness Audit Toolkitcited by 145
  22. 2020Towards Accountability for Machine Learning Datasets: Practices from Software Engineering and Infrastructurecited by 138
  23. 2019Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AIcited by 134
  24. 2019Explainability Fact Sheets: A Framework for Systematic Assessment of Explainable Approachescited by 101
  25. 2018The Dataset Nutrition Label: A Framework To Drive Higher Data Quality Standardscited by 97
  26. 2018'It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage'; Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisionscited by 91
  27. 2020Evaluating Saliency Map Explanations for Convolutional Neural Networks: A User Studycited by 86
  28. 2021Do Datasets Have Politics? Disciplinary Values in Computer Vision Dataset Developmentcited by 85
  29. 2016Research Priorities for Robust and Beneficial Artificial Intelligencecited by 74
  30. 2019Garbage In, Garbage Out? Do Machine Learning Application Papers in Social Computing Report Where Human-Labeled Training Data Comes From?cited by 64
  31. 2021Beyond Expertise and Roles: A Framework to Characterize the Stakeholders of Interpretable Machine Learning and their Needscited by 64
  32. 2019Mathematical Notions vs. Human Perception of Fairness: A Descriptive Approach to Fairness for Machine Learningcited by 57
  33. 2019Auditing Radicalization Pathways on YouTubecited by 52
  34. 2019Roles for Computing in Social Changecited by 49
  35. 2021Everyday algorithm auditing: Understanding the power of everyday users in surfacing harmful algorithmic behaviorscited by 47
  36. 2015A Unified Gradient Regularization Family for Adversarial Examplescited by 43
  37. 2020Bringing the People Back In: Contesting Benchmark Machine Learning Datasetscited by 43
  38. 2016Auditing Black-box Models for Indirect Influencecited by 41

50 most cited of 74 All 74 (JSON)

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 5; 2024: 4; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.

12 papers.