Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 53 references

Selective friction—flagging uncertain AI predictions—is legally preferable to withholding them under the UK Equality Act.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

The full text argues that selective friction (flagging uncertain AI predictions) is less likely to cause unlawful discrimination under UK law than selective abstention (withholding them).

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection One envelope contains two different papers: the CV abstract does not match the full text, and the full text's central legal analysis is missing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.07877 v1 pith:QKG7MPYK submitted 2025-08-11 cs.CV cs.AI

Selective Contrastive Learning for Weakly Supervised Affordance Grounding

WonJun Moon , Hyun Seok Seong , Jae-Pil Heo This is my paper
classification cs.CV cs.AI
keywords algorithmic discriminationpredictive uncertaintyselective classificationselective interventionhuman-AI decision-makingEquality Act 2010credit riskrisk of reoffending
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper compares two ways an AI system can handle uncertain predictions in human-in-the-loop decisions: selective abstention, which hides the prediction and sends the case to unaided human judgment, and selective friction, which shows the prediction together with a yellow warning flag. It argues that both can produce unlawful discrimination under UK law, but friction is legally preferable because it preserves access to the prediction and is more likely to pass the proportionality test of the Equality Act 2010. The argument is developed through two case studies—consumer credit and risk of reoffending—and through a four-scenario analysis of what happens when a human concurs with or overrides an uncertain prediction. The paper does not claim friction avoids all legal risk; its main hazard is a human override that turns an uncertain favourable prediction into an adverse outcome.

Core claim

The paper offers the first doctrinal analysis under UK law of two uncertainty-based selective interventions. It shows that setting an entropy threshold that triggers intervention is formally neutral but can be discriminatory in effect when predictive uncertainty is concentrated in protected groups. Under abstention, members of those groups are diverted into a slower, variable, human-only decision track, creating a two-track process. Friction avoids that second track by always showing the prediction and adding a yellow flag; it therefore is more likely to satisfy the proportionality requirement of the Equality Act 2010. The paper is careful that friction's legality is conditional: the interve

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the selective intervention triggered by a Shannon-entropy threshold $\tau$. When the entropy of the model's prediction $H(\hat{y})$ is at least $\tau$, the system either hides the prediction (abstention) or shows it with a yellow flag (friction). The proportional-treatment analysis and the four-scenario decision table map the resulting decisions and expose where discrimination can arise, especially in the override case.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that decision-makers shown a yellow flag will pause and use it as intended, and that their overrides will not systematically harm protected groups; the paper acknowledges the evidence on decision quality is uncertain.

What would settle it

A field experiment in credit or sentencing comparing abstention and friction, measuring override rates and outcomes by group; the claim weakens if friction produces overrides that are no better than random or systematically disadvantage protected groups.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the argument holds, organisations using AI decision support should prefer yellow-flag warnings to withholding predictions when uncertainty is high.
  • A formally neutral uncertainty threshold can still create legal exposure if it flags protected groups more often: the threshold alone does not make the intervention lawful.
  • Friction's legality in practice depends on training and on the uncertainty signal being well calibrated; otherwise the yellow flag may not change behaviour.
  • The override case is the main residual risk: a human who rejects an uncertain favourable prediction can produce an adverse outcome that is hard to justify under the Equality Act.
  • In public-sector settings such as sentencing, the public sector equality duty raises the legal bar for any intervention, and friction does not automatically satisfy it.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same proportionality logic may transfer to other regimes that require meaningful human involvement, although the paper itself only claims UK law.
  • The four-scenario table suggests a concrete empirical test: measure override rates and their group-level outcomes in deployed credit or sentencing systems; the argument would be strengthened if friction reduces harmful overrides.
  • This manuscript text is inconsistent with the abstract and title supplied at the top, which describe a computer-vision method for affordance grounding; that mismatch would need to be resolved before the full text can be evaluated as part of the same submission.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The full text supplied is a legal/policy paper titled "Unequal Uncertainty: Rethinking Algorithmic Interventions for Mitigating Discrimination from AI" by Sargeant et al., not the computer-vision paper identified in the arXiv metadata. The paper defines two uncertainty-based algorithmic interventions for AI-assisted decision-making—selective abstention (withholding high-uncertainty predictions) and selective friction (showing predictions with a yellow-flag warning)—and applies them to two case studies: consumer credit and risk of reoffending. Its stated central contribution is a doctrinal analysis under UK law, arguing that selective friction is legally preferable to selective abstention because it preserves access to the prediction and is more likely to satisfy proportionality under the Equality Act 2010. The argument is conditional, with the paper explicitly acknowledging that whether friction improves decision quality in practice is uncertain. However, the manuscript as provided ends abruptly at Section 3.2.1; Sections 4 (Legal Analysis) and 5 (Conclusion) are missing, and the text jumps directly to references. The abstract and metadata describe a different paper with a different title, authors, and subject area.

