Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 266 references

Negotiating Risk Boundaries in AI for Policing Through Mixed-Stakeholder Deliberation

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A mixed-stakeholder deliberation on AI in policing, framed explicitly around racial bias, produced broader—not narrower—reasoning about whether tools work, benefit anyone, and benefit everyone.

desk verdict A genuinely useful and honest participatory workshop study whose headline 'racial equity did not narrow deliberation' claim outruns the design. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05418 v1 pith:JVESGSMZ submitted 2026-08-05 cs.AI

Mackenzie Jorgensen , Jo Reilly , Alex Sutherland , Miri Zilka This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords AIinpolicingracialbiasmixed-stakeholderdeliberationriskassessmentrecidivismpredictionlivefacialrecognitionparticipatorydesigncurb-cuteffect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

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 reports a one-day workshop in which 30 community representatives, police officers, and academics used a red, amber, and green risk framework to assess 13 AI use cases in policing, with an explicit instruction to focus on racial bias. The central finding is that the racial-bias framing did not narrow the discussion: participants consistently reasoned through broader questions about whether a tool works, whether it delivers genuine benefit, and whether that benefit extends to everyone. The paper argues this integrated reasoning resembles the curb-cut effect—the way a design intended for one marginalised group, like kerb ramps for wheelchair users, ends up helping everyone—and so treating racial equity as a starting lens rather than an add-on checklist improves the whole risk-benefit analysis. If correct, the finding implies that community consultation can surface objections to a tool's premise, as with the outright rejection of recidivism risk assessment, that technical review alone would likely miss.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the one-day mixed-stakeholder deliberation itself: 30 participants in six groups, each group reviewing AI use cases organised by the Police Race Action Plan's four themes and classifying them as low risk (green), medium risk (amber), or unacceptable risk (red) on a worksheet that asked for justifications, permitted uses, and monitoring needs. The analytic device that carries the argument is the authors' post-hoc reconstruction of what they call back-engineered questions—the implicit questions participants appeared to be asking as they assigned risk—based on 76 completed worksheets and the authors' own observations of unrecorded group conversations. These questions (does it work, will it deliver genuine benefit, will that benefit reach everyone, and can success be measured) are what the paper claims actually structured the deliberation, and they are the evidence that the racial-equity framing did not narrow the discussion. The interpretive lens is the curb-cut effect, the known phenomenon in which a design constraint introduced for a marginalised group, such as kerb ramps for wheelchair users, ends up producing better outcomes for everyone.

What would settle it

Run the same workshop with sessions audio-recorded and independently coded: if transcripts show that participants' justifications for risk ratings mostly cite harms to racial minority communities and rarely invoke whether a tool works, whether it delivers genuine benefit, or whether that benefit reaches everyone, the paper's central process finding would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated as its main finding, is that although the explicit framing of the workshop was racial bias, the reasoning process that emerged was considerably broader. Across 13 use cases, participants did not focus only on harms to racial minority communities; their justifications repeatedly organised around three back-engineered questions: does the tool actually work, will it deliver genuine benefit, and will that benefit extend to everyone? Recidivism risk assessment is the pivotal case: it drew the strongest objections of any use case, and the objection was to the premise of predicting reoffending from arrest records rather than to failures in how a particular system was implemented. The authors present this pattern as evidence that an equity-centred lens can act like a curb-cut, producing reasoning and conditions that serve everyone, and they propose mixed-stakeholder deliberation at the ideation stage as a practical way to negotiate acceptable risk boundaries before adoption.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the authors' reconstruction of group reasoning, based only on worksheets and their own unrecorded observations, faithfully captures what participants actually reasoned, since the workshop sessions were intentionally not recorded and cannot be independently checked.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the finding is correct, policing bodies should put racial-equity deliberation at the start of the AI risk-benefit process rather than treating bias as a separate checklist item.
  • Community consultation can separate objections to a tool's premise from objections to its implementation: recidivism risk assessment was rejected on the premise, while hotspot mapping and live facial recognition were accepted only under conditions.
  • Mixed-stakeholder groups were broadly open to AI, rejecting only 3 of 13 use cases outright, so involving communities does not amount to a blanket obstacle to technological adoption.
  • The conditions attached to acceptable use cases—human oversight, transparency, monitoring, and restrictions such as using facial recognition only against high-harm offenders—can serve as concrete pre-deployment requirements.
  • The curb-cut analogy implies that tools scrutinised through a racial-equity lens from the outset are more likely to work for everyone, which makes the equity lens a design resource rather than a constraint.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's design includes no counterfactual, so a natural next step would be to run the same deliberation with and without an explicit racial-bias prompt to test whether the broad three-question pattern is caused by the framing or by the mixed-stakeholder composition.
  • The premise-versus-implementation distinction could be used predictively: tools rejected on premise, like recidivism risk assessment, should be resistant to technical fixes, while conditionally accepted tools, like live facial recognition, should shift with new performance and governance evidence.
  • The same three-question structure may transfer to other public-sector AI domains, such as health, housing, social care, or education, where equity-focused stakeholder deliberation could surface similarly broad questions.
  • Because participants were recruited through a police race-action network and had existing engagement with racial bias issues, the results describe one already-engaged stakeholder group; extrapolating to the general public or to police forces as a whole would require a differently sampled study.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper reports a one-day mixed-stakeholder deliberation workshop in which 30 participants (community representatives, police officers, and academics) assessed 13 AI use cases in policing using a green/amber/red risk classification, with an explicit framing of racial bias. The authors find that participants rejected three use cases as unacceptable, most notably recidivism risk assessment, and that the reasoning process centered on three broad questions: whether the tool works, whether it delivers genuine benefit, and whether the benefit extends to everyone. They interpret this as evidence that foregrounding racial equity did not narrow deliberation, likening it to the curb-cut effect in inclusive design.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuinely understudied question—how affected communities reason about AI use cases in policing—and its descriptive results are valuable. The authors are transparent about their limitations (single-occasion workshop, convenience sample, unrecorded discussions, order effects), and Table 2 provides per-use-case classifications that could be reused by other researchers. The distinction between premise-based and implementation-based objections, particularly for recidivism risk assessment, is a useful analytic contribution. However, the headline claim that the racial-equity framing 'did not narrow' deliberation is comparative and cannot be established by the single-arm design; the paper's value lies in the descriptive pattern rather than in the counterfactual claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5; Abstract; Conclusion] The central claim that 'foregrounding racial equity did not narrow the deliberation' (Section 5, echoed in the Abstract and Conclusion) is a counterfactual, comparative statement. All workshop groups received the same explicit racial-bias framing, and there is no baseline or comparison condition in which participants assessed the same use cases under a neutral or generic risk-benefit framing. The observed pattern of questions (does it work, will it deliver genuine benefit, will benefit extend to everyone) could plausibly arise in any stakeholder deliberation about any AI tool, so the design cannot distinguish 'the equity framing broadened reasoning' from 'these are the generic questions stakeholders ask about AI.' Please reframe this as a descriptive finding about the content of reasoning, or explicitly acknowledge in the main text that a comparative conclusion is not supported by the single-arm design.
  2. [Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 5] The reconstruction of participants' reasoning in Section 5 rests substantially on the authors' non-recorded observations of group discussions, as described in Sections 3.4 and 3.5. Because no primary audio or video record exists, the 'back-engineered questions' cannot be independently checked against the actual dialogue, and the assertions in Section 5 (e.g., 'the reasoning process that emerged was considerably broader') present an interpretative synthesis as if it were a direct description. The limitations paragraph 3.5 acknowledges that sessions were not recorded but does not temper the strength of the process-level claims elsewhere. I recommend presenting the three-question framework as an analyst-constructed interpretation, supported by worksheet quotations, and reporting any steps taken to validate the interpretation (e.g., member checking or inter-rater agreement) or making the interpretive status explicit wherever these claims appear.
  3. [Table 2; Section 6.3] Table 2 reports means and standard deviations for ordinal risk categories (1=green, 3=amber, 5=red) and assigns the intermediate value 2 when groups marked two categories. This imposes an interval scale on ordinal data and is the basis for the claim in Section 6.3 that 'only 3 out of 13 use cases ... with an average risk above medium.' Because the mapping is arbitrary (e.g., one could equally code green=2, amber=4, red=5), the numerical averages should not be used for quantitative comparisons. Report the full distribution of green/amber/red classifications (including the number of groups that declined to classify) and use medians/modes or contingency tables; at minimum, clearly label the means as a crude descriptive summary rather than an interval-scale statistic. The small and non-independent group sizes (n=3-5, with participants remixed across morning and afternoon sessions) further limit the interpretability of standard deviations.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2.1] Several words are missing spaces in the typeset text (e.g., 'wherecrime', 'whereand', 'whencrimes', 'PredPolT M'); please fix these formatting errors.
  2. [Section 4.1, footnote 1] The phenomenon described in the footnote (models trained on historical recruitment data learning existing norms) is not usually called the 'credit assignment problem' in machine learning; that term refers to apportioning credit across multiple decisions. Please correct or rename the reference.
  3. [Section 4.4] The text cites 'CPIA 2' in reference to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act; the Act is from 1996 and no '2' appears in its short title, so this appears to be a typo.
  4. [References] The citation style for Moore (2015) is inconsistent: '(Moore 2015)' appears in Box 1 while the reference list uses 'Moore, R. 2015'; please unify in-text citations.
  5. [Section 3.2] In the sentence 'we asked the PRAP team to highlight any use cases they wanted include,' the word 'to' appears to be missing before 'include'; please correct.
  6. [Section 5] The term 'back-engineered questions' is used without a definition at its first appearance in Section 5; either define it or refer readers to the analytic procedure described in Section 3.4.
  7. [Conclusion] The concluding sentence 'Foregrounding racial bias did not narrow or politicise the deliberation; it deepened it' repeats the comparative claim that the design cannot support; please align the conclusion with the descriptive finding (e.g., 'participants raised a broader range of questions than racial bias alone').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the workshop findings are derived from worksheets and observed deliberation, with no fitted input, self-citation chain, or definitional reduction.

