Understanding AI Trustworthiness

A Scoping Review of AIES & FAccT Articles

Journal Article (2026)
Author(s)

Siddharth Mehrotra (Universiteit van Amsterdam, TU Delft - Information and Communication Technology)

Jin Huang (University of Cambridge)

Xuelong Fu (Universiteit van Amsterdam)

Roel Dobbe (TU Delft - Information and Communication Technology)

Clara I. Sánchez (Universiteit van Amsterdam)

Maarten De Rijke (Universiteit van Amsterdam)

Research Group
Information and Communication Technology
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.20729 Final published version
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2026
Language
English
Research Group
Information and Communication Technology
Journal title
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
Volume number
85
Article number
32
Downloads counter
1
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Background: Trustworthy AI serves as a foundational pillar for two major AI ethics conferences: AIES and FAccT. Current research often adopts techno-centric approaches, focusing primarily on technical attributes such as accuracy, reliability, robustness, and fairness, while overlooking the sociotechnical dimensions critical to understanding AI trustworthiness in real-world contexts. Objectives: This scoping review aims to examine how the AIES and FAccT communities conceptualize, measure, and validate AI trustworthiness, identifying major gaps and opportunities for advancing a holistic understanding of trustworthy AI systems. Methods: We conduct a scoping review of the AIES and FAccT conference proceedings to date, systematically analyzing how trustworthiness is defined, operationalized, and applied across different research domains. Our analysis focuses on conceptualization approaches, measurement methods, verification and validation techniques, application areas, and underlying values. Results: While significant progress has been made in defining technical attributes such as transparency, accountability, and robustness, our findings reveal critical gaps. Current research often predominantly emphasizes technical precision at the expense of social and ethical considerations. The sociotechnical nature of AI systems remains less explored and trustworthiness emerges as a contested concept shaped by those with the power to define it. Conclusions: An interdisciplinary approach combining technical rigor with social, cultural, and institutional considerations is essential for advancing trustworthy AI. We propose actionable measures for the AI ethics community to adopt holistic frameworks that genuinely address the complex interplay between AI systems and society, ultimately promoting responsible technological development that benefits all stakeholders.