Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Challenging the Machine: Contestability in Government AI Systems

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 2406.10430 v1 pith:5HN4TULY submitted 2024-06-14 cs.CY cs.AI

classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords workshopmadesystemsadvancedagenciescontestabilitydecision-makinggovernment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

In an October 2023 executive order (EO), President Biden issued a detailed but largely aspirational road map for the safe and responsible development and use of artificial intelligence (AI). The challenge for the January 24-25, 2024 workshop was to transform those aspirations regarding one specific but crucial issue -- the ability of individuals to challenge government decisions made about themselves -- into actionable guidance enabling agencies to develop, procure, and use genuinely contestable advanced automated decision-making systems. While the Administration has taken important steps since the October 2023 EO, the insights garnered from our workshop remain highly relevant, as the requirements for contestability of advanced decision-making systems are not yet fully defined or implemented. The workshop brought together technologists, members of government agencies and civil society organizations, litigators, and researchers in an intensive two-day meeting that examined the challenges that users, developers, and agencies faced in enabling contestability in light of advanced automated decision-making systems. To ensure a free and open flow of discussion, the meeting was held under a modified version of the Chatham House rule. Participants were free to use any information or details that they learned, but they may not attribute any remarks made at the meeting by the identity or the affiliation of the speaker. Thus, the workshop summary that follows anonymizes speakers and their affiliation. Where an identification of an agency, company, or organization is made, it is done from a public, identified resource and does not necessarily reflect statements made by participants at the workshop. This document is a report of that workshop, along with recommendations and explanatory material.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. From Individual Experience to Collective Evidence: A Reporting-Based Framework for Identifying Systemic Harms

    cs.CY 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A sequential hypothesis test on incident reports can flag subgroups overrepresented relative to their population share, identifying known harms in vaccine and mortgage data early.

  2. Reality Check: A New Evaluation Ecosystem Is Necessary to Understand AI's Real World Effects

    cs.CY 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A position paper argues that understanding AI's second-order effects requires moving from static benchmarks to an ecosystem of field testing, red teaming, and contextual evaluation.

Pith tools