Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Jatinder Singh

Publications and source records attributed to Jatinder Singh.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2026

Push and Pushback in Contesting AI: Demands for and Resistance to Accountability

As AI becomes increasingly embedded in daily life, it has been shown to fail critically, cause harm, and spark public controversy, prompting affected communities, workers, and public-interest groups to contest it. Yet how these contestations unfold in practice remains underexplored. We address this gap by developing an empirically grounded account of AI contestation dynamics. We do so through a thematic analysis of 43 real-world cases in which affected actors direct demands toward those responsible for AI development and deployment, seeking redress, influence, or changes to AI practices. Situating our work within Bovens's relational model of accountability, we conceptualize contestation as accountability-seeking: a dynamic, iterative process in which actors "from below" direct explicit demands at actors "from above," who respond by accepting, resisting, or circumventing accountability. Our analysis produces empirically grounded categories of contestation strategies, institutional response tactics, outcome types, and the contextual factors that shape them, illuminating how accountability is pursued and evaded in practice. We show that those being contested often deploy a range of strategies to limit their accountability. Based on these insights, we offer guidance for researchers, policymakers, advocates, and other stakeholders seeking to support effective AI contestation, with particular attention to anticipating and countering institutional strategies used to evade accountability.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

To Build or Not to Build? Factors that Lead to Non-Development or Abandonment of AI Systems

Responsible AI research typically focuses on examining the use and impacts of deployed AI systems. Yet, there is currently limited visibility into the pre-deployment decisions to pursue building such systems in the first place. Decisions taken in the earlier stages of development shape which systems are ultimately released, and therefore represent potential, but underexplored, points for intervention. As such, this paper investigates factors influencing AI non-development and abandonment throughout the development lifecycle. Specifically, we first perform a scoping review of academic literature, civil society resources, and grey literature including journalism and industry reports. Through thematic analysis of these sources, we develop a taxonomy of six categories of factors contributing to AI abandonment: ethical concerns, stakeholder feedback, development lifecycle challenges, organizational dynamics, resource constraints, and legal/regulatory concerns. Then, we collect data on real-world case of AI system abandonment via an AI incident database and a practitioner survey to evidence and compare factors that drive abandonment both prior to and following system deployment. While academic responsible AI communities often emphasize ethical risks as reasons to not develop AI, our empirical analysis of these cases demonstrates the diverse, and often non-ethics-related, levers that motivate organizations to abandon AI development. Synthesizing evidence from our taxonomy and related case study analyses, we identify gaps and opportunities in current responsible AI research to (1) engage with the diverse range of levers that influence organizations to abandon AI development, and (2) better support appropriate (dis)engagement with AI system development.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Prompt Governance? On Governing Technologies Governed by Natural Language

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly operated by natural language instructions (prompts). Across the pipeline, stakeholders designate various forms, e.g. end-user guidelines, developer specifications, or system prompts, as prompt governance instruments. These textual artifacts are intended to shape model behaviour by specifying constraints, priorities, and compliance rules. Policymakers and regulators have begun to treat system-level instructions as accessible prompt-based GenAI intervention points, assuming they function (directly or indirectly) as behavioural control. Yet whether these instructions operate reliably and predictably enough across contexts to support such governance frameworks remains underexplored. Towards this, we systematically evaluate (i) how researchers discuss and treat system-level instructions in the literature, focusing on large language models (LLMs) as they isolate language effects; (ii) how policymakers position system-level instructions as governance objects, incorporating analysis of two policy frameworks (US Exec. Order on Preventing Woke AI, and EU General-Purpose AI Code of Practice); and (iii) whether misalignments between these perspectives warrant closer inspection of the viability of governing AI through natural language. We identify a fragmented literature advancing varying and contradictory claims about what goals system-level instructions can achieve, which we distil into a typology of claims. Further, we show how divergent claims complicate policy approaches that treat system-level instructions as stable, interpretable control mechanisms. We argue that given such misalignments, careful consideration must be given to prompt governance approaches. Our findings have broad implications, extending from a LLM policy context to the use of natural language as control mechanism in technical systems more generally.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Understanding the Role of Algorithm Registers in AI Governance Through Comparative Analysis of China and the UK

