Authors : Saifuddin Shaik Mohammed

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 10 - October

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4mj653nd

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/33cf6w4t

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25oct919

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : Intelligent data analytics systems that operate without human intervention and are powered by AI are being progressively intertwined with the decision-making processes that have a significant impact in different sectors like healthcare, finance, and criminal justice. Though these systems, in theory, make the work more efficient and insightful, their mysterious character, the possibility of algorithmic bias, and the lack of clear modes of accountability, on the other hand, expose society not only to the ethical issues but also to the social ones of considerable magnitude. This work is about the paper, which addresses the necessity of governance systems capable of regulating the situation in such a way as to ensure the responsible use of technologies, not only in terms of their development but also in terms of their deployment. I will delve deeply into the problem of algorithmic accountability from different angles, including the issue of very difficult technical audit of “black box” models and the issue of societal challenge in rectifying systemic biases embedded in training data, among other things. I come up with a full-blown, multi-layered local government model of governing TEAG, or the Tiered Ethical AI Governance Framework, combining technical instruments with the purpose of bringing about transparency and bias alleviation, together with tight procedural and organizational supervision for support. Such a human, centered approach guarantees that the self, governing systems remain compatible with ethical norms, laws, and basic human values. The integration of technical, ethical, and legal safeguards in this project reflects a shift towards the creation of AI systems that, besides being courageous and effective, are also just, clear, and answerable to the communities they exist in a deep sense.

Keywords : Algorithmic Accountability, Ethical AI, Governance, Bias Mitigation, Explainable AI (XAI), Autonomous Systems, Data Analytics, Human-in-the-Loop, Responsible AI, Fairness Metrics, MLOps, Sociotechnical Systems.

References :

1. Shrestha, Y. R., & Ben-Menahem, S. M. (2019). The grand challenge of human-algorithm teaming for the future of work. Journal of Management, 45(4), 1334-1358.
2. Agrawal, A., Gans, J., & Goldfarb, A. (2018). Prediction Machines: The Simple Economics of Artificial Intelligence. Harvard Business Press.
3. McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2017). Machine, Platform, Crowd: Harnessing Our Digital Future. W. W. Norton & Company.
4. Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016). "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.
5. O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Crown.
6. Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé III, H., & Crawford, K. (2021). Datasheets for Datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12), 86-92.
7. Dastin, J. (2018). Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. Reuters.
8. Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology, 6(3), 175-183.
9. Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(5), 206-215.
10. Fuster, A., Goldsmith-Pinkham, P., Ramadorai, T., & Walther, A. (2022). Predictably Unequal? The Effects of Machine Learning on Credit Markets. The Journal of Finance, 77(1), 5-47.
11. Verma, S., & Rubin, J. (2018). Fairness definitions explained. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/FAT Conference*.
12. The European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act).
13. Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S. I. (2017). A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30.
14. Hardt, M., Price, E., & Srebro, N. (2016). Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29.
15. Fjeld, J., Achten, N., Hilligoss, H., Nagy, A., & Srikumar, M. (2020). Principled Artificial Intelligence: Mapping Consensus in Ethical and Rights-Based Approaches to Principles for AI. Berkman Klein Center Research Publication.
16. Ghassemi, M., Oakden-Abbott, J., & Ranganath, R. (2021). The false promise of armchair explanations. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(12), 1017-1019.
17. Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L., & Elhalal, A. (2020). From What to How: An Initial Review of Publicly Available AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate Principles into Practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 2141-2168.
18. HBR Analytic Services. (2020). AI Governance and Ethics: A Call to Action. Harvard Business Review.
19. Shneiderman, B. (2020). Human-Centered AI: Reliable, Safe & Trustworthy. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(6), 495-504.
20. Dwork, C., & Roth, A. (2014). The algorithmic foundations of differential privacy. Foundations and Trends® in Theoretical Computer Science, 9(3–4), 211-407.
21. Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Gessner, N., Barnes, P., Schelter, S., et al. (2019). Model Cards for Model Reporting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency.
22. Miguelañez, C. (2025, February 18). How to compare fairness metrics for model selection. Latitude Blog. https://latitude-blog.ghost.io/blog/how-to-compare-fairness-metrics-for-model-selection/
23. Jones, G. P., Hickey, J. M., Di Stefano, P. G., Dhanjal, C., Stoddart, L. C., & Vasileiou, V. (2020, October 8). Metrics and methods for a systematic comparison of fairness-aware machine learning algorithms. arXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.03986
24. Package ‘fairness’ july 22, 2025 title Algorithmic Fairness Metrics. (n.d.). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/fairness/fairness.pdf
25. Lcheng. (n.d.-a). https://lcheng.org/files/TAI_Fairness_chapter_2022.pdf
26. Castelnovo, A., Crupi, R., Greco, G., Regoli, D., Penco, I. G., & Cosentini, A. C. (2022, March 10). A clarification of the nuances in the fairness metrics landscape. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-07939-1
27. Arxiv. (n.d.-a). https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.03986.pdf
28. Saifuddin Shaik Mohammed. “A Decentralized Approach to Privacy-Preserving Data Analysis using Federated Learning.” Volume. 10 Issue.9, September-2025 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (IJISRT),2091-2096 https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25sep1145