mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Analysing and Organising Human Communications for AI Fairness-Related Decisions: Use Cases from the Public Sector

arXiv 2404.00022 ↗First posted 20 Mar 2024cs.HC cs.AIcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

AI algorithms used in the public sector, e.g., for allocating social benefits or predicting fraud, often involve multiple public and private stakeholders at various phases of the algorithm's life-cycle. Communication issues between these diverse stakeholders can lead to misinterpretation and misuse of algorithms. We investigate the communication processes for AI fairness-related decisions by conducting interviews with practitioners working on algorithmic systems in the public sector. By applying qualitative coding analysis, we identify key elements of communication processes that underlie fairness-related human decisions. We analyze the division of roles, tasks, skills, and challenges perceived by stakeholders. We formalize the underlying communication issues within a conceptual framework that i. represents the communication patterns ii. outlines missing elements, such as actors who miss skills for their tasks. The framework is used for describing and analyzing key organizational issues for fairness-related decisions. Three general patterns emerge from the analysis: 1. Policy-makers, civil servants, and domain experts are less involved compared to developers throughout a system's life-cycle. This leads to developers taking on extra roles such as advisor, while they potentially miss the required skills and guidance from domain experts. 2. End-users and policy-makers often lack the technical skills to interpret a system's limitations, and rely on developer roles for making decisions concerning fairness issues. 3. Citizens are structurally absent throughout a system's life-cycle, which may lead to decisions that do not include relevant considerations from impacted stakeholders.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 79 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Mar 2024.

Builds on

16 of 79 references.

References · 16

  1. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
  2. 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 403
  3. 2018Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?cited by 262
  4. 2018A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learningcited by 208
  5. 2019A Framework for Understanding Sources of Harm throughout the Machine Learning Life Cyclecited by 193
  6. 2018Aequitas: A Bias and Fairness Audit Toolkitcited by 147
  7. 2021Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners' Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Supportcited by 63
  8. 2021Designing Disaggregated Evaluations of AI Systems: Choices, Considerations, and Tradeoffscited by 48
  9. 2020Empirical observation of negligible fairness-accuracy trade-offs in machine learning for public policycited by 44
  10. 2023Understanding accountability in algorithmic supply chainscited by 40
  11. 2020AI Lifecycle Models Need To Be Revised. An Exploratory Study in Fintechcited by 33
  12. 2021A Sociotechnical View of Algorithmic Fairnesscited by 24
4 more
  1. 2021A Framework of High-Stakes Algorithmic Decision-Making for the Public Sector Developed through a Case Study of Child-Welfarecited by 23
  2. 2020Case Study: Predictive Fairness to Reduce Misdemeanor Recidivism Through Social Service Interventionscited by 14
  3. 2021DataOps for Societal Intelligence: a Data Pipeline for Labor Market Skills Extraction and Matchingcited by 13
  4. 2021Governance and Communication of Algorithmic Decision Making: A Case Study on Public Sectorcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year

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

2 papers.