Algorithm registers are increasingly being both considered and deployed as instruments in AI governance. They are often expected to deliver transparency; however, in practice their design, scope, and implementation vary substantially. Currently, we lack a holistic understanding of the potential roles that registers might play in AI governance, and how different design choices both shape and reflect those roles. This paper therefore asks how do algorithm registers differ across jurisdictions, and what do these differences reveal about their roles in AI governance? Towards this, we conduct a comparative analysis of two influential but contrasting algorithm registration mechanisms, China's Beian system and the UK's Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS), drawing on publicly available regulatory documents, registration guidelines, and registry data. Crucially, our analysis shows that an algorithm register, depending on its design and implementation, can serve functions beyond transparency, including pre-market approval, enabling ecosystem-level understanding, and acting as a broader regulatory infrastructure. As algorithm registries proliferate globally, we stress the importance of researchers and policymakers considering and examining the concrete governance functions that algorithm registries can perform as a result of their design and institutional context, rather than approaching them primarily through a transparency lens.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Fairness under uncertainty in sequential decisions

Fair machine learning (ML) methods help identify and mitigate the risk that algorithms encode or automate social injustices. Algorithmic approaches alone cannot resolve structural inequalities, but they can support socio-technical decision systems by surfacing discriminatory biases, clarifying trade-offs, and enabling governance. Although fairness is well studied in supervised learning, many real ML applications are online and sequential, with prior decisions informing future ones. Each decision is taken under uncertainty due to unobserved counterfactuals and finite samples, with dire consequences for under-represented groups, systematically under-observed due to historical exclusion and selective feedback. A bank cannot know whether a denied loan would have been repaid, and may have less data on marginalized populations. This paper introduces a taxonomy of uncertainty in sequential decision-making -- model, feedback, and prediction uncertainty -- providing shared vocabulary for assessing systems where uncertainty is unevenly distributed across groups. We formalize model and feedback uncertainty via counterfactual logic and reinforcement learning, and illustrate harms to decision makers (unrealized gains/losses) and subjects (compounding exclusion, reduced access) of policies that ignore the unobserved space. Algorithmic examples show it is possible to reduce outcome variance for disadvantaged groups while preserving institutional objectives (e.g. expected utility). Experiments on data simulated with varying bias show how unequal uncertainty and selective feedback produce disparities, and how uncertainty-aware exploration alters fairness metrics. The framework equips practitioners to diagnose, audit, and govern fairness risks. Where uncertainty drives unfairness rather than incidental noise, accounting for it is essential to fair and effective decision-making.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

AI Safety Evaluations Need To Consider Cascading Effects

AI systems comprise a range of interactions across the technical and organisational components of a range of actors. These components work together to provide the systems' functionality. This socio-technical assemblage is increasingly described as an algorithmic supply chain. Given their role in supporting a wide range of systems, foundation models (FMs) are increasingly a key part of many algorithmic supply chains. In practice, various technical and non-technical components work to mediate, adapt, and augment the behaviour of models, such as FMs, both in general, and for their use in specific application contexts. However, many AI safety evaluations tend to focus on capabilities of FMs themselves and/or assess these components independently, at certain levels of abstraction, with less consideration on how these components could interact, influence, reinforce or counteract each other. In this paper, we introduce the cascade as a concept for supporting more holistic AI evaluations. The cascade captures how the interactions between socio-technical components along the AI supply chain can compound and produce cumulative effects with downstream consequences. Specifically, we (i) identify gaps in current AI auditing approaches, using LLMs as our case study; (ii) demonstrate how cascade problems manifest in deployed AI systems through a characterisation of cascades through different viewpoints (component and stakeholder), and (iii) propose research directions for assessing the cascade specifically as an object of analysis. As these cascades can significantly impact transparency, accountability, security, and safety, we advocate for a paradigm shift in AI system auditing towards systems-oriented audits that incorporate cascading effects, to complement model centric evaluations.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Who Controls the Conversation? User Perspectives On Generative AI (LLM) System Prompts

