## Being Accountable is Smart: Navigating the Technical and Regulatory Landscape of AI-based Services for Power Grid

Anna Volkova anna.volkova@uni-passau.de University of Passau Passau, Germany

Mahdieh Hatamian hatami02@ads.uni-passau.de

University of Passau Passau, Germany

## Alina Anapyanova

alina.anapyanova@uni-passau.de University of Passau Passau, Germany

## ABSTRACT

The emergence of artificial intelligence and digitization of the power grid introduced numerous effective application scenarios for AIbased services for the smart grid. Nevertheless, adopting AI in critical infrastructures presents challenges due to unclear regulations and lacking risk quantification techniques. Regulated and accountable approaches for integrating AI-based services into the smart grid could accelerate the adoption of innovative methods in daily practices and address society's general safety concerns. This paper contributes to this objective by defining accountability and highlighting its importance for AI-based services in the energy sector. It underlines the current shortcomings of the AI Act and proposes an approach to address these issues in a potential delegated act. The proposed technical approach for developing and operating accountable AI-based smart grid services allows for assessing different service life cycle phases and identifying related accountability risks.

## CCS CONCEPTS

· Computing methodologies → Artificial intelligence ; · Security and privacy → Human and societal aspects of security and privacy .

## KEYWORDS

Accountability, Artificial Intelligence, Smart grid, AI regulations, Smart grid services

## 1 INTRODUCTION

One of the main objectives of modern power grids is the uninterruptible supply of demands. At the same time, the power generation and distribution processes must be conducted safely to prevent any harm to society. The digitalization of the power grid has introduced significant risks, such as easier access to the power grid assets for cyber-attackers, but also substantial benefits, such as improved control systems and enhanced operational efficiency. System internal faults and external influences constantly challenge the power grid's resilience. The widespread adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) initiates the next phase of grid digitalization. Advanced smart grid services utilize AI and underlying machine learning techniques to deliver insights beyond the reach of deterministic software and uncover correlations that may not be apparent to human operators.

## Hermann de Meer

hermann.demeer@uni-passau.de University of Passau Passau, Germany

Some AI-based services offer supplementary support, while others enhance or replace functions critical for maintaining the power grid's operation. Supplementary services include grid operation optimization, such as demand response, where AI predicts fluctuations and reduces costs. As a part of the essential grid functions, AI has also demonstrated being effective in forecasting renewable energy generation and load [1], stability analysis and control at different grid voltage levels [46]. Integrating such AI-based services into the smart grid is associated with risks to the stable system operation and, as a result, to society. Data and algorithms used as the basis of AI-based services might produce incorrect decisions and lead to operational failures, which can lead to blackouts. Excessive dependence on AI can result in a lack of human oversight and hinder intervention in case of system failures. On the other hand, some AI-based services, like failure detection, offer benefits by being capable of reacting much faster than human operators.

This work aims to support the development of the methodologies for regulated and accountable AI-based smart grid services and makes recommendations for a potential delegated act for the smart grid. To achieve this, the following contributions are made: 1) A classification of existing ways to address accountability and related terminology in the smart grid context, which enables the derivation of a quantifiable definition of AI-based smart grid service accountability; 2) An analysis of the current shortcomings of the AI Act regarding the future risks of a narrow safety component

Safely implementing AI-based services for the social good requires extensive regulation and methodologies to guarantee riskfree operation. The European Commission has attempted to address AI integration through various regulatory initiatives and proposed AI Act in 2021, which was adopted in March 2024 [17] and complemented by a Corrigendum in April 2024 [16]. Unfortunately, AI Act does not provide domain-specific regulations, leaving space for interpretation regarding the AI integration in the power grid. The central argument of this work is that regulating AI integration in the smart grid requires a proper regulatory framework that can limit the risks related to AI-based services operation and does not hinder the innovation in the smart grid domain. A technical framework should complement it to ensure precise risk quantification. Such a technical framework can be based on the concept of AI accountability, defining it in a quantifiable manner, linking technical risks, their impact on the service operation, and responsible parties.

definition for critical infrastructures; 3) An approach for risk identification and accountability preservation as a part of a technical framework for developing and operating the accountable AI-based smart grid service. The methodology focuses on assessing the different phases of AI-based service development from the planning to model training and operation, identifying related accountability risks, and providing an overview of preservation measures.