full rationale

This is a qualitative empirical study rather than a mathematical or model-based derivation, so the circularity machinery mostly does not apply. The paper's central claims—that participants rejected three use cases outright, that recidivism risk assessment was opposed on the premise rather than the implementation, and that the reasoning process was broader than the explicit racial-bias framing—are grounded in 76 completed worksheets and the authors' observations of the workshop discussions, as described in Sections 3.4 and 3.5. There is no fitted parameter that is later renamed as a prediction, no equation whose output is identical to its input by construction, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. Citations to earlier work by the same research group (Zilka et al. 2023a, 2023b, 2022; Kearney et al. 2024; Labedzka et al. 2026) are used for background, related literature, and contextual evidence, not as the load-bearing justification for the workshop's empirical findings. The curb-cut framing in Section 6.2 is offered as an interpretive analogy rather than as a derivation that makes the conclusion equivalent to its premise. The limitation acknowledged in Section 3.5—that discussions were not recorded and the reconstruction relies partly on authors' observations—is a genuine scope-of-claim concern about the comparative statement that racial-equity framing 'did not narrow' deliberation, but that is an evidentiary limitation, not circularity: the claim does not reduce by construction to an input of the analysis. The study also reports its descriptive risk classifications transparently in Table 2, and the main qualitative findings are based on worksheet content and observed reasoning rather than on a self-referential argument. Accordingly, the paper shows no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main numerical reliance is the authors' mapping of ordinal risk categories to a 5-point scale and the 'above medium' rejection threshold; that mapping drives the claim that only 3 of 13 use cases were rejected. The interpretation of the deliberation process relies on two domain assumptions: non-recorded discussions can be faithfully reconstructed from worksheets plus author observation, and the recruited PRAP-based sample supports general statements about stakeholder acceptability. No new entities are introduced; the curb-cut effect is an analogy, not a new mechanism.

free parameters (1)
  • Ordinal risk-to-numeric mapping and rejection threshold = low=1, medium=3, unacceptable=5; ambiguous marks set to 2 or 4; rejection defined as mean > 3
    The paper converts ordinal RAG categories into a 5-point scale and summarizes by mean (Table 2, Section 3.4). The statement that only 3 of 13 use cases were rejected depends on this chosen mapping and the 'above medium' cutoff; a different scoring rule could change the count.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Group worksheets plus authors' in-room observations faithfully represent the reasoning of each group.
    Discussions were intentionally not recorded (Section 3.5), so the reconstruction of back-engineered questions cannot be checked against a primary record.
  • domain assumption Ordinal risk labels can be averaged as interval numbers.
    Section 3.4 maps low=1, medium=3, unacceptable=5 and reports means and standard deviations in Table 2, treating ordered categories as numeric intervals.
  • domain assumption The recruited sample supports general statements about how stakeholders assess AI policing use cases.
    Participants were recruited largely through PRAP team networks, and the paper itself notes the sample is unlikely to be representative of the broader police workforce or the public (Section 3.5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Negotiating Risk Boundaries in AI for Policing Through Mixed-Stakeholder Deliberation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JVESGSMZ

@misc{pith2026260805418,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Negotiating Risk Boundaries in AI for Policing Through Mixed-Stakeholder Deliberation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JVESGSMZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05418}
}
read the original abstract

AI tools are being increasingly adopted in policing in the UK and worldwide. Racial bias is a known and well-documented risk, yet representatives of affected communities are rarely included in decisions about AI adoption. We present results from a mixed-stakeholder deliberation workshop bringing together 30 community representatives, police officers, and academics to assess the risks of 13 AI use cases in policing, with an explicit focus on racial bias. We found that participants were broadly open to AI adoption, rejecting only three use cases outright, most notably recidivism risk assessment, where objections targeted the premise rather than the implementation. Our analysis reveals that foregrounding racial equity did not narrow the deliberation. Instead, discussions gravitated toward a fundamental set of questions: does this tool actually work, will it deliver genuine benefit, and will that benefit extend to everyone? This integrated reasoning, reminiscent of the curb-cut effect in inclusive design, highlights the benefit of incorporating the racial bias lens into the risk-benefit analysis of AI use cases from the outset.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

