Artificial intelligence in government: Concepts, standards, and a unified framework

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), especially in generative language modelling, hold the promise of transforming government. Given the advanced capabilities of new AI systems, it is critical that these are embedded using standard operational procedures, clear epistemic criteria, and behave in alignment with the normative expectations of society. Scholars in multiple domains have subsequently begun to conceptualize the different forms that AI applications may take, highlighting both their potential benefits and pitfalls. However, the literature remains fragmented, with researchers in social science disciplines like public administration and political science, and the fast-moving fields of AI, ML, and robotics, all developing concepts in relative isolation. Although there are calls to formalize the emerging study of AI in government, a balanced account that captures the full depth of theoretical perspectives needed to understand the consequences of embedding AI into a public sector context is lacking. Here, we unify efforts across social and technical disciplines by first conducting an integrative literature review to identify and cluster 69 key terms that frequently co-occur in the multidisciplinary study of AI. We then build on the results of this bibliometric analysis to propose three new multifaceted concepts for understanding and analysing AI-based systems for government (AI-GOV) in a more unified way: (1) operational fitness, (2) epistemic alignment, and (3) normative divergence. Finally, we put these concepts to work by using them as dimensions in a conceptual typology of AI-GOV and connecting each with emerging AI technical measurement standards to encourage operationalization, foster cross-disciplinary dialogue, and stimulate debate among those aiming to rethink government with AI.

[1]  Richard Van Noorden,et al.  AI and science: what 1,600 researchers think , 2023, Nature.

[2]  Marco Tulio Ribeiro,et al.  Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4 , 2023, ArXiv.

[3]  Vince J. Straub,et al.  A multidomain relational framework to guide institutional AI research and adoption , 2023, EWAF.

[4]  Daniel Rock,et al.  GPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models , 2023, ArXiv.

[5]  L. E. Celis,et al.  Public attitudes value interpretability but prioritize accuracy in Artificial Intelligence , 2022, Nature Communications.

[6]  M. Ashok,et al.  AI adoption and diffusion in public administration: A systematic literature review and future research agenda , 2022, Gov. Inf. Q..

[7]  D. Nafus,et al.  Dislocated accountabilities in the “AI supply chain”: Modularity and developers’ notions of responsibility , 2022, Big Data Soc..

[8]  Soenke Ehret Public preferences for governing AI technology: Comparative evidence , 2022, Journal of European Public Policy.

[9]  H. Margetts,et al.  Resilient government requires data science reform , 2022, Nature Human Behaviour.

[10]  S. Giest,et al.  More than a digital system: how AI is changing the role of bureaucrats in different organizational contexts , 2022, Public Management Review.

[11]  Jess Whittlestone,et al.  A Survey of the Potential Long-term Impacts of AI: How AI Could Lead to Long-term Changes in Science, Cooperation, Power, Epistemics and Values , 2022, AIES.

[12]  Inioluwa Deborah Raji,et al.  The Fallacy of AI Functionality , 2022, FAccT.

[13]  Margi Sheth,et al.  Models for Classifying AI Systems: the Switch, the Ladder, and the Matrix , 2022, FAccT.

[14]  Lisa Anne Hendricks,et al.  Taxonomy of Risks posed by Language Models , 2022, FAccT.

[15]  J. Kleinberg,et al.  Four Years of FAccT: A Reflexive, Mixed-Methods Analysis of Research Contributions, Shortcomings, and Future Prospects , 2022, FAccT.

[16]  Adrian Weller,et al.  Transparency, Governance and Regulation of Algorithmic Tools Deployed in the Criminal Justice System: a UK Case Study , 2022, AIES.

[17]  Sandra Wachter The Theory of Artificial Immutability: Protecting Algorithmic Groups Under Anti-Discrimination Law , 2022, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[18]  H. Margetts Rethinking AI for Good Governance , 2022, Daedalus.

[19]  I. Rahwan,et al.  The promise and perils of using artificial intelligence to fight corruption , 2022, Nature Machine Intelligence.

[20]  Colin van Noordt,et al.  Artificial intelligence for the public sector: results of landscaping the use of AI in government across the European Union , 2022, Gov. Inf. Q..