The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses existing research in accountable AI-based services. Section 3 evaluates the existing regulations in the domain. Section 4 clarifies the concept of accountability, distinguishing it from related terms and providing a quantifiable definition. Section 5 proposes a methodology to analyze accountability risks based on development methodologies.

## 2 RELATED WORK

Some recent studies specifically address the definition of accountability and accountability requirements. For instance, in [25], the authors categorize and structure definitions of accountability, presenting a model to capture accountability in system design. In [56], authors discuss the need to narrow down high-level definitions of accountability and related terms and make these enforceable. In contrast, the present work focuses on sector-specific accountability and provides definitions that support quantification of accountability for AI-based smart grid services. In [7], accountability is discussed as the intersection of explainability and responsibility, and the existing regulations covering these concepts are analyzed. However, no approach to quantify accountability is proposed. While in [7] the authors only introduce the concept of implementable accountability, the present work proposes an approach to how implementable accountability can be achieved in the smart grid.

The challenge of translating accountability into legal regulation has been discussed in [7]. In the absence of AI-specific regulations, IEC 61508 [23] has been reviewed as a source of recommendation for AI integration in critical infrastructures. Thus, authors in [51] state that all AI applications in the critical infrastructure are generally not recommended in the standard. However, the Standard only discourages using AI for particular applications in safety-related functions. An attempt to adjust Satefy Integrity Levels for AI has been discussed in [12]. The proposed approach is valid but too abstract: AI safety risk classification should be done more granularly.

Accountability in the smart grid domain has also been addressed from a technical point of view. Thus, in [50], the authors review methods to provide authentication, authorization, and accountability in smart grids from the communication network perspective. In [55], the authors demonstrate a conceptual monitoring system for AI-based smart grid services and indicate that monitoring of AI in energy grid operations is essential for establishing accountability. In contrast, while showing the importance of monitoring, the present work proposes an approach to guarantee accountability for all the AI-based service life cycle phases.

flaws in AI development pipeline is presented in [42]. The present work refines it for smart grid applications and discusses the role of risk identification as an accountability mechanism. In [19], a survey on responsible AI development process and required tools are presented. While the collected responses can support the design of the toolbox for risk reduction at different phases, the accountability of each tool should be analyzed separately.

Further related work is summarized in Table 1. Most studies focus on accountability in AI or specifically within power systems. Additionally, some authors discuss the regulatory aspects of AI and analyze recent regulations proposed by the EU and various governmental institutions alongside the technical assessment of accountability in AI. In [37], additional use cases of AI in the electricity sector, such as forecasting models and flexibility asset management, are discussed but were not yet identified under a particular risk category of the AI Act or analyzed in the context of the safety component definition. This paper follows up on this discussion with a more detailed analysis.

## 3 AI-BASED SERVICES IN THE SMART GRID

A smart grid has been defined by many different institutions and authors, for example, as ' an advanced digital two-way power flow power system capable of self-healing, adaptive, resilient, and sustainable with foresight for prediction under different uncertainties ' [13]. Many of these advanced features elevate the system from its pure physical purpose of transferring the power flow to an intelligent system capable of reacting and overcoming the existing challenges, improving its cost-effectiveness and customer satisfaction. AI has been demonstrated effective in essential technical, including safetyrelated functions, and user- and grid economy-oriented services. Some functions, such as voltage and frequency control, directly impact the system operation. Demand response, while being a critical function for the system's operation effectiveness, is not strictly required for system operation. Client-oriented functions, such as consumption analysis and billing optimization, do not affect the system's operation directly. The services also function on different time scales, allowing or hindering human oversight. Control and fault mitigation services make decisions quickly during the operation, while forecasting services provide calculations in advance and ensure sufficient time for operators to react to the proposed predictions. In this work, the term AI-based smart grid service considers both technical and process optimization functions operating within the smart grid and having AI-based components. This work does not discuss information security-related services.