266 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022 , url =

    Police. 2022 , url =

    2022

  2. [2]

    Muir, RICK and O'Connell, FELICITY , title =

  3. [3]

    Buolamwini, Joy and Gebru, Timnit , booktitle =. Gender. 2018 , editor =

    2018

  4. [4]

    [REF NEEDED: full title of 2024 Home Office facial recognition report] , institution =

    2024

  5. [5]

    [REF NEEDED: full title of 2025 Home Office LFR guidance] , institution =

    2025

  6. [6]

    [REF NEEDED: full title of 2022 College of Policing LFR guidance] , institution =

    2022

  7. [7]

    Mansfield, [First name -- REF NEEDED] , title =

  8. [8]

    and Barter, M

    Adams, Ian T. and Barter, M. and McLean, K. and Boehme, H. M. and. No. Journal of Experimental Criminology , pages =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

Show all 266 references
  1. [9]

    Boehme, H. M. and Adams, Ian T. and Barter, M. and Geary, I. A. and McLean, K. , journal =. Writing at the. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  2. [10]

    Hunt, Priscillia and Saunders, Jessica and Hollywood, John S. , year=. Evaluation of the

  3. [11]

    Annual Review of Criminology , volume=

    Artificial Intelligence, Predictive Policing, and Risk Assessment for Law Enforcement , author=. Annual Review of Criminology , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  4. [12]

    and Neville, Scott and Scheidegger, Carlos and Venkatasubramanian, Suresh , booktitle =

    Ensign, Danielle and Friedler, Sorelle A. and Neville, Scott and Scheidegger, Carlos and Venkatasubramanian, Suresh , booktitle =. Runaway. 2018 , volume =

    2018

  5. [13]

    Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages=

    Machine learning and the meaning of equal treatment , author=. Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages=

    2021

  6. [14]

    Lum, Kristian and Isaac, William , journal =. To. 2016 , volume =

    2016

  7. [15]

    Mohler, G. O. and Short, M. B. and Malinowski, Sean and Johnson, Mark and Tita, G. E. and Bertozzi, Andrea L. and Brantingham, P. J. , journal =. Randomized. 2015 , volume =

    2015

  8. [16]

    and Turchan, Brandon S

    Braga, Anthony A. and Turchan, Brandon S. and Papachristos, Andrew V. and Hureau, David M. , journal =. Hot. 2019 , volume =

    2019

  9. [17]

    Taylor, Alexander and Boyle, Adrian and Sutherland, Alex and Giacomantonio, Chris , journal =. Using. 2016 , volume =

    2016

  10. [18]

    optimal routing paper] , author =

    [REF NEEDED: full title of Chen et al. optimal routing paper] , author =. [REF NEEDED] , year =

  11. [19]

    Zilka, Miri and Fogliato, Riccardo and Hron, Jiri and Butcher, Bradley and Ashurst, Carolyn and Weller, Adrian , booktitle =. The. 2023 , publisher =

    2023

  12. [20]

    , journal =

    Harcourt, Bernard E. , journal =. Risk as a. 2010 , note =

    2010

  13. [21]

    2016 , howpublished =

    Angwin, Julia and Larson, Jeff and Mattu, Surya and Kirchner, Lauren , title =. 2016 , howpublished =

    2016

  14. [22]

    Fairness in

    Berk, Richard and Heidari, Hoda and Jabbari, Shahin and Kearns, Michael and Roth, Aaron , journal =. Fairness in. 2021 , volume =. doi:10.1177/0049124118782533 , note =

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    , journal =

    Oswald, Marion and Grace, Jamie and Urwin, Sheena and Barnes, Geoffrey C. , journal =. Algorithmic. 2018 , volume =

    2018

  16. [24]

    Forecasting

    Berk, Richard and Sherman, Lawrence and Barnes, Geoffrey and Kurtz, Ellen and Ahlman, Lindsay , journal =. Forecasting. 2009 , volume =

    2009

  17. [25]

    and Sorenson, Susan B

    Berk, Richard A. and Sorenson, Susan B. and Barnes, Geoffrey , journal =. Forecasting. 2016 , volume =

    2016

  18. [26]

    , year =

    Stabile, Carol A. , year =. White

  19. [27]

    Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    Are we asking the right questions?: Designing for community stakeholders’ interactions with ai in policing , author=. Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    2024

  20. [28]

    Evidence of What, for Whom?

    Ziosi, Marta and Pruss, Dasha , booktitle=. Evidence of What, for Whom?. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  21. [29]

    Intelligent Video Event Analysis and Understanding , editor=

    Real-Time Face Recognition from Surveillance Video , author=. Intelligent Video Event Analysis and Understanding , editor=. 2010 , publisher=. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17554-1_8 , url=

    2010 doi

  22. [30]

    2021 , howpublished =

    Sankin, Aaron and Mehrotra, Dhruv and Mattu, Surya and Gilbertson, Annie , title =. 2021 , howpublished =

    2021

  23. [31]

    Labedzka, Pola Zuzanna and Peters, Dorian and Dudley, John J and Zilka, Miri , booktitle =. Human-. 2026 , doi =

    2026

  24. [32]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    On component interactions in two-stage recommender systems , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  25. [33]

    Statistical Science , volume=

    Game-theoretic statistics and safe anytime-valid inference , author=. Statistical Science , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  26. [34]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=

    Evaluating language models for mathematics through interactions , author=. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  27. [35]

    Gao, Ruijiang and Saar-Tsechansky, Maytal and De-Arteaga, Maria and Han, Ligong and Lee, Min Kyung and Lease, Matthew , journal=. Human-

  28. [36]

    Waltersdorfer, Laura and Ekaputra, Fajar J and Miksa, Tomasz and Sabou, Marta , journal=

  29. [37]

    Bridging the gap between ethics and practice: Guidelines for reliable, safe, and trustworthy human-centered

    Shneiderman, Ben , journal=. Bridging the gap between ethics and practice: Guidelines for reliable, safe, and trustworthy human-centered. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  30. [38]

    Closing the

    Raji, Inioluwa Deborah and Smart, Andrew and White, Rebecca N and Mitchell, Margaret and Gebru, Timnit and Hutchinson, Ben and Smith-Loud, Jamila and Theron, Daniel and Barnes, Parker , booktitle=. Closing the

  31. [39]

    2023 , publisher=

    Setting Standards: From Defining Fundamentals to Building a Process , author=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  32. [40]

    2024 , howpublished=

    Summary: Accuracy and Equitability Evaluation of. 2024 , howpublished=

    2024

  33. [41]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume=

    Problematic machine behavior: A systematic literature review of algorithm audits , author=. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  34. [42]

    Continuous auditing and monitoring in

    Minkkinen, Matti and Mällo, Tanel and Haapio, Helen and Kuusisto, Jari and Mikkonen, Tommi and Mustonen, Riitta and Mäntyniemi, Martta and Nieminen, Marko and Rantala, Maria and Toivanen, Jarno and Utter, Christian , journal=. Continuous auditing and monitoring in