[21]  Timothy M. Shead,et al.  A framework for rigorous evaluation of human performance in human and machine learning comparison studies , 2022, Scientific Reports.

[22]  OECD Framework for the Classification of AI systems , 2022, OECD Digital Economy Papers.

[23]  M. Palmirani,et al.  Metrics, Explainability and the European AI Act Proposal , 2022, J.

[24]  Eva Erman,et al.  The Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence: Some Normative Concerns , 2022, Moral Philosophy and Politics.

[25]  Erik Brynjolfsson,et al.  The Turing Trap: The Promise & Peril of Human-Like Artificial Intelligence , 2022, Daedalus.

[26]  M. Janssen,et al.  The perils and pitfalls of explainable AI: Strategies for explaining algorithmic decision-making , 2021, Gov. Inf. Q..

[27]  E. Segev Semantic Network Analysis in Social Sciences , 2021 .

[28]  Christopher Burr,et al.  Ethical assurance: a practical approach to the responsible design, development, and deployment of data-driven technologies , 2021, AI and Ethics.

[29]  Nathalie A. Smuha Beyond the individual: governing AI's societal harm , 2021, Internet Policy Rev..

[30]  Ben Green The Flaws of Policies Requiring Human Oversight of Government Algorithms , 2021, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[31]  William Agnew,et al.  The Values Encoded in Machine Learning Research , 2021, FAccT.

[32]  O. Marjanovic,et al.  Theorising Algorithmic Justice , 2021, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[33]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Deep learning for AI , 2021, Commun. ACM.

[34]  Omar Ballester,et al.  An Artificial Intelligence Definition and Classification Framework for Public Sector Applications , 2021, DG.O.

[35]  Michael A. Katell,et al.  Artificial intelligence, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law: a primer , 2021, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[36]  Anneke Zuiderwijk,et al.  Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public governance: A systematic literature review and a research agenda , 2021, Gov. Inf. Q..

[37]  Christopher Starke,et al.  Fairness perceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A systematic review of the empirical literature , 2021, Big Data Soc..

[38]  Kate Crawford Atlas of AI , 2021, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith.

[39]  Emily M. Bender,et al.  On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜 , 2021, FAccT.

[40]  Aimee Robbins-Van Wynsberghe,et al.  Sustainable AI: AI for sustainability and the sustainability of AI , 2021, AI and Ethics.

[41]  Justin B. Bullock,et al.  Artificial intelligence, bureaucratic form, and discretion in public service , 2020, Inf. Polity.

[42]  Sean McGregor,et al.  Preventing Repeated Real World AI Failures by Cataloging Incidents: The AI Incident Database , 2020, AAAI.

[43]  Chaz Firestone,et al.  Performance vs. competence in human–machine comparisons , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[44]  Gianluca Misuraca,et al.  The use of AI in public services: results from a preliminary mapping across the EU , 2020, ICEGOV.

[45]  Nathalie A. Smuha,et al.  A Framework for Global Cooperation on Artificial Intelligence and Its Governance , 2020, Reflections on Artificial Intelligence for Humanity.

[46]  Aaron Y. Lee,et al.  Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the SPIRIT-AI extension , 2020, Nature Medicine.

[47]  Cecilia S Lee,et al.  Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI extension , 2020, Nature Medicine.

[48]  Thomas M. Vogl,et al.  Smart Technology and the Emergence of Algorithmic Bureaucracy: Artificial Intelligence in UK Local Authorities , 2020, Public Administration Review.

[49]  Jan A. Kors,et al.  The role of explainability in creating trustworthy artificial intelligence for health care: a comprehensive survey of the terminology, design choices, and evaluation strategies , 2020, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[50]  Anita Williams Woolley,et al.  Human Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Review of Empirical Research , 2020, Academy of Management Annals.

[51]  Adrian Weller,et al.  “Explaining” machine learning reveals policy challenges , 2020, Science.

[52]  Helen K. Liu,et al.  Public Decision Making: Connecting Artificial Intelligence and Crowds , 2020, DG.O.

[53]  Keng Siau,et al.  Artificial Intelligence (AI) Ethics: Ethics of AI and Ethical AI , 2020, J. Database Manag..

