Abstract:Automated decision-making systems are being increasingly deployed and affect the public in a multitude of positive and negative ways. Governmental and private institutions use these systems to process information according to certain human-devised rules in order to address social problems or organizational challenges. Both research and real-world experience indicate that the public lacks trust in automated decision-making systems and the institutions that deploy them. The recreancy theorem argues that the public is more likely to trust and support decisions made or influenced by automated decision-making systems if the institutions that administer them meet their fiduciary responsibility. However, often the public is never informed of how these systems operate and resultant institutional decisions are made. A ``black box'' effect of automated decision-making systems reduces the public's perceptions of integrity and trustworthiness. The result is that the public loses the capacity to identify, challenge, and rectify unfairness or the costs associated with the loss of public goods or benefits. The current position paper defines and explains the role of fiduciary responsibility within an automated decision-making system. We formulate an automated decision-making system as a data science lifecycle (DSL) and examine the implications of fiduciary responsibility within the context of the DSL. Fiduciary responsibility within DSLs provides a methodology for addressing the public's lack of trust in automated decision-making systems and the institutions that employ them to make decisions affecting the public. We posit that fiduciary responsibility manifests in several contexts of a DSL, each of which requires its own mitigation of sources of mistrust. To instantiate fiduciary responsibility, a Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) predictive policing case study is examined.

Recommendations for Government Development and Use of Advanced Automated Systems to Make Decisions about Individuals

Challenging the Machine: Contestability in Government AI Systems

Designing for Contestation: Insights from Administrative Law

Discretion in the Automated Administrative State

Procedural Fairness as Stepping Stone for Successful Implementation of Algorithmic Decision-Making in Public Administration: Review and Outlook

Contestable Black Boxes

The Challenges of AI-Decision-Making in Government and Administrative Law: A Proposal for Regulatory Design

"The Human Must Remain the Central Focus": Subjective Fairness Perceptions in Automated Decision-Making

Legitimate Power, Illegitimate Automation: The problem of ignoring legitimacy in automated decision systems

Contestable AI needs Computational Argumentation

(Beyond) Reasonable Doubt: Challenges that Public Defenders Face in Scrutinizing AI in Court

自动化的行政国家：合法性危机

Artificial Discretion as a Tool of Governance: A Framework for Understanding the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Public Administration

The Algorithmic Leviathan: Arbitrariness, Fairness, and Opportunity in Algorithmic Decision Making Systems

Disentangling Fairness Perceptions in Algorithmic Decision-Making: the Effects of Explanations, Human Oversight, and Contestability

Equal Confusion Fairness: Measuring Group-Based Disparities in Automated Decision Systems

Governing by Algorithm? No Noise and (Potentially) Less Bias

Fairness in Algorithmic Recourse Through the Lens of Substantive Equality of Opportunity

Contestable Camera Cars: A Speculative Design Exploration of Public AI That Is Open and Responsive to Dispute

Online Resolution and Citizen Empowerment

Fiduciary Responsibility: Facilitating Public Trust in Automated Decision Making