Showing 1–7 of 7 results for author: Yurrita, M

"Two Means to an End Goal": Connecting Explainability and Contestability in the Regulation of Public Sector AI

Authors: Timothée Schmude, Mireia Yurrita, Kars Alfrink, Thomas Le Goff, Tiphaine Viard

Abstract: Explainability and its emerging counterpart contestability have become important normative and design principles for the trustworthy use of AI as they enable users and subjects to understand and challenge AI decisions. However, the regulation of AI systems spans technical, legal, and organizational dimensions, producing a multiplicity in meaning that complicates the implementation of explainabilit… ▽ More Explainability and its emerging counterpart contestability have become important normative and design principles for the trustworthy use of AI as they enable users and subjects to understand and challenge AI decisions. However, the regulation of AI systems spans technical, legal, and organizational dimensions, producing a multiplicity in meaning that complicates the implementation of explainability and contestability. Resolving this conceptual ambiguity requires specifying and comparing the meaning of both principles across regulation dimensions, disciplines, and actors. This process, here defined as translation, is essential to provide guidance on the principles' realization. We present the findings of a semi-structured interview study with 14 interdisciplinary AI regulation experts. We report on the experts' understanding of the intersection between explainability and contestability in public AI regulation, their advice for a decision subject and a public agency in a welfare allocation AI use case, and their perspectives on the connections and gaps within the research landscape. We provide differentiations between descriptive and normative explainability, judicial and non-judicial channels of contestation, and individual and collective contestation action. We further outline three translation processes in the alignment of top-down and bottom-up regulation, the assignment of responsibility for interpreting regulations, and the establishment of interdisciplinary collaboration. Our contributions include an empirically grounded conceptualization of the intersection between explainability and contestability and recommendations on implementing these principles in public institutions. We believe our contributions can inform policy-making and regulation of these core principles and enable more effective and equitable design, development, and deployment of trustworthy public AI systems. △ Less

Submitted 25 April, 2025; originally announced April 2025.

Comments: 15 pages main text, 3 figures. Supplementary material is provided

From Stem to Stern: Contestability Along AI Value Chains

Authors: Agathe Balayn, Yulu Pi, David Gray Widder, Kars Alfrink, Mireia Yurrita, Sohini Upadhyay, Naveena Karusala, Henrietta Lyons, Cagatay Turkay, Christelle Tessono, Blair Attard-Frost, Ujwal Gadiraju

Abstract: This workshop will grow and consolidate a community of interdisciplinary CSCW researchers focusing on the topic of contestable AI. As an outcome of the workshop, we will synthesize the most pressing opportunities and challenges for contestability along AI value chains in the form of a research roadmap. This roadmap will help shape and inspire imminent work in this field. Considering the length and… ▽ More This workshop will grow and consolidate a community of interdisciplinary CSCW researchers focusing on the topic of contestable AI. As an outcome of the workshop, we will synthesize the most pressing opportunities and challenges for contestability along AI value chains in the form of a research roadmap. This roadmap will help shape and inspire imminent work in this field. Considering the length and depth of AI value chains, it will especially spur discussions around the contestability of AI systems along various sites of such chains. The workshop will serve as a platform for dialogue and demonstrations of concrete, successful, and unsuccessful examples of AI systems that (could or should) have been contested, to identify requirements, obstacles, and opportunities for designing and deploying contestable AI in various contexts. This will be held primarily as an in-person workshop, with some hybrid accommodation. The day will consist of individual presentations and group activities to stimulate ideation and inspire broad reflections on the field of contestable AI. Our aim is to facilitate interdisciplinary dialogue by bringing together researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders to foster the design and deployment of contestable AI. △ Less

Submitted 2 August, 2024; originally announced August 2024.