System prompts - instructions that shape the behaviour of generative AI systems - strongly influence system outputs and users' experiences. They define the model's guidelines, `personality', and guardrails, taking precedence over user inputs. Despite their influence, transparency is limited: system prompts are generally not made public and most platforms instruct models to conceal them, leaving users disconnected from and unaware of a key mechanism guiding and governing their AI interactions. This paper argues that system prompts warrant explicit, user-centred design attention and, focusing on large language models (LLMs), asks: what do system prompts contain, how do end-users perceive them, and what do these perceptions offer for design and governance practice? Our results reveal user perspectives on: the benefits and risks of system prompts; the values they prefer to be associated with prompt-design; their levels of comfort with different types of prompts; and degrees of transparency and user control regarding prompt content. From these findings emerge considerations for how designers can better align system prompt mechanisms with user expectations and preferences over these mechanisms that directly shape how generative AI systems behave.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Who Does What? Archetypes of Roles Assigned to LLMs During Human-AI Decision-Making

LLMs are increasingly supporting decision-making across high-stakes domains, requiring critical reflection on the socio-technical factors that shape how humans and LLMs are assigned roles and interact during human-in-the-loop decision-making. This paper introduces the concept of human-LLM archetypes -- defined as re-curring socio-technical interaction patterns that structure the roles of humans and LLMs in collaborative decision-making. We describe 17 human-LLM archetypes derived from a scoping literature review and thematic analysis of 113 LLM-supported decision-making papers. Then, we evaluate these diverse archetypes across real-world clinical diagnostic cases to examine the potential effects of adopting distinct human-LLM archetypes on LLM outputs and decision outcomes. Finally, we present relevant tradeoffs and design choices across human-LLM archetypes, including decision control, social hierarchies, cognitive forcing strategies, and information requirements. Through our analysis, we show that selection of human-LLM interaction archetype can influence LLM outputs and decisions, bringing important risks and considerations for the designers of human-AI decision-making systems

cs.HC↗
arXiv2025

Accountability Capture: How Record-Keeping to Support AI Transparency and Accountability (Re)shapes Algorithmic Oversight

Accountability regimes typically encourage record-keeping to enable the transparency that supports oversight, investigation, contestation, and redress. However, implementing such record-keeping can introduce considerations, risks, and consequences, which so far remain under-explored. This paper examines how record-keeping practices bring algorithmic systems within accountability regimes, providing a basis to observe and understand their effects. For this, we introduce, describe, and elaborate 'accountability capture' -- the re-configuration of socio-technical processes and the associated downstream effects relating to record-keeping for algorithmic accountability. Surveying 100 practitioners, we evidence and characterise record-keeping issues in practice, identifying their alignment with accountability capture. We further document widespread record-keeping practices, tensions between internal and external accountability requirements, and evidence of employee resistance to practices imposed through accountability capture. We discuss these and other effects for surveillance, privacy, and data protection, highlighting considerations for algorithmic accountability communities. In all, we show that implementing record-keeping to support transparency in algorithmic accountability regimes can itself bring wider implications -- an issue requiring greater attention from practitioners, researchers, and policymakers alike.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2025

Position is Power: System Prompts as a Mechanism of Bias in Large Language Models (LLMs)

System prompts in Large Language Models (LLMs) are predefined directives that guide model behaviour, taking precedence over user inputs in text processing and generation. LLM deployers increasingly use them to ensure consistent responses across contexts. While model providers set a foundation of system prompts, deployers and third-party developers can append additional prompts without visibility into others' additions, while this layered implementation remains entirely hidden from end-users. As system prompts become more complex, they can directly or indirectly introduce unaccounted for side effects. This lack of transparency raises fundamental questions about how the position of information in different directives shapes model outputs. As such, this work examines how the placement of information affects model behaviour. To this end, we compare how models process demographic information in system versus user prompts across six commercially available LLMs and 50 demographic groups. Our analysis reveals significant biases, manifesting in differences in user representation and decision-making scenarios. Since these variations stem from inaccessible and opaque system-level configurations, they risk representational, allocative and potential other biases and downstream harms beyond the user's ability to detect or correct. Our findings draw attention to these critical issues, which have the potential to perpetuate harms if left unexamined. Further, we argue that system prompt analysis must be incorporated into AI auditing processes, particularly as customisable system prompts become increasingly prevalent in commercial AI deployments.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2024