Significance. If the missing legal analysis were present and supported the conclusions, the paper would be a substantial contribution to the literature on algorithmic fairness and anti-discrimination law, offering one of the first doctrinal comparisons of selective abstention and selective friction under UK law. The paper has notable strengths: it formalizes the two interventions clearly, states its assumptions explicitly (calibration, entropy thresholds, trained users), grounds its case studies in concrete decision scenarios, and is unusually honest about empirical uncertainty, including the possibility that friction may not improve decision quality. The use of case law and empirical evidence on lender overrides is promising. Nevertheless, as submitted, the paper's central claim—that friction is legally preferable under the Equality Act 2010—is entirely unverifiable because the legal analysis that would establish it is absent. The mismatch between the arXiv metadata and the full text compounds this, making the submission incoherent as a reviewable paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 1 / Section 4 / Section 5] The paper's central claim—that selective friction is legally preferable to selective abstention under the Equality Act 2010—is asserted in the introduction and abstract but never demonstrated. The text repeatedly defers to Section 4 for the legal analysis (e.g., §2.4: 'Section 4 examines the legal consequences of these patterns'; §3.1.1: 'As we argue in Section 4, this procedural asymmetry is a cognisable detriment under the Equality Act 2010'), but Section 4 is missing; the manuscript ends abruptly after §3.2.1, followed by references. The proportionality analysis that grounds the paper's main contribution is entirely absent, so the central claim is unsupported and unverifiable from the supplied text.
  2. [Metadata / Abstract vs. Full Text] The arXiv metadata and abstract describe a completely different paper: 'Selective Contrastive Learning for Weakly Supervised Affordance Grounding' in cs.CV, with different authors and different technical content. The full text is a legal analysis of algorithmic interventions under UK law. This is not a minor metadata error; it means the submission is not a coherent manuscript. The reader cannot anchor the stated contributions, title, or authors to the actual content. This fundamental mismatch must be resolved before the paper can be reviewed in any meaningful way.
  3. [§3.1.2 / Abstract] The paper's preferability claim is explicitly conditional: the abstract states 'Whether selective friction also improves decision quality in practice is uncertain,' and §3.1.2 identifies a 'central risk' that overrides may systematically harm protected groups, citing evidence that most lender overrides are no better than random or favor already advantaged groups. The legal argument for preferability depends on the missing Section 4 to weigh these risks against the purported benefits of friction. Even if Section 4 were present, the paper would need to address how its own empirical caveats affect the proportionality analysis. As it stands, the argument is incomplete; the conclusions are not entailed by the formalization and case studies alone.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§2.1] The entropy formula is written as 'H(ˆy) =H(ˆp)−∑ j ˆp(y=j)log 2 ˆp(y=j)', which appears to have a sign error or a typo; Shannon entropy is normally H(p) = -∑ p log p. Please correct.
  2. [General formatting] The manuscript appears to be a proceedings-formatted PDF with pagination and references intact, but the body text stops mid-section. This suggests a compilation or submission error; ensure that the complete manuscript, including Sections 4 and 5, is provided.
  3. [Cross-references] Several references to Section 4 and Section 5 appear in the text (e.g., §2.4, §3.1.1, §3.2). These cross-references should be updated once the missing sections are supplied, and the Conclusion should be included.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation; central claim is an unsupported legal conclusion because the supporting analysis is absent, but absence is not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's argument is not a derivation from fitted data. It defines two interventions (selective abstention and selective friction) via an entropy threshold τ, then argues normatively that friction is legally preferable. The claim that formally neutral uncertainty thresholds can generate discriminatory effects follows from the definitions plus the assumed uneven distribution of uncertainty; it is not a fitted result. The preferability claim rests on the Equality Act 2010 proportionality analysis announced for Section 4. The provided text ends abruptly at Section 3.2.1 and jumps to references, so Section 4 ('Legal Analysis') and Section 5 ('Conclusion') are absent. The paper itself states: 'Section 4 presents the legal analysis, where we assess both interventions under the relevant UK laws.' This is an omitted proof, not a circular reduction: no equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a conclusion. The self-citations that appear in the visible text (e.g., [114], [153]) support background claims about legal alignment and human over-reliance; none is load-bearing for the central legal conclusion as presented. The supplied arXiv metadata (title, abstract, authors) describes a different computer-vision paper, which makes the manuscript unverifiable as the claimed paper but does not create circularity. Verdict: no significant circularity (score 0).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted and no new entities are postulated. The analysis rests on explicit behavioral and modeling assumptions, all acknowledged in the text.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The predictive model is well calibrated over the whole population but not within demographic subgroups.
    Section 2.1 states this calibration assumption; the discrimination analysis depends on group-level miscalibration or unequal uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Uncertainty is faithfully represented by Shannon entropy of the predicted label probabilities, and an intervention threshold defines the intervention range.
    Section 2.1 defines entropy and thresholds; this operationalization is not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption Trained decision-makers react to a yellow flag by reflection and are not adversarially manipulated.
    Section 2.3 explicitly assumes training and absence of adversarial manipulation; the legal preference for friction rests on this.
  • domain assumption Human overrides in lending are mostly no better than random or favor advantaged groups, citing Angelova et al. [9].
    Section 3.1.2 uses this external empirical claim to argue friction can harm protected groups; the claim is not empirically reproduced in this paper.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Selective Contrastive Learning for Weakly Supervised Affordance Grounding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QKG7MPYK