[54]  Joelle Pineau,et al.  Improving Reproducibility in Machine Learning Research (A Report from the NeurIPS 2019 Reproducibility Program) , 2020, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[55]  Chris Russell,et al.  Why Fairness Cannot Be Automated: Bridging the Gap Between EU Non-Discrimination Law and AI , 2020, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[56]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence: Reliable, Safe & Trustworthy , 2020, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[57]  Steffen Staab,et al.  Bias in data‐driven artificial intelligence systems—An introductory survey , 2020, WIREs Data Mining Knowl. Discov..

[58]  Daniel E. Ho,et al.  Government by Algorithm: Artificial Intelligence in Federal Administrative Agencies , 2020, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[59]  Inioluwa Deborah Raji,et al.  Closing the AI accountability gap: defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing , 2020, FAT*.

[60]  Ricardo Campos,et al.  YAKE! Keyword extraction from single documents using multiple local features , 2020, Inf. Sci..

[61]  BEN GREEN,et al.  The Principles and Limits of Algorithm-in-the-Loop Decision Making , 2019, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[62]  Brandon M. Greenwell,et al.  Interpretable Machine Learning , 2019, Hands-On Machine Learning with R.

[63]  Michael Veale A Critical Take on the Policy Recommendations of the EU High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence , 2019, European Journal of Risk Regulation.

[64]  Ignas Kalpokas Algorithmic Governance , 2019 .

[65]  Anna Jobin,et al.  The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines , 2019, Nature Machine Intelligence.

[66]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning , 2019, ACM Comput. Surv..

[67]  B. Selman,et al.  A 20-Year Community Roadmap for Artificial Intelligence Research in the US , 2019, ArXiv.

[68]  E. Moss,et al.  AI’s social sciences deficit , 2019, Nature Machine Intelligence.

[69]  Paulo Henrique de Souza Bermejo,et al.  How and where is artificial intelligence in the public sector going? A literature review and research agenda , 2019, Gov. Inf. Q..

[70]  Andreas M. Kaplan,et al.  A Brief History of Artificial Intelligence: On the Past, Present, and Future of Artificial Intelligence , 2019, California Management Review.

[71]  Andrew Starkey,et al.  Machine Autonomy: Definition, Approaches, Challenges and Research Gaps , 2019, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing.

[72]  M. Ozer,et al.  Social and juristic challenges of artificial intelligence , 2019, Palgrave Communications.

[73]  Fatemeh Ahmadi Zeleti,et al.  A Realist Perspective on AI-era Public Management* , 2019, DG.O.

[74]  Justin B. Bullock Artificial Intelligence, Discretion, and Bureaucracy , 2019, The American Review of Public Administration.

[75]  L. Floridi,et al.  A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society , 2019, Issue 1.

[76]  David Leslie Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safety , 2019, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[77]  Andrew McCallum,et al.  Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP , 2019, ACL.

[78]  L. Bornmann,et al.  Citation concept analysis (CCA): a new form of citation analysis revealing the usefulness of concepts for other researchers illustrated by exemplary case studies including classic books by Thomas S. Kuhn and Karl R. Popper , 2019, Scientometrics.

[79]  Brent Mittelstadt,et al.  Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI , 2019, Nature Machine Intelligence.

[80]  Max Tegmark,et al.  The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals , 2019, Nature Communications.

[81]  H. Margetts,et al.  Rethink government with AI , 2019, Nature.

[82]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Machine behaviour , 2019, Nature.

[83]  Yannis Charalabidis,et al.  IoT and AI for Smart Government: A Research Agenda , 2019, Gov. Inf. Q..

[84]  Thomas M. Vogl,et al.  Data Science for Local Government , 2019, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[85]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems , 2019, FAT.

[86]  Dominik Dellermann,et al.  The Future of Human-AI Collaboration: A Taxonomy of Design Knowledge for Hybrid Intelligence Systems , 2019, HICSS.

[87]  Pei Wang,et al.  On Defining Artificial Intelligence , 2019, J. Artif. Gen. Intell..

