A Framework for Assurance Audits of Algorithmic Systems
0
🏷️
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper proposes a framework for conducting assurance audits of algorithmic systems to assess their compliance with legal and ethical requirements.
- The framework aims to provide a structured approach to auditing the design, development, and deployment of algorithmic systems, with a focus on addressing issues like bias, fairness, and transparency.
- The authors highlight the growing need for robust auditing methodologies as algorithmic systems become increasingly ubiquitous and influential in decision-making processes.
Plain English Explanation
Algorithms are computer programs that make decisions or take actions based on data input. As algorithms become more widely used in areas like hiring, lending, and criminal justice, there is growing concern about the potential for these systems to exhibit biases or make unfair decisions that negatively impact certain groups of people.
This paper proposes a framework for auditing algorithmic systems to assess whether they are complying with legal and ethical standards. The authors argue that a structured, comprehensive auditing process is necessary to ensure that algorithms are transparent, accountable, and fair.
The proposed framework outlines a step-by-step approach for conducting these audits, including evaluating the system's design, testing for biases, and assessing the organization's processes for developing and deploying the algorithm. The goal is to provide a consistent and rigorous way to identify and address potential issues with algorithmic systems before they cause harm.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a framework for conducting "assurance audits" of algorithmic systems. These audits are designed to evaluate whether the algorithms comply with legal and ethical requirements, such as prohibitions on discrimination and the need for transparency.
The framework consists of four main components:
-
Scoping and Framing: Defining the specific algorithm or system to be audited, as well as the relevant legal and ethical standards that will be assessed.
-
Information Gathering: Collecting relevant data and documentation about the algorithm's design, development, and deployment.
-
Testing and Evaluation: Conducting a range of tests and analyses, including examining the algorithm's inputs, outputs, and decision-making processes for potential biases or fairness issues.
-
Reporting and Remediation: Summarizing the audit findings and recommending steps the organization can take to address any identified problems.
The authors emphasize the importance of a structured, repeatable auditing process, as well as the need for organizations to grant auditors sufficient access to the algorithm and its supporting systems and data.
Critical Analysis
The framework proposed in this paper represents an important step towards establishing more rigorous and consistent auditing practices for algorithmic systems. By outlining a comprehensive, multi-stage approach, the authors address a key gap in the current landscape, where auditing practices tend to be ad hoc and lack standardization.
One potential limitation of the framework is the need for "black box" access to the algorithm and its underlying systems, which may not always be feasible, especially for proprietary or commercially sensitive algorithms. The authors acknowledge this challenge and suggest that auditors may need to rely on alternative approaches, such as testing the algorithm's outputs or simulating its decision-making process.
Additionally, the paper does not provide detailed guidance on how to interpret the results of the various tests and analyses, or how to weigh different types of ethical and legal considerations against each other. This may be an area for further research and refinement of the framework.
Overall, this paper makes a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion around the need for robust AI auditing standards and practices. By outlining a pragmatic, pilot-driven approach to auditing algorithms, the authors provide a foundation for organizations and policymakers to work towards a more trustworthy and accountable AI ecosystem.
Conclusion
This paper presents a comprehensive framework for conducting assurance audits of algorithmic systems, with the goal of ensuring these systems comply with legal and ethical requirements. The framework outlines a structured, multi-stage process for evaluating algorithms, from scoping and information gathering to testing and reporting.
The authors make a compelling case for the need for such a framework, given the growing ubiquity and influence of algorithmic decision-making. While the framework has some limitations, it represents an important step towards establishing more rigorous and consistent auditing practices for AI systems. As the use of algorithms continues to expand, the development of robust auditing methodologies will be crucial for promoting accountability, fairness, and transparency in the design and deployment of these powerful technologies.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🏷️
0
A Framework for Assurance Audits of Algorithmic Systems
Khoa Lam, Benjamin Lange, Borhane Blili-Hamelin, Jovana Davidovic, Shea Brown, Ali Hasan
An increasing number of regulations propose AI audits as a mechanism for achieving transparency and accountability for artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Despite some converging norms around various forms of AI auditing, auditing for the purpose of compliance and assurance currently lacks agreed-upon practices, procedures, taxonomies, and standards. We propose the criterion audit as an operationalizable compliance and assurance external audit framework. We model elements of this approach after financial auditing practices, and argue that AI audits should similarly provide assurance to their stakeholders about AI organizations' ability to govern their algorithms in ways that mitigate harms and uphold human values. We discuss the necessary conditions for the criterion audit and provide a procedural blueprint for performing an audit engagement in practice. We illustrate how this framework can be adapted to current regulations by deriving the criteria on which bias audits can be performed for in-scope hiring algorithms, as required by the recently effective New York City Local Law 144 of 2021. We conclude by offering a critical discussion on the benefits, inherent limitations, and implementation challenges of applying practices of the more mature financial auditing industry to AI auditing where robust guardrails against quality assurance issues are only starting to emerge. Our discussion -- informed by experiences in performing these audits in practice -- highlights the critical role that an audit ecosystem plays in ensuring the effectiveness of audits.
