mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Certification Labels for Trustworthy AI: Insights From an Empirical Mixed-Method Study

arXiv 2305.18307 ↗First posted 15 May 2023cs.CY cs.AIcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Auditing plays a pivotal role in the development of trustworthy AI. However, current research primarily focuses on creating auditable AI documentation, which is intended for regulators and experts rather than end-users affected by AI decisions. How to communicate to members of the public that an AI has been audited and considered trustworthy remains an open challenge. This study empirically investigated certification labels as a promising solution. Through interviews (N = 12) and a census-representative survey (N = 302), we investigated end-users' attitudes toward certification labels and their effectiveness in communicating trustworthiness in low- and high-stakes AI scenarios. Based on the survey results, we demonstrate that labels can significantly increase end-users' trust and willingness to use AI in both low- and high-stakes scenarios. However, end-users' preferences for certification labels and their effect on trust and willingness to use AI were more pronounced in high-stake scenarios. Qualitative content analysis of the interviews revealed opportunities and limitations of certification labels, as well as facilitators and inhibitors for the effective use of labels in the context of AI. For example, while certification labels can mitigate data-related concerns expressed by end-users (e.g., privacy and data protection), other concerns (e.g., model performance) are more challenging to address. Our study provides valuable insights and recommendations for designing and implementing certification labels as a promising constituent within the trustworthy AI ecosystem.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 83 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 May 2023.

Builds on

21 of 83 references.

References · 21

  1. 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,371
  2. 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,068
  3. 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 380
  4. 2020Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiencescited by 251
  5. 2019Explainable Machine Learning in Deploymentcited by 210
  6. 2020Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AIcited by 166
  7. 2020Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claimscited by 163
  8. 2021What Do We Want From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)? -- A Stakeholder Perspective on XAI and a Conceptual Model Guiding Interdisciplinary XAI Researchcited by 119
  9. 2019Artificial Intelligence: the global landscape of ethics guidelinescited by 107
  10. 2018'It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage'; Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisionscited by 91
  11. 2019The relationship between trust in AI and trustworthy machine learning technologiescited by 78
  12. 2022Interactive Model Cards: A Human-Centered Approach to Model Documentationcited by 61
9 more
  1. 2022How Different Groups Prioritize Ethical Values for Responsible AIcited by 49
  2. 2022Designing for Responsible Trust in AI Systems: A Communication Perspectivecited by 48
  3. 2020Factors Influencing Perceived Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making: Algorithm Outcomes, Development Procedures, and Individual Differencescited by 41
  4. 2021Algorithmic Auditing and Social Justice: Lessons from the History of Audit Studiescited by 22
  5. 2021Problematic Machine Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review of Algorithm Auditscited by 20
  6. 2021The Sanction of Authority: Promoting Public Trust in AIcited by 19
  7. 2021Filling gaps in trustworthy development of AIcited by 14
  8. 2022Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systemscited by 12
  9. 2022Trust and Reliance in XAI -- Distinguishing Between Attitudinal and Behavioral Measurescited by 10

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

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

5 papers.