A Room With an Overview: Towards Meaningful Transparency for the Consumer Internet of Things

As our physical environments become ever-more connected, instrumented and automated, it can be increasingly difficult for users to understand what is happening within them and why. This warrants attention; with the pervasive and physical nature of the IoT comes risks of data misuse, privacy, surveillance, and even physical harm. Such concerns come amid increasing calls for more transparency surrounding technologies (in general), as a means for supporting scrutiny and accountability. This paper explores the practical dimensions to transparency mechanisms within the consumer IoT. That is, we consider how smart homes might be made more meaningfully transparent, so as to support users in gaining greater understanding, oversight, and control. Through a series of three user-centric studies, we (i) survey prospective smart home users to gain a general understanding of what meaningful transparency within smart homes might entail; (ii) identify categories of user-derived requirements and design elements (design features for supporting smart home transparency) that have been created through two co-design workshops; and (iii) validate these through an evaluation with an altogether new set of participants. In all, these categories of requirements and interface design elements provide a foundation for understanding how meaningful transparency might be achieved within smart homes, and introduces several wider considerations for doing so.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2023

Understanding accountability in algorithmic supply chains

Academic and policy proposals on algorithmic accountability often seek to understand algorithmic systems in their socio-technical context, recognising that they are produced by 'many hands'. Increasingly, however, algorithmic systems are also produced, deployed, and used within a supply chain comprising multiple actors tied together by flows of data between them. In such cases, it is the working together of an algorithmic supply chain of different actors who contribute to the production, deployment, use, and functionality that drives systems and produces particular outcomes. We argue that algorithmic accountability discussions must consider supply chains and the difficult implications they raise for the governance and accountability of algorithmic systems. In doing so, we explore algorithmic supply chains, locating them in their broader technical and political economic context and identifying some key features that should be understood in future work on algorithmic governance and accountability (particularly regarding general purpose AI services). To highlight ways forward and areas warranting attention, we further discuss some implications raised by supply chains: challenges for allocating accountability stemming from distributed responsibility for systems between actors, limited visibility due to the accountability horizon, service models of use and liability, and cross-border supply chains and regulatory arbitrage

cs.CY↗
arXiv2023

Trustworthy, responsible, ethical AI in manufacturing and supply chains: synthesis and emerging research questions

While the increased use of AI in the manufacturing sector has been widely noted, there is little understanding on the risks that it may raise in a manufacturing organisation. Although various high level frameworks and definitions have been proposed to consolidate potential risks, practitioners struggle with understanding and implementing them. This lack of understanding exposes manufacturing to a multitude of risks, including the organisation, its workers, as well as suppliers and clients. In this paper, we explore and interpret the applicability of responsible, ethical, and trustworthy AI within the context of manufacturing. We then use a broadened adaptation of a machine learning lifecycle to discuss, through the use of illustrative examples, how each step may result in a given AI trustworthiness concern. We additionally propose a number of research questions to the manufacturing research community, in order to help guide future research so that the economic and societal benefits envisaged by AI in manufacturing are delivered safely and responsibly.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2023

Out of Context: Investigating the Bias and Fairness Concerns of "Artificial Intelligence as a Service"

"AI as a Service" (AIaaS) is a rapidly growing market, offering various plug-and-play AI services and tools. AIaaS enables its customers (users) - who may lack the expertise, data, and/or resources to develop their own systems - to easily build and integrate AI capabilities into their applications. Yet, it is known that AI systems can encapsulate biases and inequalities that can have societal impact. This paper argues that the context-sensitive nature of fairness is often incompatible with AIaaS' 'one-size-fits-all' approach, leading to issues and tensions. Specifically, we review and systematise the AIaaS space by proposing a taxonomy of AI services based on the levels of autonomy afforded to the user. We then critically examine the different categories of AIaaS, outlining how these services can lead to biases or be otherwise harmful in the context of end-user applications. In doing so, we seek to draw research attention to the challenges of this emerging area.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2023