Comments: 5 pages, 0 figure, to be held as a workshop at CSCW'24

An Empirical Exploration of Trust Dynamics in LLM Supply Chains

Authors: Agathe Balayn, Mireia Yurrita, Fanny Rancourt, Fabio Casati, Ujwal Gadiraju

Abstract: With the widespread proliferation of AI systems, trust in AI is an important and timely topic to navigate. Researchers so far have largely employed a myopic view of this relationship. In particular, a limited number of relevant trustors (e.g., end-users) and trustees (i.e., AI systems) have been considered, and empirical explorations have remained in laboratory settings, potentially overlooking fa… ▽ More With the widespread proliferation of AI systems, trust in AI is an important and timely topic to navigate. Researchers so far have largely employed a myopic view of this relationship. In particular, a limited number of relevant trustors (e.g., end-users) and trustees (i.e., AI systems) have been considered, and empirical explorations have remained in laboratory settings, potentially overlooking factors that impact human-AI relationships in the real world. In this paper, we argue for broadening the scope of studies addressing `trust in AI' by accounting for the complex and dynamic supply chains that AI systems result from. AI supply chains entail various technical artifacts that diverse individuals, organizations, and stakeholders interact with, in a variety of ways. We present insights from an in-situ, empirical study of LLM supply chains. Our work reveals additional types of trustors and trustees and new factors impacting their trust relationships. These relationships were found to be central to the development and adoption of LLMs, but they can also be the terrain for uncalibrated trust and reliance on untrustworthy LLMs. Based on these findings, we discuss the implications for research on `trust in AI'. We highlight new research opportunities and challenges concerning the appropriate study of inter-actor relationships across the supply chain and the development of calibrated trust and meaningful reliance behaviors. We also question the meaning of building trust in the LLM supply chain. △ Less

Submitted 25 May, 2024; originally announced May 2024.

Comments: Paper accepted at the TREW workshop co-located with CHI'24

Generating Process-Centric Explanations to Enable Contestability in Algorithmic Decision-Making: Challenges and Opportunities

Authors: Mireia Yurrita, Agathe Balayn, Ujwal Gadiraju

Abstract: Human-AI decision making is becoming increasingly ubiquitous, and explanations have been proposed to facilitate better Human-AI interactions. Recent research has investigated the positive impact of explanations on decision subjects' fairness perceptions in algorithmic decision-making. Despite these advances, most studies have captured the effect of explanations in isolation, considering explanatio… ▽ More Human-AI decision making is becoming increasingly ubiquitous, and explanations have been proposed to facilitate better Human-AI interactions. Recent research has investigated the positive impact of explanations on decision subjects' fairness perceptions in algorithmic decision-making. Despite these advances, most studies have captured the effect of explanations in isolation, considering explanations as ends in themselves, and reducing them to technical solutions provided through XAI methodologies. In this vision paper, we argue that the effect of explanations on fairness perceptions should rather be captured in relation to decision subjects' right to contest such decisions. Since contestable AI systems are open to human intervention throughout their lifecycle, contestability requires explanations that go beyond outcomes and also capture the rationales that led to the development and deployment of the algorithmic system in the first place. We refer to such explanations as process-centric explanations. In this work, we introduce the notion of process-centric explanations and describe some of the main challenges and research opportunities for generating and evaluating such explanations. △ Less

Submitted 1 May, 2023; originally announced May 2023.

Comments: Accepted at the CHI 2023 Human-Centered XAI workshop

A.I. Robustness: a Human-Centered Perspective on Technological Challenges and Opportunities

Authors: Andrea Tocchetti, Lorenzo Corti, Agathe Balayn, Mireia Yurrita, Philip Lippmann, Marco Brambilla, Jie Yang