@misc{pith2026250807877,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Selective Contrastive Learning for Weakly Supervised Affordance Grounding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QKG7MPYK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.07877}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Facilitating an entity's interaction with objects requires accurately identifying parts that afford specific actions. Weakly supervised affordance grounding (WSAG) seeks to imitate human learning from third-person demonstrations, where humans intuitively grasp functional parts without needing pixel-level annotations. To achieve this, grounding is typically learned using a shared classifier across images from different perspectives, along with distillation strategies incorporating part discovery process. However, since affordance-relevant parts are not always easily distinguishable, models primarily rely on classification, often focusing on common class-specific patterns that are unrelated to affordance. To address this limitation, we move beyond isolated part-level learning by introducing selective prototypical and pixel contrastive objectives that adaptively learn affordance-relevant cues at both the part and object levels, depending on the granularity of the available information. Initially, we find the action-associated objects in both egocentric (object-focused) and exocentric (third-person example) images by leveraging CLIP. Then, by cross-referencing the discovered objects of complementary views, we excavate the precise part-level affordance clues in each perspective. By consistently learning to distinguish affordance-relevant regions from affordance-irrelevant background context, our approach effectively shifts activation from irrelevant areas toward meaningful affordance cues. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. Codes are available at github.com/hynnsk/SelectiveCL.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [105]

    Forough Poursabzi-Sangdeh, Daniel G Goldstein, Jake M Hofman, Jennifer Wortman Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. 2021. Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretability. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Article 237, 52 pages. doi:10.1145/3411764.3445315

    arXiv 2021

  2. [106]

    Vera Liao, and Nikola Banovic

    Snehal Prabhudesai, Leyao Yang, Sumit Asthana, Xun Huan, Q. Vera Liao, and Nikola Banovic. 2023. Understanding Uncertainty: How Lay Decision-makers Perceive and Interpret Uncertainty in Human-AI Decision Making. InProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 379–396. doi:10.1145/3581641.3584033

    work page arXiv 2023

  3. [107]