One of the core insights of the present work is that accountability is only achievable through accountable development. The impact of the development flaws on the AI-based service performance has been discussed in [40] with a focus on data bias. The present work considers bias mitigation, among other steps, as an important accountability guarantee. An extensive survey on potential design

To guarantee the safe operation of the AI, the responsive regulations should consider the level of AI involvement in the operation of the particular smart grid function. This section discusses the existing regulations in the AI domain and their applicability to the power grid domain. After the in-depth analysis of the most important formulations, the problem of deriving regulations and recommendations and the need for AI accountability is discussed.

## 3.1 Current Status of AI Regulation in Energy

AI and Machine Learning technologies have increasingly come to the attention of European lawmakers in recent years. The result was a consensus at the European level that a common regulatory

© Anna Volkova 2024. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in International Conference on Information Technology for Social Good (GoodIT '24), September 04-06, 2024, Bremen, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1145/3677525.3678651

Table 1: Analysis of related research from recent years based on the considered aspects

| Ref.   |   Year | Objective                                                    | Accountability   | Power Grid   | Technical   | Regulatory   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|--------------|-------------|--------------|
| [18]   |   2020 | Highlight critical ethical considerations for future AI      |                  |              | ✓           |              |
| [27]   |   2020 | Address risks and accountability issues for data subjects    | ✓                |              |             | ✓            |
| [40]   |   2020 | Provide a comprehensive overview of bias in AI systems       |                  |              | ✓           | ✓            |
| [25]   |   2021 | Categorize and structure the definitions of accountability   | ✓                |              |             |              |
| [37]   |   2021 | Discuss EU AI Act's impact and risks on electricity sector   |                  | ✓            |             | ✓            |
| [50]   |   2021 | Review authentication, authorization, and accountability     | ✓                | ✓            | ✓           |              |
| [7]    |   2022 | An accountable AI framework with ethical and legal aspects   | ✓                |              |             | ✓            |
| [36]   |   2022 | Review regulations proposed by governmental institutions     |                  |              |             | ✓            |
| [42]   |   2022 | Discuss the challenges in AI deployment phases               |                  |              | ✓           |              |
| [51]   |   2022 | EU AI Act vs. IEC 61508 for AI in critical infrastructure    |                  |              | ✓           | ✓            |
| [55]   |   2022 | Propose a monitoring system for AI-based smart grid          | ✓                | ✓            | ✓           |              |
| [56]   |   2022 | Make accountability and related concepts enforceable         | ✓                |              |             | ✓            |
| [12]   |   2023 | Introduce safety integrity levels for AI in critical systems |                  |              | ✓           |              |
| [19]   |   2023 | Integrate Responsible Design Patterns into the AI pipeline   | ✓                |              | ✓           |              |
| [21]   |   2023 | Regulate accountability in automated decision-making         | ✓                |              |             | ✓            |

framework was needed to both foster AI-related innovation and to contain its risks in several fields. The European AI Act, adopted in March 2024 and being part of the European digital strategy, constitutes, therefore, a novel European legislative instrument aiming to ensure a safe, transparent, traceable, non-discriminatory, and environment-friendly application of AI technology [17].

It defines AI in Art. 3 point (1) as a machine-based system designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy, that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment and that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments . The European Commission did not choose a sector-specific AI regulation but rather an all-encompassing and principle-based Regulation, including possible categories of AI application in all sectors: unacceptable risk, high risk, certain types of AI with transparency obligations, general purpose AI, and non-risk risk AI, as presented in Figure 1. The cases of AI with an unacceptable level of risk are laid down in Art. 5 of the AI Act, followed by the high-risk areas in Art. 6 and in Annex III. Certain types of AI systems are subject to transparency obligations according to Art. 50, followed by the general purpose AI Models, subject to specific obligations, listed in Art. 51. The remaining categories of non-high risk AI are defined in the recital (165) and in Art. 95 and can voluntarily comply with the Code of Conduct. The different risk categories implied a different set of rules and obligations, which AI-developers would have to follow.