  35. [43]

    Ojewale, Victor and Steed, Ryan and Vecchione, Briana and Birhane, Abeba and Raji, Inioluwa Deborah , journal=. Towards

  36. [44]

    Brussels: European Commission , year=

    Policy and investment recommendations for trustworthy. Brussels: European Commission , year=

  37. [45]

    Paris: UNESCO , year=

    Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence , author=. Paris: UNESCO , year=

  38. [46]

    Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem , author=. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    2022

  39. [47]

    Ayling, Jacqueline and Chapman, Anna , journal=

  40. [48]

    The Operationalization Gap: The Challenges of Translating

    Guha, Neel and Rajkumar, Nitarshan and Meegama, Ryan and Hong, Joshua and Rakova, Bogdana and Cohen, Tobias J and Kohli, Pushmeet , booktitle=. The Operationalization Gap: The Challenges of Translating

  41. [49]

    2023 , publisher=

    Pouget, Mathieu , journal=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  42. [50]

    Toward trustworthy

    Brundage, Miles and Avin, Shahar and Wang, Jasmine and Belfield, Haydn and Krueger, Gretchen and Hadfield, Gillian and Khlaaf, Heidy and Yang, Jingying and Toner, Helen and Fong, Ruth and others , journal=. Toward trustworthy

  43. [51]

    2023 , institution=

    Facial Recognition Technology Equitability Study , author=. 2023 , institution=

    2023

  44. [52]

    2025 , howpublished=

    Metropolitan Police facial recognition finds only wanted people on lists , author=. 2025 , howpublished=

    2025

  45. [53]

    Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    Reviewable automated decision-making: A framework for accountable algorithmic systems , author=. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    2021

  46. [54]

    Actionable auditing: Investigating the impact of publicly naming biased performance results of commercial

    Raji, Inioluwa Deborah and Buolamwini, Joy , booktitle=. Actionable auditing: Investigating the impact of publicly naming biased performance results of commercial

  47. [55]

    Goodman, Ellen P and Trehu, Julia , journal=

  48. [56]

    Lessons for Human-Centered

    Sloane, Mona and Lee, Michelle Seng Ah , journal=. Lessons for Human-Centered

  49. [57]

    Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Software Fairness (FairWare) , pages=

    Audit from above: Developing a public-driven approach to algorithmic auditing , author=. Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Software Fairness (FairWare) , pages=. 2023 , organization=

    2023

  50. [58]

    Government Information Quarterly , volume=

    A participatory modeling framework for algorithmic accountability and transparency , author=. Government Information Quarterly , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  51. [59]

    The challenges of auditing

    Brown, Tom B and Mielke, David and Fisher, David D and Schulman, John and Olah, Chris and others , journal=. The challenges of auditing

  52. [60]

    2024 , journal=

    Regulation (. 2024 , journal=

    2024

  53. [61]

    2024 , month=

    Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (. 2024 , month=

    2024

  54. [62]

    2024 , howpublished=

    Response: Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard --- Policing , author=. 2024 , howpublished=

    2024

  55. [63]

    Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    A sociotechnical audit: assessing police use of facial recognition , author=. Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    2023

  56. [64]

    2026 , month=

    Live Facial Recognition: Accuracy, Watchlists, and Deterrence , author=. 2026 , month=

    2026

  57. [65]

    Ecological

    Bengio, Yoshua and Ramaswamy, Suresh and Walters, Ira and Kalmbach, Kris and Li, Kailing and Souli. Ecological. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05310 , year=

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05626 , year=

    Failing to Document: An Analysis of OpenAI's and Anthropic's Model Documentation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05626 , year=

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    A Case for Civic Participation in

    Sanders, Robert , journal=. A Case for Civic Participation in. 2023 , organization=

    2023

  60. [68]

    McGregor, Margaret and Watson, Danielle and Chisholm, Malcolm , journal=

  61. [69]

    ACM/JMS Journal of Data Science , volume=

    Anytime-valid off-policy inference for contextual bandits , author=. ACM/JMS Journal of Data Science , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  62. [70]

    Algorithmic Accountability for the Public Sector , year =

  63. [71]

    , note =

    Amnesty International , title =. , note =

  64. [72]

    2019 , publisher=

    Fairness and machine learning: Limitations and opportunities , author=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  65. [73]

    2019 , publisher=

    Data science for local government , author=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  66. [74]

    New Pythias of public administration: Ambiguity and choice in

    Filgueiras, Fernando , journal=. New Pythias of public administration: Ambiguity and choice in. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  67. [75]

    Fordham Urb

    Coding over the cracks: Predictive analytics and child protection , author=. Fordham Urb. LJ , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  68. [76]

    ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '24) , year=

    Failing Our Youngest: On the Biases, Pitfalls, and Risks in a Decision Support Algorithm Used for Child Protection , author=. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '24) , year=

  69. [77]

    Nordic Social Work Research , pages=

    Three roads to Rome? Comparative policy analysis of predictive tools in child protection services in Aotearoa New Zealand, England, & Denmark , author=. Nordic Social Work Research , pages=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  70. [78]

    Big Data & Society , volume=

    Making sense of decision support systems: Rationales, translations and potentials for critical reflections on the reality of child protection , author=. Big Data & Society , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  71. [79]

    2019 , publisher=

    Kankanhalli, Atreyi and Charalabidis, Yannis and Mellouli, Sehl , journal=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  72. [80]

    Review into bias in algorithmic decision-making , author=

  73. [81]

    The Alan Turing Institute , year=

    Artificial intelligence, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law , author=. The Alan Turing Institute , year=

  74. [82]

    Big data and

    Pencheva, Irina and Esteve, Marc and Mikhaylov, Slava Jankin , journal=. Big data and. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  75. [83]

    Defining and Demystifying Automated Decision Systems , author=. Md. L. Rev. , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  76. [84]

    Transparency, Governance and Regulation of Algorithmic Tools Deployed in the Criminal Justice System: a

    Zilka, Miri and Sargeant, Holli and Weller, Adrian , journal=. Transparency, Governance and Regulation of Algorithmic Tools Deployed in the Criminal Justice System: a

  77. [85]

    International conference on machine learning , pages=

    Consistent estimators for learning to defer to an expert , author=. International conference on machine learning , pages=. 2020 , organization=

    2020

  78. [86]

    2024 , eprint=

    Online Decision Deferral under Budget Constraints , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  79. [87]

    What is Race in Algorithmic Discrimination on the Basis of Race? , author=

  80. [88]

    Northwestern University Law Review , year=

    Eddie Murphy and the Dangers of Counterfactual Causal Thinking About Detecting Racial Discrimination , author=. Northwestern University Law Review , year=

  81. [89]

    Computer Law & Security Review , volume=

    Why fairness cannot be automated: Bridging the gap between EU non-discrimination law and AI , author=. Computer Law & Security Review , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  82. [90]

    Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization , pages=

    A framework for understanding sources of harm throughout the machine learning life cycle , author=. Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization , pages=