Exploring How Machine Learning Practitioners (Try To) Use Fairness Toolkits

Recent years have seen the development of many open-source ML fairness toolkits aimed at helping ML practitioners assess and address unfairness in their systems. However, there has been little research investigating how ML practitioners actually use these toolkits in practice. In this paper, we conducted the first in-depth empirical exploration of how industry practitioners (try to) work with existing fairness toolkits. In particular, we conducted think-aloud interviews to understand how participants learn about and use fairness toolkits, and explored the generality of our findings through an anonymous online survey. We identified several opportunities for fairness toolkits to better address practitioner needs and scaffold them in using toolkits effectively and responsibly. Based on these findings, we highlight implications for the design of future open-source fairness toolkits that can support practitioners in better contextualizing, communicating, and collaborating around ML fairness efforts.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2022

Data Justice in Practice: A Guide for Developers

The Advancing Data Justice Research and Practice project aims to broaden understanding of the social, historical, cultural, political, and economic forces that contribute to discrimination and inequity in contemporary ecologies of data collection, governance, and use. This is the consultation draft of a guide for developers and organisations, which are producing, procuring, or using data-intensive technologies.In the first section, we introduce the field of data justice, from its early discussions to more recent proposals to relocate understandings of what data justice means. This section includes a description of the six pillars of data justice around which this guidance revolves. Next, to support developers in designing, developing, and deploying responsible and equitable data-intensive and AI/ML systems, we outline the AI/ML project lifecycle through a sociotechnical lens. To support the operationalisation data justice throughout the entirety of the AI/ML lifecycle and within data innovation ecosystems, we then present five overarching principles of responsible, equitable, and trustworthy data research and innovation practices, the SAFE-D principles-Safety, Accountability, Fairness, Explainability, and Data Quality, Integrity, Protection, and Privacy. The final section presents guiding questions that will help developers both address data justice issues throughout the AI/ML lifecycle and engage in reflective innovation practices that ensure the design, development, and deployment of responsible and equitable data-intensive and AI/ML systems.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2022

Advancing Data Justice Research and Practice: An Integrated Literature Review

The Advancing Data Justice Research and Practice (ADJRP) project aims to widen the lens of current thinking around data justice and to provide actionable resources that will help policymakers, practitioners, and impacted communities gain a broader understanding of what equitable, freedom-promoting, and rights-sustaining data collection, governance, and use should look like in increasingly dynamic and global data innovation ecosystems. In this integrated literature review we hope to lay the conceptual groundwork needed to support this aspiration. The introduction motivates the broadening of data justice that is undertaken by the literature review which follows. First, we address how certain limitations of the current study of data justice drive the need for a re-location of data justice research and practice. We map out the strengths and shortcomings of the contemporary state of the art and then elaborate on the challenges faced by our own effort to broaden the data justice perspective in the decolonial context. The body of the literature review covers seven thematic areas. For each theme, the ADJRP team has systematically collected and analysed key texts in order to tell the critical empirical story of how existing social structures and power dynamics present challenges to data justice and related justice fields. In each case, this critical empirical story is also supplemented by the transformational story of how activists, policymakers, and academics are challenging longstanding structures of inequity to advance social justice in data innovation ecosystems and adjacent areas of technological practice.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2021

Towards an accountable Internet of Things: A call for reviewability

As the IoT becomes increasingly ubiquitous, concerns are being raised about how IoT systems are being built and deployed. Connected devices will generate vast quantities of data, which drive algorithmic systems and result in real-world consequences. Things will go wrong, and when they do, how do we identify what happened, why they happened, and who is responsible? Given the complexity of such systems, where do we even begin? This chapter outlines aspects of accountability as they relate to IoT, in the context of the increasingly interconnected and data-driven nature of such systems. Specifically, we argue the urgent need for mechanisms - legal, technical, and organisational - that facilitate the review of IoT systems. Such mechanisms work to support accountability, by enabling the relevant stakeholders to better understand, assess, interrogate and challenge the connected environments that increasingly pervade our world.

cs.CY↗