water, gas, heating and electricity . Such safety components are further defined in point (55) of the AI Act, Safety components of critical infrastructure, including critical digital infrastructure, are systems used to directly protect the physical integrity of critical infrastructure or health and safety of persons and property but which are not necessary in order for the system to function . The failure or malfunctioning of such components might directly lead to risks to the physical integrity of critical infrastructure and thus to risks to the health and safety of persons and property. Components intended to be used solely for cybersecurity purposes should not qualify as safety components. Examples of safety components of such critical infrastructure may include systems for monitoring water pressure or fire alarm controlling systems in cloud computing centers. This definition resembles the safety component definition in the Art. 2(b) of the Machinery Directive, where a safety component was described as not necessary for the system to function [14]. Such a definition is too product-oriented and ignores the fact that there are elements in the digital and critical energy infrastructure where safety and functioning are interdependent in the system's algorithm. Certain safety functions in generation plants, power grids, or digital infrastructures can be indispensable for the system's functioning and safety, e.g., using AI for voltage and frequency-control mechanisms, stability assessment systems, and load balancing.

## 3.2 AI as Safety Components

The energy sector has been categorized as a high-risk field of application for AI technologies if AI technology is being used for safety components in the management and operation of critical infrastructures, including the digital critical infrastructures. These are defined in Art. 2 point 4 and in Annex I of the Directive (EU) 2022/2557 [15] and in Annex III point 2 of the AI Act. High-risk AI systems in the energy sector are referred to in Annex III point 2 of the AI Act as: (a) AI systems intended to be used as safety components in the management and operation of road traffic and the supply of

The AI Act states that only if AI technology is used in safety components needed for the safety and physical integrity but which are not necessary for the system to function, high risk can be identified. Such a limitation is very narrow and does not reflect the constantly evolving nature of smart grid AI applications. How to regulate cases where AI technologies might be interconnected and used in safety components for the protection and functioning of the whole system are not yet dealt with in the Act and will have to be clarified in an additional sector-specific delegated act. Until then, this will remain a grey zone, leaving room for interpretation for AI providers. A potential consequence could be that AI applications developed for the safe operation of critical infrastructure, such as voltage or frequency control, but which do not meet the safety component definition under the Act, will simply not be covered by the AI Act and will not be obliged to meet the High-Risk AI

© Anna Volkova 2024. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in International Conference on Information Technology for Social Good (GoodIT '24), September 04-06, 2024, Bremen, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1145/3677525.3678651

Figure 1: Risk categorization under the AI Act

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.01121v1-figure-6dababbe-a1ac-43a0-ac77-7b68a4f27e69.jpg)

| Unacceptable risk Art.5                                  | High risk Art. 6 & Annex III                                   | Certain AI Systems Art. 50                  | General Purpose AI Art. 51                 | Non-high risk AI Recital 165 & Art. 95   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
| Prohibited                                               | Subject to ex-ante conformity assessment                       | Subject to transparency obligations         | Subject to speci fi c obligations          | Code of conduct (Voluntary)              |
| Facial and emotion recognition, Biometric categorization | Medical devices, Safety components in critical infrastructures | Applications with direct human interactions | Chatbots, decision assistants, translation | Other                                    |

compliance and accountability obligations. This is questionable in light of the potential risk implications for the system operators and users of the critical infrastructure [37].

## 4.1 Limitations of Definitions in the AI Act

## 3.3 Problem Formulation

As a result, the AI Act does not provide sufficient regulation action for all the variety of use-cases of AI-based services in the power grid. The definition of the safety component is capturing only a subset of possible functions that can be realized using AI, while other potential AI-based services are not covered. Since unreliable usage of AI in critical infrastructure is a major public safety concern, additional actions are required to guarantee that the development and implementation of the AI has been carried out responsively. In IEC 61508 [23], qualitative and quantitative approaches have been proposed in the safety-relevant systems to assign risk levels to the safety functions. In [12], a similar approach was proposed for general purpose AI functions. Along with qualitative parameters, such as non-determinism, a quantitative framework for risk assessment and definition of rigor activities should be provided. Developing and legislating such safety standards for AI is a complex but necessary task to be completed in the next decades. However, already nowadays, actions are required to provide granular control of the developing AI-based services. A delegated act could be introduced and propose a methodology to supervise AI-based service from the planning till the commission phase. Such supervision can be quantified through a mechanism of service accountability. Accountability is usually defined through its core dimensions: explainability, audibility, and trustworthiness. However, the interpretation of accountability varies across different domains [7, 25]. A sector-specific accountability for AI-based service should be defined, described, and quantified to overcome it. In this work, an accountable AI-based smart grid service is defined, and an approach to preserve overall accountability through accountability of the separate development and deployment processes is presented.