  83. [91]

    International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=

    Residual unfairness in fair machine learning from prejudiced data , author=. International Conference on Machine Learning , pages=. 2018 , organization=

    2018

  84. [92]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.00023 , year=

    The measure and mismeasure of fairness: A critical review of fair machine learning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.00023 , year=

    arXiv

  85. [93]

    Communications of the ACM , volume=

    A snapshot of the frontiers of fairness in machine learning , author=. Communications of the ACM , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  86. [94]

    Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    Fairness is not static: deeper understanding of long term fairness via simulation studies , author=. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    2020

  87. [95]

    Sociological Methods & Research , pages=

    Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: The state of the art , author=. Sociological Methods & Research , pages=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  88. [96]

    Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence , pages=

    The sensitivity of counterfactual fairness to unmeasured confounding , author=. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence , pages=. 2020 , organization=

    2020

  89. [97]

    Artificial Intelligence and Law , volume=

    Using sensitive personal data may be necessary for avoiding discrimination in data-driven decision models , author=. Artificial Intelligence and Law , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  90. [98]

    Information, Communication & Society , volume=

    Where fairness fails: data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse , author=. Information, Communication & Society , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  91. [99]

    Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency , pages=

    Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems , author=. Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency , pages=

  92. [100]

    Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    Problem formulation and fairness , author=. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

  93. [101]

    Yale LJ , volume=

    Bias in, bias out , author=. Yale LJ , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  94. [102]

    Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    Toward situated interventions for algorithmic equity: lessons from the field , author=. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages=

    2020

  95. [103]

    Journal of Design and Science , year=

    Design justice, AI, and escape from the matrix of domination , author=. Journal of Design and Science , year=

  96. [104]

    Big Data & Society , volume=

    Municipal surveillance regulation and algorithmic accountability , author=. Big Data & Society , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  97. [105]

    Proceedings of the

    Transportability of causal and statistical relations: A formal approach , author=. Proceedings of the

  98. [106]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Domain adaptation by using causal inference to predict invariant conditional distributions , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  99. [107]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=

    Causal inference and the data-fusion problem , author=. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  100. [108]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06701 , year=

    Learning personalized decision support policies , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06701 , year=

    arXiv

  101. [109]

    IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , volume=

    Multi-objective contextual multi-armed bandit with a dominant objective , author=. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  102. [110]

    International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages=

    Multi-objective contextual bandit problem with similarity information , author=. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages=. 2018 , organization=

    2018

  103. [111]

    Doubly robust policy evaluation and learning , year =

    Dud\'. Doubly robust policy evaluation and learning , year =

  104. [112]

    Econometrica , volume=

    Policy learning with observational data , author=. Econometrica , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  105. [113]

    Behavior & Law Journal , volume=

    Integral monitoring system in cases of gender violence VioG. Behavior & Law Journal , volume=

  106. [114]

    Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization , pages=

    Exploring Police Perspectives on Algorithmic Transparency: A Qualitative Analysis of Police Interviews in the UK , author=. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization , pages=

  107. [115]

    ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (FAccT) , year=

    Beyond Use-Cases: A Participatory Approach to Envisioning Data Science in Law Enforcement , author=. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (FAccT) , year=

  108. [116]

    ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO) , year=

    Media Coverage of Predictive Policing: Bias, Police Engagement, and the Future of Transparency , author=. ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO) , year=

  109. [117]

    ACM Conference on AI, Ethics and Society (AIES) , year=

    Protecting Children from Online Exploitation: Can a trained model detect harmful communication strategies? , author=. ACM Conference on AI, Ethics and Society (AIES) , year=

  110. [118]

    2023 , url =

    Covenant for Using Artificial Intelligence(AI) in Policing , month =. 2023 , url =

    2023

  111. [119]

    Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year=

    A Survey and Datasheet Repository of Publicly Available US Criminal Justice Datasets , author=. Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year=

  112. [120]

    ACM Conference on AI, Ethics and Society (AIES) , year=

    Transparency, Governance and Regulation of Algorithmic Tools Deployed in the Criminal Justice System: a UK Case Study , author=. ACM Conference on AI, Ethics and Society (AIES) , year=

  113. [121]

    ACM Conference on AI, Ethics and Society (AIES) , year=

    Racial Disparities in the Enforcement of Marijuana Violations in the US , author=. ACM Conference on AI, Ethics and Society (AIES) , year=

  114. [122]

    ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO) , year=

    An Algorithmic Framework for Positive Action , author=. ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO) , year=

  115. [123]

    The Journal of Machine Learning Research , volume=

    The measure and mismeasure of fairness , author=. The Journal of Machine Learning Research , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  116. [124]

    Interspeech , year=

    A Psychology-Driven Computational Analysis of Political Interviews , author=. Interspeech , year=

  117. [125]

    Ayse G Yasar and Amanda Chong and Eric Dong and Thomas K Gilbert and Sona Hladikova and Raffaella Maio and Chloe Mougan and Xiaofan Shen and Sasha Singh and Andra Stoica and Sofia Thais and Miri Zilka , booktitle=

  118. [126]

    NeurIPS Workshop on Human in the Loop Learning , year=

    Conformal Prediction for Resource Prioritisation in Predicting Rare and Dangerous Outcomes , author=. NeurIPS Workshop on Human in the Loop Learning , year=

  119. [127]

    ACM conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO) , year=

    Differential Enforcement and the Progression of Disparities within the Criminal Justice System , author=. ACM conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO) , year=

  120. [128]

    ACM conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO) , year=

    Racial Disparities in Arrests for Drug Violations in the US: What Can We Learn from Publicly Available Data? , author=. ACM conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO) , year=

  121. [129]

    ICML Workshop on Human-Machine Collaboration and Teaming , year=

    A Framework for Human-in-the-Loop High-Precision Information Extraction from Text Documents , author=. ICML Workshop on Human-Machine Collaboration and Teaming , year=

  122. [130]

    Reimagining

    Katie Wassall and Carolyn Ashurst and Jiri Hron and Miri Zilka , year=. Reimagining. 2407.10244 , archivePrefix=

    arXiv

  123. [131]

    Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages=

    Multi-armed bandit problems with history , author=. Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages=. 2012 , organization=

    2012

  124. [132]

    Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence , pages=

    Bandits with partially observable confounded data , author=. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence , pages=. 2021 , organization=

    2021

  125. [134]

    Vera and Bellamy, Rachel K

    Zhang, Yunfeng and Liao, Q. Vera and Bellamy, Rachel K. E. , title =. 2020 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3351095.3372852 , booktitle =

    2020

  126. [135]

    Workshop Report , year=

    Bridging Prediction and Intervention Problems in Social Systems , author=. Workshop Report , year=

  127. [136]

    Birhane, Abeba and Steed, Ryan and Vecchione, Briana and Raji, Inioluwa Deborah and Ojewale, Victor , journal=

  128. [137]

    Workshop on Bridging Prediction and Intervention Problems in Social Systems , year=