    Probable Futures Project. 2025. Mapping AI Tools in Criminal Justice across England & Wales: Corvus IOM Case. https://probablefutures. github.io/ai-mapping/tools/corvus-iom-case/

    work page 2025

  4. [108]

    Jonatan Reyes, Anil Ufuk Batmaz, and Marta Kersten-Oertel. 2025. Trusting AI: does uncertainty visualization affect decision-making? Frontiers in Computer Science7 (Feb. 2025). doi:10.3389/fcomp.2025.1464348

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [109]

    Lisa Rice and Deidre Swesnik. 2013. Discriminatory Effects of Credit Scoring on Communities of Color.Suffolk University Law Review 46, 935 (2013), 935–966

    work page 2013

  6. [110]

    Teal Witter

    Lucas Rosenblatt and R. Teal Witter. 2024. FairlyUncertain: A Comprehensive Benchmark of Uncertainty in Algorithmic Fairness. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [111]

    Holli Sargeant. 2023. Algorithmic Decision-making in Financial Services: Economic and Normative Outcomes in Consumer Credit.AI and Ethics3, 4 (2023), 1295–1311

    work page 2023

  8. [112]

    Holli Sargeant. 2026. From Estimation to Discrimination: Algorithmic Bias, Predictive Uncertainty, and Anti-Discrimination Law.The Modern Law Review(2026). doi:10.1111/1468-2230.70045

    work page arXiv 2026

  9. [113]

    Holli Sargeant. 2026. Mind the gap: Securing algorithmic explainability for credit decisions beyond the UK GDPR.Computer Law and Security Review60 (2026), 106247. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106247

    work page arXiv 2026

  10. [114]

    Holli Sargeant and Måns Magnusson. 2025. Formalising Anti-Discrimination Law in Automated Decision Systems. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, 181–194. doi:10.1145/3715275.3732015

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [115]

    Jakob Schoeffer, Johannes Jakubik, Michael Vössing, Niklas Kühl, and Gerhard Satzger. 2025. AI Reliance and Decision Quality: Fundamentals, Interdependence, and the Effects of Interventions.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research82 (2025), 471–501. doi:10.1613/jair.1.15873

    doi:10.1613/jair.1.15873 2025

  12. [116]

    Nicolas Schreuder and Evgenii Chzhen. 2021. Classification with abstention but without disparities. InProceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, V ol. 161. PMLR, 1227–1236

    work page 2021

  13. [117]

    Andrew Selbst and Julia Powles. 2017. Meaningful Information and the Right to Explanation.International Data Privacy Law7, 4 (2017), 233–242

    work page 2017

  14. [118]

    Abhin Shah, Yuheng Bu, Joshua K Lee, Subhro Das, Rameswar Panda, Prasanna Sattigeri, and Gregory W Wornell. 2022. Selective Regression under Fairness Criteria. InProceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, V ol. 162. PMLR, 19598–19615

    work page 2022

  15. [119]

    C. E. Shannon. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication.The Bell System Technical Journal27, 3 (1948), 379–423. doi:10.1002/ j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

    work page arXiv 1948

  16. [120]

    Arnold, and Tal Arbel

    Changjian Shui, Justin Szeto, Raghav Mehta, Douglas L. Arnold, and Tal Arbel. 2023. Mitigating Calibration Bias without Fixed Attribute Grouping for Improved Fairness in Medical Imaging Analysis. InMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention. Springer, 189–198

    work page 2023

  17. [121]

    Chenglei Si, Navita Goyal, Tongshuang Wu, Chen Zhao, Shi Feng, Hal Daumé Iii, and Jordan Boyd-Graber. 2024. Large Language Models Help Humans Verify Truthfulness – Except When They Are Convincingly Wrong. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. ACL, 1...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.81 2024

  18. [122]

    Daniel Sikar, Artur Garcez, Tillman Weyde, Robin Bloomfield, and Kaleem Peeroo. 2024. When to Accept Automated Predictions and When to Defer to Human Judgment? https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.07821