[88]  Cynthia Rudin,et al.  Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead , 2018, Nature Machine Intelligence.

[89]  J. Henrich,et al.  The Moral Machine experiment , 2018, Nature.

[90]  Corinne Cath Governing artificial intelligence: ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[91]  Inioluwa Deborah Raji,et al.  Model Cards for Model Reporting , 2018, FAT.

[92]  Amina Adadi,et al.  Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) , 2018, IEEE Access.

[93]  B. Grosz,et al.  Embedded EthiCS: Integrating Ethics Broadly Across Computer Science Education , 2018, ArXiv.

[94]  Marion Oswald,et al.  Algorithm-assisted decision-making in the public sector: framing the issues using administrative law rules governing discretionary power , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[95]  Seema Shah,et al.  A Review of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Applications , 2018, 2018 Fourth International Conference on Computing Communication Control and Automation (ICCUBEA).

[96]  Le Minh Kieu,et al.  Deep learning methods in transportation domain: a review , 2018, IET Intelligent Transport Systems.

[97]  Jan C. Weyerer,et al.  Artificial Intelligence and the Public Sector—Applications and Challenges , 2018, International Journal of Public Administration.

[98]  M. Esteve,et al.  Big Data and AI – A transformational shift for government: So, what next for research? , 2018, Public Policy and Administration.

[99]  Tom M. Mitchell,et al.  What Can Machines Learn, and What Does It Mean for Occupations and the Economy? , 2018 .

[100]  Odd Erik Gundersen,et al.  State of the Art: Reproducibility in Artificial Intelligence , 2018, AAAI.

[101]  Timnit Gebru,et al.  Datasheets for datasets , 2018, Commun. ACM.

[102]  Franco Turini,et al.  A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models , 2018, ACM Comput. Surv..

[103]  Timnit Gebru,et al.  Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification , 2018, FAT.

[104]  H. Farid,et al.  The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism , 2018, Science Advances.

[105]  Tom M. Mitchell,et al.  What can machine learning do? Workforce implications , 2017, Science.

[106]  Jan Marco Leimeister,et al.  “Openness” with and without Information Technology: a framework and a brief history , 2017, J. Inf. Technol..

[107]  Muh‐Chyun Tang,et al.  A longitudinal study of intellectual cohesion in digital humanities using bibliometric analyses , 2017, Scientometrics.

[108]  Bartosz Brozek,et al.  On the legal responsibility of autonomous machines , 2017, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[109]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Fair, Transparent, and Accountable Algorithmic Decision-making Processes , 2017, Philosophy & Technology.

[110]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation - Review of the Literature , 2017, J. Informetrics.

[111]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  Society-in-the-loop: programming the algorithmic social contract , 2017, Ethics and Information Technology.

[112]  Wojciech Samek,et al.  Methods for interpreting and understanding deep neural networks , 2017, Digit. Signal Process..

[113]  Tim Miller,et al.  Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences , 2017, Artif. Intell..

[114]  S. Kamarthi,et al.  Novel keyword co-occurrence network-based methods to foster systematic reviews of scientific literature , 2017, PloS one.

[115]  J. Leskovec,et al.  Human Decisions and Machine Predictions , 2017, The quarterly journal of economics.

[116]  Giliberto Capano,et al.  Resilience and robustness in policy design: a critical appraisal , 2017 .

[117]  C. A. Murthy,et al.  Sparsity Measure of a Network Graph: Gini Index , 2016, Inf. Sci..

[118]  R. Karl Rethemeyer,et al.  Big Data in Public Affairs , 2016 .

[119]  T. Howard,et al.  Robustness Metrics: Consolidating the multiple approaches to quantify Robustness , 2016 .

[120]  R. Torraco Writing Integrative Literature Reviews , 2016 .

[121]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles , 2015, Science.

[122]  Min Chen,et al.  What May Visualization Processes Optimize? , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[123]  Evan Selinger,et al.  Creating a taxonomic tool for technocracy and applying it to , 2014 .

[124]  Shawn Lawton Henry,et al.  The role of accessibility in a universal web , 2014, W4A.

[125]  V. Bekkers,et al.  Policy Implementation, Street-level Bureaucracy, and the Importance of Discretion , 2014 .