    The Relative Value of Prediction in Algorithmic Decision Making , author=. Workshop on Bridging Prediction and Intervention Problems in Social Systems , year=

  129. [138]

    Workshop on Bridging Prediction and Intervention Problems in Social Systems , year=

    Social Mechanisms of Performative Prediction , author=. Workshop on Bridging Prediction and Intervention Problems in Social Systems , year=

  130. [139]

    Workshop on Bridging Prediction and Intervention Problems in Social Systems , year=

    Regulatory challenges for algorithmic fair lending , author=. Workshop on Bridging Prediction and Intervention Problems in Social Systems , year=

  131. [140]

    arXiv preprint , year=

    On the Legal Compatibility of Fairness Definitions , author=. arXiv preprint , year=

  132. [141]

    Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , year=

    Toward Algorithmic Accountability in Public Services: A Qualitative Study of Affected Community Perspectives on Algorithmic Decision-making in Child Welfare Services , author=. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , year=

    2019

  133. [142]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research , volume=

    A comprehensive survey on safe reinforcement learning , author=. Journal of Machine Learning Research , volume=

  134. [143]

    Management Science , volume=

    Mostly exploration-free algorithms for contextual bandits , author=. Management Science , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  135. [144]

    2018 , publisher =

    Kannan, Sampath and Morgenstern, Jamie and Roth, Aaron and Waggoner, Bo and Wu, Zhiwei Steven , title =. 2018 , publisher =

    2018

  136. [145]

    A survey on

    Cambria, Erik and Malandri, Lorenzo and Mercorio, Fabio and Mezzanzanica, Mario and Nobani, Navid , journal=. A survey on. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  137. [146]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.10596 , volume=

    Counterfactual explanations for machine learning: A review , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.10596 , volume=

    2010 arXiv

  138. [147]

    ACM Journal on Responsible Computing , volume=

    Against predictive optimization: On the legitimacy of decision-making algorithms that optimize predictive accuracy , author=. ACM Journal on Responsible Computing , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  139. [148]

    Optimizing human-

    Eisbach, Simon and Langer, Markus and Hertel, Guido , journal=. Optimizing human-. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  140. [149]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Pessimism for Offline Linear Contextual Bandits using _p Confidence Sets , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  141. [150]

    Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine learning , pages=

    Apprenticeship learning via inverse reinforcement learning , author=. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine learning , pages=

  142. [151]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  143. [152]

    Human factors , volume=

    Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration , author=. Human factors , volume=. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  144. [153]

    On the utility of learning about humans for human-

    Carroll, Micah and Shah, Rohin and Ho, Mark K and Griffiths, Tom and Seshia, Sanjit and Abbeel, Pieter and Dragan, Anca , journal=. On the utility of learning about humans for human-

  145. [154]

    International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages=

    A bandit model for human-machine decision making with private information and opacity , author=. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages=. 2022 , organization=

    2022

  146. [155]

    2020 , publisher=

    Bandit algorithms , author=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  147. [156]

    NPJ digital medicine , volume=

    An overview of clinical decision support systems: benefits, risks, and strategies for success , author=. NPJ digital medicine , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  148. [157]

    Journal of medical Internet research , volume=

    Reinforcement learning for clinical decision support in critical care: comprehensive review , author=. Journal of medical Internet research , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  149. [158]

    Limitations and loopholes in the

    Wachter, Sandra , journal=. Limitations and loopholes in the. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  150. [159]

    2015 , publisher=

    Causal inference in statistics, social, and biomedical sciences , author=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  151. [160]

    Is pessimism provably efficient for offline

    Jin, Ying and Yang, Zhuoran and Wang, Zhaoran , booktitle=. Is pessimism provably efficient for offline. 2021 , organization=

    2021

  152. [161]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Conservative contextual linear bandits , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  153. [162]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Linear stochastic bandits under safety constraints , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  154. [163]

    Hemmer, Patrick and Schemmer, Max and V. Human-. PACIS , pages=

  155. [164]

    2016 , publisher=

    Recommender systems , author=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  156. [165]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.01770 , year=

    What's sex got to do with fair machine learning? , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.01770 , year=

    2006 arXiv

  157. [166]

    New Data Shows It Perpetuates Them , author=

    Crime Prediction Software Promised to Be Free of Biases. New Data Shows It Perpetuates Them , author=. The Markup , volume=

  158. [167]

    IBM Journal of Research and Development , volume=

    Bellamy, Rachel KE and Dey, Kuntal and Hind, Michael and Hoffman, Samuel C and Houde, Stephanie and Kannan, Kalapriya and Lohia, Pranay and Martino, Jacquelyn and Mehta, Sameep and Mojsilovi. IBM Journal of Research and Development , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  159. [168]

    The quarterly journal of economics , volume=

    Human decisions and machine predictions , author=. The quarterly journal of economics , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  160. [169]

    The Annals of Applied Statistics , volume=

    Estimating the likelihood of arrest from police records in presence of unreported crimes , author=. The Annals of Applied Statistics , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  161. [170]

    2019 , publisher=

    Fairness and Machine Learning , author=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  162. [171]

    Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference , pages=

    Fairness through awareness , author=. Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference , pages=

  163. [172]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages=

    Avoiding discrimination through causal reasoning , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages=

  164. [173]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages=

    Counterfactual fairness , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages=

  165. [174]

    Common Market Law Review , volume=

    Exploring the boundaries of positive action under EU law: A search for conceptual clarity , author=. Common Market Law Review , volume=

  166. [175]

    Ayling, Jacqui and Chapman, Adriane , journal=. Putting. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  167. [176]

    Auditing of

    M. Auditing of. Digital Society , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  168. [177]

    EU Law Enforcement , year=

    The Dutch benefits scandal: a cautionary tale for algorithmic enforcement , author=. EU Law Enforcement , year=

  169. [178]

    The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

    Unprocessing Seven Years of Algorithmic Fairness , author=. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

  170. [179]

    ACM computing surveys (CSUR) , volume=

    A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning , author=. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  171. [180]

    Leslie, David and Rincon, Cami and Briggs, Morgan and Perini, Antonella and Jayadeva, Smera and Borda, Ann and Bennett, SJ and Burr, Christopher and Aitken, Mhairi and Katell, Michael and others , journal=

  172. [181]

    2019 , isbn =

    Green, Ben and Chen, Yiling , title =. 2019 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3287560.3287563 , booktitle =

    2019

  173. [182]

    Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization , pages=

    Media coverage of predictive policing: Bias, police engagement, and the future of transparency , author=. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization , pages=

  174. [183]

    NPJ Digital Medicine , volume=

    A value-based deep reinforcement learning model with human expertise in optimal treatment of sepsis , author=. NPJ Digital Medicine , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  175. [184]

    Cities , volume=

    Artificial intelligence and the local government: A five-decade scientometric analysis on the evolution, state-of-the-art, and emerging trends , author=. Cities , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  176. [185]

    SIAM journal on computing , volume=

    The nonstochastic multiarmed bandit problem , author=. SIAM journal on computing , volume=. 2002 , publisher=