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [123]

    Skeem and Christopher T

    Jennifer L. Skeem and Christopher T. Lowenkamp. 2016. Risk, race, and recidivism: Predictive bias and disparate impact.Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal54, 4 (2016), 680–712. doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12123

    work page arXiv 2016

  20. [124]

    Skitka, Kathleen L

    Linda J. Skitka, Kathleen L. Mosier, and Mark Burdick. 1999. Does automation bias decision-making?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies51, 5 (1999), 991–1006. Proceedings of ECAF’26. September 02 – September 04, 2026. Ghent, BE. 22 • Sargeant et al

    work page 1999

  21. [125]

    Sarah Sterz, Kevin Baum, Sebastian Biewer, Holger Hermanns, Anne Lauber-Rönsberg, Philip Meinel, and Markus Langer. 2024. On the Quest for Effectiveness in Human Oversight: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’24). ACM, 2495–2507. doi:10.1145/3630106.3659051

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [126]

    2008.Nudge

    Cass R Sunstein and Richard H Thaler. 2008.Nudge. Yale University Press

    work page 2008

  23. [127]

    Adrien Sénécat. 2023. The use of opaque algorithms facilitates abuses within public services.Le Monde(2023). https://perma.cc/VSX5- JQY9

    work page 2023

  24. [128]

    Evdoxia Taka, Temitope Lawal, Muffy Calder, Michele Sevegnani, Kyriakos Kotsoglou, Elizabeth McClory-Tiarks, and Marion Oswald

    work page

  25. [129]

    1996.O’Neil v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic School

    UK Employment Appeal Tribunal. 1996.O’Neil v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic School. [1996] IRLR 372

    work page 1996

  26. [130]

    UK Government Digital Service. 2025. Artificial Intelligence Playbook for the UK Government. https://perma.cc/W4J3-S54V

    work page 2025

  27. [131]

    UK Government Digital Service. 2025. Data and AI Ethics Framework. https://perma.cc/6NFP-5E3U

    work page 2025

  28. [132]

    2018.Guide to proven reoffending statistics

    UK Ministry of Justice. 2018.Guide to proven reoffending statistics. Technical Report. UK Government. https://perma.cc/EP4Q-CQMH

    work page 2018

  29. [133]

    2010.Equality Act

    UK Parliament. 2010.Equality Act

    work page 2010

  30. [134]

    2016.UK General Data Protection Regulation

    UK Parliament. 2016.UK General Data Protection Regulation

    work page 2016

  31. [135]

    2025.Data (Use and Access) Act

    UK Parliament. 2025.Data (Use and Access) Act

    work page 2025

  32. [136]

    1990.James v Eastleigh Borough Council

    UKHL. 1990.James v Eastleigh Borough Council. [1990] UKHL 6; (1990) 2 AC 751

    work page 1990

  33. [137]

    2003.Shamoon v Chief Constable of Royal Ulster Constabulary

    UKHL. 2003.Shamoon v Chief Constable of Royal Ulster Constabulary. [2003] UKHL 11; (2003) ICR 337

    work page 2003

  34. [138]

    2009.R (on the application of E) v JFS Governing Body

    UKSC. 2009.R (on the application of E) v JFS Governing Body. [2009] UKSC 1; (2009) 1 WLR 2353

    work page 2009

  35. [139]

    2012.Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

    UKSC. 2012.Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police. [2012] UKSC 15; (2012) IRLR 601

    work page 2012

  36. [140]

    2017.Essop & Ors v Home Office (UK Border Agency)

    UKSC. 2017.Essop & Ors v Home Office (UK Border Agency). [2017] UKSC 27; (2017) IRLR 558

    work page 2017

  37. [141]

    2017.R (on the application of Coll) v Secretary of State for Justice

    UKSC. 2017.R (on the application of Coll) v Secretary of State for Justice. [2017] UKSC 40; (2018) 1 WLR 2093

    work page 2017

  38. [142]

    2018.Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others

    UKSC. 2018.Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others. [2018] UKSC 49; (2018) 3 WLR 1294

    work page 2018

  39. [143]