## 4 DEFINING ACCOUNTABILITY

This section discusses the existing definitions of accountability in different sources: in AI Act, in general and smart grid-specific literature. An approach to provide a quantifiable definition of accountable AI-based smart grid service is presented.

The current AI Act demands accountability from AI applications in different ways. Accountability was already identified by the Commissions Expert Group on AI in 2019, as a requirement for trustworthy AI [22]. In the AI Act itself, accountability is not defined but can be found partially hidden in terms of transparency, explainability and interpretability. These terms can be found in different Articles of the Act and concern primarily AI providers' obligations regarding high-risk applications. The following non-exhaustive list of examples shows the legislators' intention to ensure transparency of AI High-Risk systems through an ex-ante conformity assessment of AI applications. One clear example is the record-keeping requirement. As stipulated in Art. 12 point (1) and Art. 19 of the Act, automatic recording of events should be possible, illustrating the need for traceability of AI. Interpretability and transparency requirements are to be found, among others, in Art. 13 and in Section 3 of the Act. It states that High Risk AI applications shall be designed so that their operation is sufficiently transparent to enable users to interpret and use the system's output. Further, the requirement for human oversight of AI decisions and in AI design in general are to be found in Art. 13 (3)(d) and Art. 14 of the Act. Lastly, data quality of AI is to be ensured through a quality management system and documentation requirements in Art. 17 and 18.

Thus, the Act does not define AI accountability as a separate term but requires High-Risk AI providers and deployers to follow different obligations, leading to more trustworthiness, irrespective of their application sector. The described approach covers the most crucial aspect of AI development and deployment. However, it requires more granularity for recommended and undesired techniques at each step for specific domains, e.g., for the smart grid.

## 4.2 Accountability in Literature

The general literature on AI lacks a precise definition of accountability for AI-based systems due to its relation to several other aspects. Nissenbaum defines it as a requirement to provide information regarding a performed action, explain why it was taken, and undertake a follow-up action, which could include various responses such as punishment or penalty [38, 56]. In [31], the authors remark that ' In general, accountability for AI indicates how much we can trust these AI technologies and who or what we should blame if any parts of the AI technologies perform below expectation. It is about a declaration of responsibility. It is not trivial to explicitly determine the

© Anna Volkova 2024. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in International Conference on Information Technology for Social Good (GoodIT '24), September 04-06, 2024, Bremen, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1145/3677525.3678651

Table 2: Accountability requirements in the literature, including smart grid domain-specific work (in bold)

| Requirements     | Characterization                                                              | Resources                                                          |
|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Responsibility   | The obligation of a system or individual to follow procedures or standards    | [32] [55] [38] [8] [28] [31] [29] [5] [52] [33] [26] [48] [41] [7] |
| Explainability   | Ensure understanding and justification of AI systems, processes and decisions | [55] [56] [9] [31] [49] [30] [43] [7] [52]                         |
| Transparency     | Social-ethically centered information accessibility                           | [56] [26] [9] [54] [33]                                            |
| Answerability    | Design of a process or system that allows the clarification of an action      | [38] [56] [9] [39] [33]                                            |
| Trustworthy      | A property of acting ethically and demonstrating integrity and trust          | [55] [38] [31] [43]                                                |
| Auditability     | Verification if processes follow policies, standards or regulations           | [56] [31] [43] [52]                                                |
| Moral & Ethical  | Enhancing legal and constitutional requirements in system architecture        | [52] [10] [41]                                                     |
| Traceability     | The ability to track a process through several phases of a system production  | [32] [57] [52]                                                     |
| Punishment       | Consider penalty for any harmful act of a system                              | [32] [38]                                                          |
| Property         | Consider any attribute or characteristic as a feature for defining a system   | [31] [25]                                                          |
| Interpretability | Ensure that a model and its outcomes are clear and simple to understand       | [56]                                                               |
| Attributability  | Identify the role or function of each component in the system                 | [43]                                                               |
| Recordability    | Validate that all actions are entered into the system and documented          | [32]                                                               |
| Controllability  | To provide authority and accessibility measurement for a process or system    | [26]                                                               |