[126]  L. Nygren Professional Discretion in Welfare Services: Beyond Street-level Bureaucracy , 2013 .

[127]  Richard P. Smiraglia,et al.  Nodes and arcs: concept map, semiotics, and knowledge organization , 2013, J. Documentation.

[128]  Tom Fawcett,et al.  Data Science and its Relationship to Big Data and Data-Driven Decision Making , 2013, Big Data.

[129]  Pedro M. Domingos A few useful things to know about machine learning , 2012, Commun. ACM.

[130]  Robert E. Crossler,et al.  Privacy in the Digital Age: A Review of Information Privacy Research in Information Systems , 2011, MIS Q..

[131]  M. Dufwenberg Game theory. , 2011, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[132]  David Sammon,et al.  Theory-building using Typologies - A Worked Example of Building a Typology of Knowledge Activities for Innovation , 2010, DSS.

[133]  F. A. Manuele Acceptable Risk: Time for SH&E Professionals to Adopt the Concept , 2010 .

[134]  Mathieu Bastian,et al.  Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks , 2009, ICWSM.

[135]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  How to Normalize Co-Occurrence Data? An Analysis of Some Well-Known Similarity Measures , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[136]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , 2008, 0803.0476.

[137]  Simona Orzan,et al.  Operational and Epistemic Approaches to Protocol Analysis: Bridging the Gap , 2007, LPAR.

[138]  A. George,et al.  Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences , 2005 .

[139]  Richard T. Green Common Law, Equity, and American Public Administration , 2002 .

[140]  Irene Lurie,et al.  Achieving Goal Congruencein Complex Environments: The Case of Welfare Reform , 2001 .

[141]  Thomas J. Barth,et al.  Artificial Intelligence and Administrative Discretion , 1999 .

[142]  S. Maguire,et al.  Complexity and Management: Moving From Fad To Firm Foundations , 1999 .

[143]  John Gerring,et al.  What Makes a Concept Good? A Criterial Framework for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences , 1999, Polity.

[144]  H. Margetts Information Technology in Government: Britain and America , 1998 .

[145]  E. Metselaar,et al.  Assessing the willingness to change : Construction and validation of the DINAMO , 1997 .

[146]  Jan W.A. Lanzing,et al.  Concept mapping: Tools for echoing the minds eye , 1996 .

[147]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: An Empirical Science , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[148]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust , 1995 .

[149]  Jean Pierre Courtial,et al.  Historical scientometrics? Mapping over 70 years of biological safety research with coword analysis , 1993, Scientometrics.

[150]  Jean Pierre Courtial,et al.  Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry , 1991, Scientometrics.

[151]  Bruce G. Buchanan,et al.  Can machine learning offer anything to expert systems? , 1989, Machine Learning.

[152]  Adrian Akmajian,et al.  Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication , 1979 .

[153]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[154]  H. Simon Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision Making Processes in Administrative Organization , 1947 .

[155]  OUP accepted manuscript , 2022, Perspectives on Public Management and Governance.

[156]  H. Sætra A Typology of AI Applications in Politics , 2021, Artificial Intelligence and Its Contexts.

[157]  Dhaya Sindhu Battina RESEARCH ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR CITIZEN SERVICES AND GOVERNMENT , 2021 .

[158]  OUP accepted manuscript , 2021, Oxford Review Of Economic Policy.

[159]  Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , 2021 .

[160]  Sanchez Martin Jose Ignacio,et al.  Robustness and Explainability of Artificial Intelligence , 2020 .

[161]  Kyle Duffie Learning how to learn , 2019 .

[162]  George Bravos,et al.  Online Appendix to : Understanding Human-Machine Networks : A Cross-Disciplinary Survey , 2017 .

[163]  David L. Baker,et al.  Advancing E-Government performance in the United States through enhanced usability benchmarks , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[164]  Hilary Charlesworth The Universal Declaration of Human Rights , 2017 .

[165]  David B. Fogel,et al.  DEFINING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE , 2005 .

[166]  L. Salamon,et al.  The tools of government : a guide to the new governance , 2002 .