Abstract: Despite the impressive performance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, their robustness remains elusive and constitutes a key issue that impedes large-scale adoption. Robustness has been studied in many domains of AI, yet with different interpretations across domains and contexts. In this work, we systematically survey the recent progress to provide a reconciled terminology of concepts around… ▽ More Despite the impressive performance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, their robustness remains elusive and constitutes a key issue that impedes large-scale adoption. Robustness has been studied in many domains of AI, yet with different interpretations across domains and contexts. In this work, we systematically survey the recent progress to provide a reconciled terminology of concepts around AI robustness. We introduce three taxonomies to organize and describe the literature both from a fundamental and applied point of view: 1) robustness by methods and approaches in different phases of the machine learning pipeline; 2) robustness for specific model architectures, tasks, and systems; and in addition, 3) robustness assessment methodologies and insights, particularly the trade-offs with other trustworthiness properties. Finally, we identify and discuss research gaps and opportunities and give an outlook on the field. We highlight the central role of humans in evaluating and enhancing AI robustness, considering the necessary knowledge humans can provide, and discuss the need for better understanding practices and developing supportive tools in the future. △ Less

Submitted 19 October, 2022; v1 submitted 17 October, 2022; originally announced October 2022.

Comments: Under Review

Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems

Authors: Mireia Yurrita, Dave Murray-Rust, Agathe Balayn, Alessandro Bozzon

Abstract: In an effort to regulate Machine Learning-driven (ML) systems, current auditing processes mostly focus on detecting harmful algorithmic biases. While these strategies have proven to be impactful, some values outlined in documents dealing with ethics in ML-driven systems are still underrepresented in auditing processes. Such unaddressed values mainly deal with contextual factors that cannot be easi… ▽ More In an effort to regulate Machine Learning-driven (ML) systems, current auditing processes mostly focus on detecting harmful algorithmic biases. While these strategies have proven to be impactful, some values outlined in documents dealing with ethics in ML-driven systems are still underrepresented in auditing processes. Such unaddressed values mainly deal with contextual factors that cannot be easily quantified. In this paper, we develop a value-based assessment framework that is not limited to bias auditing and that covers prominent ethical principles for algorithmic systems. Our framework presents a circular arrangement of values with two bipolar dimensions that make common motivations and potential tensions explicit. In order to operationalize these high-level principles, values are then broken down into specific criteria and their manifestations. However, some of these value-specific criteria are mutually exclusive and require negotiation. As opposed to some other auditing frameworks that merely rely on ML researchers' and practitioners' input, we argue that it is necessary to include stakeholders that present diverse standpoints to systematically negotiate and consolidate value and criteria tensions. To that end, we map stakeholders with different insight needs, and assign tailored means for communicating value manifestations to them. We, therefore, contribute to current ML auditing practices with an assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values and we give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders. △ Less

Submitted 17 June, 2022; v1 submitted 9 May, 2022; originally announced May 2022.

Comments: Accepted at the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT'22)

Dynamic Urban Planning: an Agent-Based Model Coupling Mobility Mode and Housing Choice. Use case Kendall Square

Authors: Mireia Yurrita, Arnaud Grignard, Luis Alonso, Yan Zhang, Cristian Jara-Figueroa, Markus Elkatsha, Kent Larson

Abstract: As cities become increasingly populated, urban planning plays a key role in ensuring the equitable and inclusive development of metropolitan areas. MIT City Science group created a data-driven tangible platform, CityScope, to help different stakeholders, such as government representatives, urban planners, developers, and citizens, collaboratively shape the urban scenario through the real-time impa… ▽ More As cities become increasingly populated, urban planning plays a key role in ensuring the equitable and inclusive development of metropolitan areas. MIT City Science group created a data-driven tangible platform, CityScope, to help different stakeholders, such as government representatives, urban planners, developers, and citizens, collaboratively shape the urban scenario through the real-time impact analysis of different urban interventions. This paper presents an agent-based model that characterizes citizens' behavioural patterns with respect to housing and mobility choice that will constitute the first step in the development of a dynamic incentive system for an open interactive governance process. The realistic identification and representation of the criteria that affect this decision-making process will help understand and evaluate the impacts of potential housing incentives that aim to promote urban characteristics such as equality, diversity, walkability, and efficiency. The calibration and validation of the model have been performed in a well-known geographic area for the Group: Kendall Square in Cambridge, MA. △ Less

Submitted 28 June, 2021; originally announced June 2021.