accountability for AI. On the one hand, most AI-based systems act as black-box, due to the lack of explainability and transparency. On the other hand, real-world AI-based systems are very complex and involve numerous key components, including input data, algorithm theory, implementation details, real-time human control. These factors further complicate the determination of accountability for AI. Although difficult and complex, it is necessary to guarantee accountability for AI. Auditability, which refers to a set of principled evaluations of the algorithm theories and implementation processes, is one of the most important methodologies in guaranteeing accountability. ' In [52], it is stated that ' Six main dimensions can be associated with accountability according to the goals and needs of the different stakeholders: responsibility, justification, audit, reporting, redress, and traceability, and in this regard, there are several excellent works that focus on the aforementioned specific dimensions. ' In [48], the research indicates that ' Accountability in AI, thus, becomes less about how AI is built, and more about how it is understood, legislated, and regulated. '

role where explainability approaches are not applicable, e.g., when a decrease in performance cannot be avoided. Accountable AI also increases trustworthiness of the implemented services by different stakeholders and end users (...) . '

## 4.3 Deriving a Definition

A comprehensive definition would support the development of an accountability framework and should encompass various aspects of accountability relevant to different phases of the service life. The other challenge is quantifying accountability and measuring the risks if the AI does not fulfill accountability recommendations. Providing a cross-sector unified definition of accountability is only possible at a high level of abstraction.

In the energy domain, accountability has not yet been sufficiently covered. In [32], the authors state that ' Accountability is required to further secure the smart grid in terms of privacy, integrity, and confidentiality. Even if a security issue presents itself, the builtin accountability mechanism will find out who is responsible for it. Once detected, some problems can be fixed automatically through the predefined program, while others may provide valuable information to experts for evaluation. In essence, accountability means that the system is recordable and traceable, thus making it liable to those communication principles for its actions . ' In [55], it is argued that ' Accountability of the AI-based services should play a central

Thus, the definition of accountability should be directly applicable to the target service or process. In this regard, an accountable AI-based smart grid service can be defined as service that is: 1) conceptualized and developed according to the sector-specific regulations and with clear identification of roles and responsibilities of all involved parties 2) regulated over the whole life cycle from planning to commissioning to minimize risks of an incorrect behavior in each development phase by tracing the impact of each step on the service outputs, recording all the decisions and actions performed during the development and deployment as well as responsible parties, guaranteeing accessibility of collected and processed data for involved parties 3) monitored during the operation time with granular insight into the impact of design choices on the output . It is important to note that explainability [34] has been explicitly not used in this definition since its human-centered nature and the general tendency for reduced performance due to model simplification are not applicable for some of the power grid services [7, 55]. In the case of accountability, complexity is seen as the source of potential design and development imperfections and related risks but is acceptable.

## 5 ACCOUNTABILITY PRESERVATION IN AI-BASED SERVICE DEVELOPMENT

Essentially, AI-based service accountability, defined in Section 4.3, should be preserved by a technical framework, which should cover

© Anna Volkova 2024. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in International Conference on Information Technology for Social Good (GoodIT '24), September 04-06, 2024, Bremen, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1145/3677525.3678651

Keywords derived from the definitions include 'responsibility', 'transparency', 'auditability' and 'explainability'. These terms represent the prerequisites for accountability in AI-based systems, as they contribute to developing and implementing systems that prioritize trustworthiness, fairness, and responsibility for all stakeholders. Table 2 extends this discussion and represents a collection of resources regarding accountability definition and related dimensions. This collection comprises 24 scientific articles defining accountability or highlighting its various dimensions, e.g., 'responsibility' is mentioned in 14 analyzed works, and 'explainability' - in 9.

