arXiv AI

When the Algorithm Becomes the Brand Crisis: A Sociotechnical Theory of Distributed Responsibility and Accountable Transparency

The paper examines how responsibility is assigned when AI systems fail, proposing a sociotechnical theory that distinguishes between AI incidents, organisational crises, and scandals. It argues that the configuration of an incident shapes actor-specific attribution, which in turn influences perceptions of capability, integrity, fairness, and relationships, and that public moralisation can elevate an incident to scandal. The authors introduce ‘accountable transparency’—a response framework combining timely notice, intelligible accounts, role acknowledgement, remedy, evidence of correction, and recourse—as a way to manage blame, trust, and communication credibility.

arXiv AI
Jul 20

Closing the AI Trust Gap: The Case for Independent Certification for Trustworthy AI

arXiv:2607. 15992v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Over the past decade, responsible AI (RAI) has produced a substantial body of practice for identifying and mitigating the risks AI poses in high-stakes settings.

By Trisevgeni Papakonstantinou, Cansu Canca, Farah Nanji, Waheedullah Pardess, Jen Weedon, Jasmijn Remmers, Eliza Krigman, Matthew Ball, Yalda Daryani, Kiran Iqbal, Francielle Vargas, Mar\'ia Llorente S\'anchez, Joe Humphreys, Fendi Tsim, Kelly Fitzpatrick, Jeff Dunn, Catherine Feldman
arXiv AI
Sep 15

AI Deployment Accountability Engineering: A Vision for Accountable AI in Safety-Critical Socio-Technical Systems

The paper proposes AI Deployment Accountability Engineering (ADAE), a new subdiscipline focused on establishing measurable, continuous, and actionable accountability for AI systems once they are deployed. ADAE treats accountability as a deployment-layer property, aiming to ensure systems remain within acceptable risk limits, identify failure contexts, attribute failures across technical and human components, and translate technical failures into downstream consequences. The authors outline a research agenda built around four pillars—structured discovery of context-dependent failure modes, privacy-preserving accountability measurement, system-level risk analysis for agentic AI, and translation of technical failures into operational and institutional risks—to support timely intervention in safety-critical socio-technical environments.

By Murat Kantarcioglu
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 27

LAAF: A Layered Accountability Architecture Framework for LLM Applications

The paper presents LAAF, a Layered Accountability Architecture Framework for Large Language Model (LLM) applications, developed through a systematic review of 122 primary studies and 12 regulatory documents. It identifies five dimensions of accountability and four families of mechanisms—technical controls, human oversight, organisational governance, and documentation/traceability—each assessed for maturity. The framework is mapped onto major regulatory standards (EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001) and highlights persistent gaps such as under‑specified human oversight and lack of shared accountability metrics.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 13

AI and Consumer Rights in India Working Paper

As AI systems proliferate in consumer facing applications, questions about liability for AI related harms remain unresolved. This working paper examines whether India's Consumer Protection Act, 2019, adequately addresses harm caused by defective AI products and services, and whether it proportionately allocates liability across the AI value chain.

arXiv AI
Aug 14

AI and Consumer Rights in India Working Paper

arXiv:2608. 12863v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI systems proliferate in consumer facing applications, questions about liability for AI related harms remain unresolved.

By Omir Kumar, Sriya Sridhar, Vibhav Mithal, Balaraman Ravindran
arXiv AI
Aug 28

LAAF: A Layered Accountability Architecture Framework for LLM Applications

The paper introduces LAAF, a Layered Accountability Architecture Framework for Large Language Model (LLM) applications, developed through a systematic review of 122 primary studies and 12 regulatory documents. It identifies five accountability dimensions and four families of mechanisms—technical controls, human oversight, organisational governance, and documentation/traceability—evaluated across maturity levels. The framework maps onto major standards such as the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, and sectoral guidance, highlighting gaps in human oversight, accountability metrics, disciplinary alignment, and empirical validation.

By Prachi Chaturvedi, Shahnawaz Ahmad, Ehsan Nowroozi, Muhammad Waqas, George Loukas, Alireza Jolfaei, Lucas Cordeiro, Pierre Dantas