    2002

  177. [186]

    Human in the Loop Learning Workshop at NeurIPS 2022 , year =

    Babbar, Varun and Bhatt, Umang and Zilka, Miri and Weller, Adrian , title =. Human in the Loop Learning Workshop at NeurIPS 2022 , year =

    2022

  178. [187]

    Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization , pages=

    Is Your Model Predicting the Past? , author=. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization , pages=

  179. [188]

    Then Her Husband Killed Her

    An Algorithm Told Police She Was Safe. Then Her Husband Killed Her. , author=. The New York Times , year=

  180. [189]

    2024 , note =

    £1.8 billion benefits through public sector productivity drive , howpublished =. 2024 , note =

    2024

  181. [190]

    Computers in Human Behavior , volume=

    Trust and reliance on AI—An experimental study on the extent and costs of overreliance on AI , author=. Computers in Human Behavior , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  182. [191]

    Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , pages=

    Appropriate reliance on AI advice: Conceptualization and the effect of explanations , author=. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , pages=

  183. [192]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction , volume=

    To trust or to think: cognitive forcing functions can reduce overreliance on AI in AI-assisted decision-making , author=. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  184. [193]

    Does the whole exceed its parts?

    Bansal, Gagan and Wu, Tongshuang and Zhou, Joyce and Fok, Raymond and Nushi, Besmira and Kamar, Ece and Ribeiro, Marco Tulio and Weld, Daniel , booktitle=. Does the whole exceed its parts?

  185. [194]

    Justice Evaluation Journal , volume=

    The effectiveness of big data-driven predictive policing: Systematic review , author=. Justice Evaluation Journal , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  186. [195]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1798 , year=

    Using regression kernels to forecast a failure to appear in court , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1798 , year=

    arXiv

  187. [196]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society , volume=

    Forks over knives: Predictive inconsistency in criminal justice algorithmic risk assessment tools , author=. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  188. [197]

    2025 , howpublished=

    AI to help police catch criminals before they strike , author=. 2025 , howpublished=

    2025

  189. [198]

    Translational psychiatry , volume=

    How machine-learning recommendations influence clinician treatment selections: the example of antidepressant selection , author=. Translational psychiatry , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  190. [199]

    I think i get your point,

    Chromik, Michael and Eiband, Malin and Buchner, Felicitas and Kr. I think i get your point,. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , pages=

  191. [200]

    Explanations can reduce overreliance on

    Vasconcelos, Helena and J. Explanations can reduce overreliance on. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  192. [201]

    International Journal of Missing Persons , volume=

    Racial bias in risk allocation and resource utilisation: A contributing factor to ethnic minority overrepresentation in missing person investigations? , author=. International Journal of Missing Persons , volume=

  193. [202]

    Behavioral Sciences , volume=

    Disproportion and decision: Ethnic minority overrepresentation and police risk assessment in missing persons cases , author=. Behavioral Sciences , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  194. [203]

    West Midlands police chief apologises after AI error used to justify Maccabi Tel Aviv Ban , url=

    Gohil, Neha , year=. West Midlands police chief apologises after AI error used to justify Maccabi Tel Aviv Ban , url=. The Guardian , publisher=

  195. [204]

    ACM Journal on Responsible Computing , volume=

    Optimising Human-Machine Collaboration for Efficient High-Precision Information Extraction from Text Documents , author=. ACM Journal on Responsible Computing , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  196. [205]

    In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26) , year =

    Human-AI Interaction for Time-Critical Sensemaking in Missing Persons Investigations , author =. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26) , year =

    2026

  197. [206]

    World conference on explainable artificial intelligence , pages=

    Explanations considered harmful: the impact of misleading explanations on accuracy in hybrid human-ai decision making , author=. World conference on explainable artificial intelligence , pages=. 2024 , organization=

    2024

  198. [207]

    ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems , volume=

    Reassuring, misleading, debunking: Comparing effects of XAI methods on human decisions , author=. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  199. [208]

    Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    What is User Engagement?: A Systematic Review of 241 Research Articles in Human-Computer Interaction and Beyond , author=. Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    2025

  200. [209]

    Jin, Y., Cardoso, B

    How do different levels of user control affect cognitive load and acceptance of recommendations? , author=. Jin, Y., Cardoso, B. and Verbert, K., 2017, August. How do different levels of user control affect cognitive load and acceptance of recommendations?. In Proceedings of t...

    2017

  201. [210]

    , author=

    Procedural skill retention and decay: A meta-analytic review. , author=. Psychological Bulletin , year=

  202. [211]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10036 , year=

    Automation Bias in the AI Act: On the Legal Implications of Attempting to De-Bias Human Oversight of AI , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10036 , year=

  203. [212]

    American Economic Journal: Economic Policy , volume=

    Algorithmic risk assessment in the hands of humans , author=. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  204. [213]

    Nature Human Behaviour , volume=

    When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis , author=. Nature Human Behaviour , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  205. [214]

    ACM Journal on Responsible Computing , volume=

    A systematic review on fostering appropriate trust in Human-AI interaction: Trends, opportunities and challenges , author=. ACM Journal on Responsible Computing , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  206. [215]

    Frontiers in Computer Science , volume=

    Human-AI collaboration is not very collaborative yet: a taxonomy of interaction patterns in AI-assisted decision making from a systematic review , author=. Frontiers in Computer Science , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  207. [216]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume=

    Understanding the effect of out-of-distribution examples and interactive explanations on human-ai decision making , author=. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  208. [217]

    Policy initiatives for Artificial Intelligence-enabled government: An analysis of national strategies in

    van Noordt, Colin and Medaglia, Rony and Tangi, Luca , journal=. Policy initiatives for Artificial Intelligence-enabled government: An analysis of national strategies in. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  209. [218]

    Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    Improving human-AI partnerships in child welfare: understanding worker practices, challenges, and desires for algorithmic decision support , author=. Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    2022

  210. [219]

    Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

  211. [220]

    2024 , howpublished =

    DWP algorithm wrongly flags 200,000 people for possible fraud and error , author =. 2024 , howpublished =

    2024

  212. [221]

    2025 , howpublished =

    High court tells UK lawyers to stop misuse of AI after fake case-law citations , author =. 2025 , howpublished =

    2025

  213. [222]

    Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , volume=

    Artificial intelligence suppression as a strategy to mitigate artificial intelligence automation bias , author=. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  214. [223]

    International Journal of Human--Computer Interaction , pages=

    Impact of explainable AI on trust evolution with AI error severity: Comparing similar instances and saliency map in a baggage screening task , author=. International Journal of Human--Computer Interaction , pages=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  215. [224]

    To err is AI! Debugging as an intervention to facilitate appropriate reliance on

    He, Gaole and Bharos, Abri and Gadiraju, Ujwal , booktitle=. To err is AI! Debugging as an intervention to facilitate appropriate reliance on

  216. [225]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume=

    Toward supporting perceptual complementarity in human-AI collaboration via reflection on unobservables , author=. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  217. [226]