    Bernstein, and Ranjay Krishna

    Helena Vasconcelos, Matthew Jörke, Madeleine Grunde-McLaughlin, Tobias Gerstenberg, Michael S. Bernstein, and Ranjay Krishna

  40. [144]

    Mor Vered, Tali Livni, Piers Douglas Lionel Howe, Tim Miller, and Liz Sonenberg. 2023. The Effects of Explanations on Automation Bias.Artificial Intelligence322 (2023), 103952

    work page 2023

  41. [145]

    Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt, and Luciano Floridi. 2017. Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation.International Data Privacy Law1, 2 (2017), 76–99

    work page 2017

  42. [146]

    Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt, and Chris Russell. 2021. Bias preservation in machine learning: The legality of fairness metrics under EU non-discrimination law.West Virginia Law Review123, 3 (2021), 735—-790

    work page 2021

  43. [147]

    Angelina Wang, Sayash Kapoor, Solon Barocas, and Arvind Narayanan. 2024. Against Predictive Optimization: On the Legitimacy of Decision-making Algorithms That Optimize Predictive Accuracy.ACM Journal on Responsible Computing1, 1, Article 9 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [148]

    Hao Wang, Luxi He, Rui Gao, and Flavio P. Calmon. 2023. Aleatoric and Epistemic Discrimination: Fundamental Limits of Fairness Interventions.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36 (2023), 27040–27062. doi:10.5555/3666122.3667298

    work page arXiv 2023

  45. [149]

    West Yorkshire Police. 2025. Integrated Offender Management - Force Policy . https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/about-us/policies- and-procedures/policies/criminal-justice-and-custody/integrated-offender-management

    work page 2025

  46. [150]

    As an AI language model, I cannot

    Joel Wester, Tim Schrills, Henning Pohl, and Niels van Berkel. 2024. “As an AI language model, I cannot”: Investigating LLM Denials of User Requests. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Article 979. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642135

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [151]

    Cheng-Feng Wu, Shian-Chang Huang, Chei-Chang Chiou, and Yu-Min Wang. 2021. A predictive intelligence system of credit scoring based on deep multiple kernel learning.Applied Soft Computing111 (2021), 107668

    work page 2021

  48. [152]

    Ji Xin, Raphael Tang, Yaoliang Yu, and Jimmy Lin. 2021. The Art of Abstention: Selective Prediction and Error Regularization for Natural Language Processing. InProceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing. ACL, 1040–1051. doi:10.18653/v1/2...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.84 2021

  49. [153]

    John Zerilli, Umang Bhatt, and Adrian Weller. 2022. How transparency modulates trust in artificial intelligence.Patterns3, 4 (2022), 100455. doi:10.1016/j.patter.2022.100455 Proceedings of ECAF’26. September 02 – September 04, 2026. Ghent, BE. Unequal Uncertainty: Rethinking Algorithmic Interventions for Mitigating Discrimination from AI • 23

    work page arXiv 2022

  50. [154]

    Vera Liao, and Rachel K

    Yunfeng Zhang, Q. Vera Liao, and Rachel K. E. Bellamy. 2020. Effect of confidence and explanation on accuracy and trust calibration in AI-assisted decision making. InProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, 295–305. doi:10.1145/3351095.3372852

    work page arXiv 2020

  51. [155]

    Miri Zilka, Holli Sargeant, and Adrian Weller. 2022. Transparency, Governance and Regulation of Algorithmic Tools Deployed in the Criminal Justice System: a UK Case Study. InProceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. ACM, 880–889. doi:10.1145/3514094.3534200 Proceedings of ECAF’26. September 02 – September 04, 2026. Ghent, BE

    work page arXiv 2022

  52. [2023]

    doi:10.1145/3579605

    Explanations Can Reduce Overreliance on AI Systems During Decision-Making.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–38. doi:10.1145/3579605

    doi:10.1145/3579605 2023

  53. [2025]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.04116

    Mapping the Probabilistic AI Ecosystem in Criminal Justice in England and Wales. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.04116

    work page arXiv

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.