Table 3: Accountability issues in data collection

| Step               | Possible risks to accountability                                                                                             | Examples of preservation methods                                                                                                                                                                           |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dataset Generation | Lack of planning; Unreliable data sources; Induced errors; Insufficient or redundant data; Irresponsible data provider       | Clear requirements to accuracy, completeness, and consistency; Planned and prepared data collection process; SLA for data quality; Repeated collection from the same system in the presence of bias        |
| Digital Twin       | Data errors; Bias; Incorrect assumptions; Oversimplification in digital twin model; Incomplete data; Not representative data | Record of assumptions in twin model; Ensured correctness of the twin system; Ensured interoperability for digital twin and real system                                                                     |
| SLA [2]            | Lack of clear requirements for data assurance                                                                                | Regulatory implementation of SLA for all iterations of service development                                                                                                                                 |
| Data Storage       | Loss of data; Loss of access to data; Lack of integrity (unreliable storage)                                                 | Clear data storage requirements; Regulation regarding data storing period between power grid and service provider; Enabled access to data for all required parties; Ensured security; SLA for data storage |
| Data Induction     | Leakage of irrelevant and private data                                                                                       | Only necessary data collected; Regulated and recorded operations on data; Data aggregation on edge; Data obfuscation                                                                                       |

all the life cycle phases. The general phases are planning, development, and operation. This section focuses on the development phase, which involves data collection and storage, data preprocessing, feature selection and extraction, and utilizing learning algorithms [53]. A wide range of possible techniques characterizes each of these steps. This section discusses exemplary major steps and related accountability risks and omits some smaller ones, e.g., in data engineering [35]. Strategies to preserve accountability in the planning, operation, and commissioning phases and business-related aspects will be discussed in future work. The early insight into accountability preservation during the operation phase is discussed in [55].

## 5.1 Data Collection and Correction Phases

The established and accountable data collection and correction process is the initial step of accountability assurance. In this regard, the smart grid is a special case since the data can have different origins: assembled from the measurements of the real system, from a digital twin, or from software simulation, each with its specific accountability issues. General accountability issues of this step are listed in Table 3.

guarantee an accountable re-training process, especially when data is shared between different stakeholders in the energy sector. A well-defined and extensive Service Level Agreement (SLA) between the parties can be used to introduce responsibility in data utilization. Aregulatory framework may support SLAs formulation for explicit usage in smart grids and performance metrics for data quality.

## 5.2 Data Quality Assurance and Preprocessing

Poor data quality in the training process can directly affect service performance, and the original reason for such behavior will be hard to identify. Data preprocessing methods are mainly employed to address issues inherited from the data collection process (uncertainties [20], errors, lack of data). These methods may be one of the core sources of accountability risks, as they involve techniques that transform the original data. The risks related to removing, adding certain data, or aligning data points impact the developed model and should be carefully identified. By data dispersion, several data sources with different schema or conventions are merged into a single dataset. The differences in data structures and types and the various tools required to enable data integration need special attention. The development methodology should be capable of finding a trade-off between the necessary preprocessing steps and the risk to accountability these introduce due to their complexity and required assumptions. Data dispersion from multiple sources is undesired for accountability preservation in smart grid services, and a unified data collection plan should be introduced. An overview of some of the potential technical processes can be found in Table 4.

For many grid services, the data is heterogeneous with varying resolutions, mostly asynchronous, and is stored in different formats (raw or processed) at different locations [6]. Collected and processed data should be stored throughout service deployment and additional time after commissioning to preserve accountability. Access to the original and training data and clear documentation of the data origin, collection process, and format can enable postfactum analysis of incidents and study the impact of data on the service output. Careful and planned data storage is also required to

In the data collection step, data source discovery should be associated with a detailed understanding of the behavior of the system components. Data collection for smart grid applications should consider the physics of the processes, e.g., for voltage and frequency control applications. Furthermore, sensor data collection can be associated with many induced errors due to sensor aging and losses during data transmission. The associated risks should be well documented at this stage and forwarded to the data correction methods. Preliminary data sampling can help to identify and fix faulty components. Sampling data from the digital twin [47] is a concern for accountability due to the complexity of the twin system modeling and introduces the digital twin provider as a responsible party.