Read more5/29/2024
0
The Necessity of AI Audit Standards Boards
David Manheim, Sammy Martin, Mark Bailey, Mikhail Samin, Ross Greutzmacher
Auditing of AI systems is a promising way to understand and manage ethical problems and societal risks associated with contemporary AI systems, as well as some anticipated future risks. Efforts to develop standards for auditing Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have therefore understandably gained momentum. However, we argue that creating auditing standards is not just insufficient, but actively harmful by proliferating unheeded and inconsistent standards, especially in light of the rapid evolution and ethical and safety challenges of AI. Instead, the paper proposes the establishment of an AI Audit Standards Board, responsible for developing and updating auditing methods and standards in line with the evolving nature of AI technologies. Such a body would ensure that auditing practices remain relevant, robust, and responsive to the rapid advancements in AI. The paper argues that such a governance structure would also be helpful for maintaining public trust in AI and for promoting a culture of safety and ethical responsibility within the AI industry. Throughout the paper, we draw parallels with other industries, including safety-critical industries like aviation and nuclear energy, as well as more prosaic ones such as financial accounting and pharmaceuticals. AI auditing should emulate those fields, and extend beyond technical assessments to include ethical considerations and stakeholder engagement, but we explain that this is not enough; emulating other fields' governance mechanisms for these processes, and for audit standards creation, is a necessity. We also emphasize the importance of auditing the entire development process of AI systems, not just the final products...
Read more4/23/2024
🏅
0
Auditing of AI: Legal, Ethical and Technical Approaches
Jakob Mokander
AI auditing is a rapidly growing field of research and practice. This review article, which doubles as an editorial to Digital Societys topical collection on Auditing of AI, provides an overview of previous work in the field. Three key points emerge from the review. First, contemporary attempts to audit AI systems have much to learn from how audits have historically been structured and conducted in areas like financial accounting, safety engineering and the social sciences. Second, both policymakers and technology providers have an interest in promoting auditing as an AI governance mechanism. Academic researchers can thus fill an important role by studying the feasibility and effectiveness of different AI auditing procedures. Third, AI auditing is an inherently multidisciplinary undertaking, to which substantial contributions have been made by computer scientists and engineers as well as social scientists, philosophers, legal scholars and industry practitioners. Reflecting this diversity of perspectives, different approaches to AI auditing have different affordances and constraints. Specifically, a distinction can be made between technology-oriented audits, which focus on the properties and capabilities of AI systems, and process oriented audits, which focus on technology providers governance structures and quality management systems. The next step in the evolution of auditing as an AI governance mechanism, this article concludes, should be the interlinking of these available (and complementary) approaches into structured and holistic procedures to audit not only how AI systems are designed and used but also how they impact users, societies and the natural environment in applied settings over time.
Read more7/10/2024
🤖
0
A Blueprint for Auditing Generative AI
Jakob Mokander, Justin Curl, Mihir Kshirsagar
The widespread use of generative AI systems is coupled with significant ethical and social challenges. As a result, policymakers, academic researchers, and social advocacy groups have all called for such systems to be audited. However, existing auditing procedures fail to address the governance challenges posed by generative AI systems, which display emergent capabilities and are adaptable to a wide range of downstream tasks. In this chapter, we address that gap by outlining a novel blueprint for how to audit such systems. Specifically, we propose a three-layered approach, whereby governance audits (of technology providers that design and disseminate generative AI systems), model audits (of generative AI systems after pre-training but prior to their release), and application audits (of applications based on top of generative AI systems) complement and inform each other. We show how audits on these three levels, when conducted in a structured and coordinated manner, can be a feasible and effective mechanism for identifying and managing some of the ethical and social risks posed by generative AI systems. That said, it is important to remain realistic about what auditing can reasonably be expected to achieve. For this reason, the chapter also discusses the limitations not only of our three-layered approach but also of the prospect of auditing generative AI systems at all. Ultimately, this chapter seeks to expand the methodological toolkit available to technology providers and policymakers who wish to analyse and evaluate generative AI systems from technical, ethical, and legal perspectives.
Read more7/9/2024