Cited by 5Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Digitalization, Law, and Regulation

Outlining Traceability: A Principle for Operationalizing Accountability in Computing Systems

Open access
Kroll, Joshua A.·2021·Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

Abstract

Accountability is widely understood as a goal for well governed computer systems, and is a sought-after value in many governance contexts. But how can it be achieved? Recent work on standards for governable artificial intelligence systems offers a related principle: traceability. Traceability requires establishing not only how a system worked but how it was created and for what purpose, in a way that explains why a system has particular dynamics or behaviors. It connects records of how the system was constructed and what the system did mechanically to the broader goals of governance, in a way that highlights human understanding of that mechanical operation and the decision processes underlying it. We examine the various ways in which the principle of traceability has been articulated in AI principles and other policy documents from around the world, distill from these a set of requirements on software systems driven by the principle, and systematize the technologies available to meet those requirements. From our map of requirements to supporting tools, techniques, and procedures, we identify gaps and needs separating what traceability requires from the toolbox available for practitioners. This map reframes existing discussions around accountability and transparency, using the principle of traceability to show how, when, and why transparency can be deployed to serve accountability goals and thereby improve the normative fidelity of systems and their development processes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3442188.3445937

Cites

209 of 209 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Despite advancements, multimodal learning still confronts challenges such as refining architectures to handle diverse data types, developing comprehensive datasets, and establishing benchmarks for evaluating complex systems.

    “Despite the advancements, the field of multimodal learning still confronts ongoing challenges, such as refining the architectures to handle diverse data types more effectively [269], [270], developing comprehensive datasets that accurately represent multifaceted information [269], [271], and establishing benchmarks for evaluating the performance of these complex systems [272], [273].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

9 of the 218 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kroll, J. A.
Affiliations
Naval Postgraduate School (US)
Corresponding author
Kroll, Joshua A.
Venue
Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
Publisher
ACM
Published
2021-03
Pages
758-771
OpenAlex
W3122480037
Cited by
2
References
218
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.45
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
traceability, accountability, transparency, AI governance, AI principles, explainable AI, software traceability, requirements mapping, decision processes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review