Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Software Doping Analysis for Human Oversight

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2308.06186 v1 pith:4THUCSLZ submitted 2023-08-11 cs.CY cs.AIcs.LO

Software Doping Analysis for Human Oversight

classification cs.CY cs.AIcs.LO
keywords softwaredopingsystemsanalysisarticleassistcarscleaning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

This article introduces a framework that is meant to assist in mitigating societal risks that software can pose. Concretely, this encompasses facets of software doping as well as unfairness and discrimination in high-risk decision-making systems. The term software doping refers to software that contains surreptitiously added functionality that is against the interest of the user. A prominent example of software doping are the tampered emission cleaning systems that were found in millions of cars around the world when the diesel emissions scandal surfaced. The first part of this article combines the formal foundations of software doping analysis with established probabilistic falsification techniques to arrive at a black-box analysis technique for identifying undesired effects of software. We apply this technique to emission cleaning systems in diesel cars but also to high-risk systems that evaluate humans in a possibly unfair or discriminating way. We demonstrate how our approach can assist humans-in-the-loop to make better informed and more responsible decisions. This is to promote effective human oversight, which will be a central requirement enforced by the European Union's upcoming AI Act. We complement our technical contribution with a juridically, philosophically, and psychologically informed perspective on the potential problems caused by such systems.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Bridging the Disciplinary Gap in Explainable AI: From Abstract Desiderata to Concrete Tasks

    cs.CY 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The authors introduce a taxonomy with target, functional role, and mode of justification axes plus a framework that decomposes abstract XAI desiderata into concrete benchmarkable tasks via identified dependency structures.