    Electronic Markets , volume=

    Explainable AI for online disinformation detection: Insights from a design science research project , author=. Electronic Markets , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  218. [227]

    International journal of human-computer studies , pages=

    Uncovering the dynamics of human-AI hybrid performance: A qualitative meta-analysis of empirical studies , author=. International journal of human-computer studies , pages=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  219. [228]

    International Journal of Human--Computer Interaction , pages=

    An Empirical Examination of the Evaluative AI Framework , author=. International Journal of Human--Computer Interaction , pages=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  220. [229]

    Proceedings of the 2023 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency , pages=

    Explainable ai is dead, long live explainable ai! hypothesis-driven decision support using evaluative ai , author=. Proceedings of the 2023 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency , pages=

    2023

  221. [230]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01292 , year=

    From Evidence to Decision: Exploring Evaluative AI , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01292 , year=

    arXiv

  222. [231]

    IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction , pages=

    From Explaining to Engaging: The Effect of Interactive AI Explanations on Citizens’ Fairness and Adoption Perceptions , author=. IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction , pages=. 2025 , organization=

    2025

  223. [232]

    Engaging Science, Technology, and Society (pre-print) , year=

    Moral crumple zones: Cautionary tales in human-robot interaction (pre-print) , author=. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society (pre-print) , year=

  224. [233]

    Minds and Machines , volume=

    Contestable AI by design: Towards a framework , author=. Minds and Machines , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  225. [234]

    intelligent

    The loopholes of algorithmic public services: An “intelligent” accountability research agenda , author=. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  226. [235]

    Sozialer Fortschritt , number=

    When a human says “no” to a computer: frontline oversight of the profiling algorithm in public employment services in Poland , author=. Sozialer Fortschritt , number=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  227. [236]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Utilizing human behavior modeling to manipulate explanations in AI-assisted decision making: the good, the bad, and the scary , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  228. [237]

    What now?': Navigating Shortcomings of Uncertainty Representations in Human-AI Collaboration with Capability-focused Guidance , author=

    'The AI is uncertain, so am I. What now?': Navigating Shortcomings of Uncertainty Representations in Human-AI Collaboration with Capability-focused Guidance , author=. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  229. [238]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.16627 , year=

    Engaging with AI: How interface design shapes human-ai collaboration in high-stakes decision-making , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.16627 , year=

    arXiv

  230. [239]

    Proceedings of the 30th international conference on intelligent user interfaces , pages=

    Exploring the design space of cognitive engagement techniques with ai-generated code for enhanced learning , author=. Proceedings of the 30th international conference on intelligent user interfaces , pages=

  231. [240]

    Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , volume=

    No Thoughts Just AI: Biased LLM Hiring Recommendations Alter Human Decision Making and Limit Human Autonomy , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , volume=

  232. [241]

    Proceedings of the 24th international conference on intelligent user interfaces , pages=

    Explaining models: an empirical study of how explanations impact fairness judgment , author=. Proceedings of the 24th international conference on intelligent user interfaces , pages=

  233. [242]

    Scientific Reports , year=

    Impacts of cognitive forcing and need for cognition on biased AI-assisted decision making about mental health emergencies , author=. Scientific Reports , year=

  234. [243]

    Bias preservation in machine learning: the legality of fairness metrics under EU non-discrimination law , author=. W. Va. L. Rev. , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  235. [244]

    Journal of Ethnicity in criminal JusticE , volume=

    A review of cultural and ethnic bias in investigative decision-making: selected cases , author=. Journal of Ethnicity in criminal JusticE , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  236. [245]

    Policing and Society , volume=

    (Cr) immigrant framing in border areas: decision-making processes of Dutch border police officers , author=. Policing and Society , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  237. [246]

    Proceedings of the 25th annual international conference on digital government research , pages=

    AI impact on health equity for marginalized, racial, and ethnic minorities , author=. Proceedings of the 25th annual international conference on digital government research , pages=

  238. [247]

    Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    The Bureaucratic Challenges of Unified Data: Examining Predictive Policing Technology Design Issues Posed by Federal and State US Criminal Legal System Data Sets , author=. Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

  239. [248]

    , editor =

    Moore, R. , editor =. A Compendium of Research and Analysis on the. 2015 , url =

    2015

  240. [249]

    Communications of the ACM , volume=

    Concerning the Responsible Use of AI in the US Criminal Justice System , author=. Communications of the ACM , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  241. [250]

    Remote AI weapons detection: Reversing stop and search to search and stop ?

    Temitope Lawal and Angela Paul and Marion Oswald and Alexandra Taylor. Remote AI weapons detection: Reversing stop and search to search and stop ?. Legal Studies. 2026. doi:10.1017/lst.2026.10127

    2026

  242. [251]

    2026 , month =

    Judgment Summary:. 2026 , month =

    2026

  243. [252]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.04116 , year=

    Mapping the Probabilistic AI Ecosystem in Criminal Justice in England and Wales , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.04116 , year=

  244. [253]

    2025 , url =

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) Playbook for Policing , institution =. 2025 , url =

    2025

  245. [254]

    , editor =

    Peters, Dorian and Calvo, Rafael A. , editor =. Self-Determination Theory and Technology Design , booktitle =. 2023 , month =. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197600047.013.49 , url =

    2023

  246. [255]

    ACM Computing Surveys , volume=

    A survey on recent advances in llm-based multi-turn dialogue systems , author=. ACM Computing Surveys , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  247. [256]

    Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology , pages=

    OnGoal: Tracking and Visualizing Conversational Goals in Multi-Turn Dialogue with Large Language Models , author=. Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology , pages=

  248. [257]

    2025 , url =

    Responsible. 2025 , url =

    2025

  249. [258]

    2025 , note =

    Data and. 2025 , note =

    2025

  250. [259]

    Reporting crime to the police, 1973--2005: a multivariate analysis of long-term trends in the

    Baumer, Eric P and Lauritsen, Janet L , journal=. Reporting crime to the police, 1973--2005: a multivariate analysis of long-term trends in the. 2010 , publisher=

    1973

  251. [260]

    Journal of Criminal Justice , volume=

    Reporting violence to the police: Predictors through the life course , author=. Journal of Criminal Justice , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  252. [261]

    Big Data & Society , volume=

    Datafication and the practice of intelligence production , author=. Big Data & Society , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  253. [262]

    The `uberization of policing'?

    Sandhu, Ajay and Fussey, Peter , journal=. The `uberization of policing'?. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  254. [263]

    Dirty data, bad predictions:

    Richardson, Rashida and Schultz, Jason M and Crawford, Kate , journal=. Dirty data, bad predictions:

  255. [264]

    American sociological review , volume=

    Big data surveillance: The case of policing , author=. American sociological review , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  256. [265]

    1942 , publisher=

    Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas , author=. 1942 , publisher=

    1942

  257. [266]

    Campbell Systematic Reviews , volume=

    Hot spots policing of small geographic areas effects on crime , author=. Campbell Systematic Reviews , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  258. [267]

    2025 , howpublished=

    Police Recruitment:. 2025 , howpublished=

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.