Smart grid data may have hard-interpretable labels depending on the type of service. Each method of data labeling has an impact on accountability. Manual labeling is prone to human error, while automated labeling tools usually include different AI methods. Such labels can inherit all issues from the accountability of the tools [3]. Accountability for this step can be preserved by clearly planning the labeling process and continuous validation and refining through feedback loops. Data leakage and dispersion can threaten the system's accountability during the filtering and labeling processes. By data leakage, target variables (irrelevant or personal data) are leaked in the training. When leakage happens, the model retains characteristics connected with irrelevant data without explicitly including those features in the model. The accountability of this

© Anna Volkova 2024. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in International Conference on Information Technology for Social Good (GoodIT '24), September 04-06, 2024, Bremen, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1145/3677525.3678651

Table 4: Accountability issues in data quality

| Step                     | Possible risks to accountability                                                                                           | Examples of preservation methods                                                                                             |
|--------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Data Cleaning [58]       | Incorrect and/or undocumented pattern detection; Loss of data; Loss of granularity                                         | Planned and recorded actions; Validation procedures; Quality assurance metrics                                               |
| Filtering                | Unregulated rules; Loss of data                                                                                            | Planned and recorded filtering criteria; Validation procedures; Quality assurance metrics                                    |
| Uncertainty Mitigation   | Loss of data; Loss of correlations in data                                                                                 | Clear definition of uncertainty types; Identification of the tolerable uncertainty levels; Validation procedures             |
| Anomaly Detection        | Loss of data; Loss of correlations in data                                                                                 | Clear definition of anomalies; Evaluation of the anomaly scope; Validation procedures; Quality assurance metrics             |
| Dimensionality Reduction | Loss of data due to inaccurate reduction; Loss of correlations in data; Bias; Overfitting; Complexity of composite dataset | Planned and recorded actions; Responsible method selection                                                                   |
| Synthetic Data [45]      | Infeasible data; Leakage of data origin; Incorrect data syntheses; Loss of complex dependencies;                           | Justification for synthetic data selection; Validation of data harmonization                                                 |
| Augmentation [59]        | Uncontrollable infusion of additional data; Loss of data                                                                   | Recorded augmentation strategy; Validation of data consistency                                                               |
| Labeling [3, 42]         | Inconsistent labeling rules; Error and loss of accountability through AI-tools                                             | Avoidance of non-deterministic tools; Recorded strategy for labeling; Validation within each label                           |
| Data Anonymization       | Insufficiently described actions; Data loss; Loss of relations between the data points                                     | Avoidance of sensitive data during the collection phase; Anonymization during the collection; Recorded rules and assumptions |

process should be preserved by careful planning, early issue detection, and documentation of the completed steps and used tools [42]. Since the fusion of private and system data is common for the power grid, numerous techniques can be used to anonymize data. Anonymization reduces the granularity and accuracy of the data, leading to the loss of the complex correlations between data points. This can lead to accountability issues since the model's output is unreliable due to the lack of critical data or data patterns. Time-series data in the power grid should be handled delicately to preserve diffused behaviors over larger time scales.

Data augmentation methods, including synthetic data, resolve the issues related to limited data volume or unbalanced data. However, synthetic data is vulnerable to information leakage from original data and inaccuracies. Moreover, capturing outliers and lowprobability events in synthetic data is challenging [42]. A synthetic data generator may not replicate statistics accurately. The same applies to the common for smart grid digital twin data application in real systems [24]. Thus, low-probability events may not be evident or have different patterns in the twin and real system behavior.

techniques can lead to losing important features while eliminating unsuitable ones. It can fail to achieve dimensionality reduction and overlook significant feature correlations. The feature transformation methods may require dividing a feature or merging two or more features to build a new one using various methods. Applying the transformation methods changes the essence of data and may introduce biases. Algorithmic bias appears when mathematical rules highlight specific attributes over others in relation to a target variable [4]. The feature engineering process should be carefully planned and documented to track the steps of the process for the ex-post analysis. Feature selection and labeling also allow methods to approximate the model locally with other interpretable models and understand the influence of features on service output.

## 5.3 Model Training and Validation

After the data collection and preparation phase, the datasets are ready for training. From this point, the algorithm will inherit all the remaining issues in the data. Accountability of the data preparation phase allows access to the used assumptions and methods, especially if the dataset is being used by a different party or reused to develop multiple services. Table 5 presents primary training steps and related risks.

Accountability in the model learning phase should be preserved for three main steps: model selection, training, and hyperparameter selection. Justification of the model selection should be provided concerning the complexity of the problem and the application scenario. The increased complexity of the selected algorithm impacts accountability as it deals with sensitive hyperparameters. Tuning requires a knowledge of the search space, which is not always achievable due to complexity. Further constraints from the deployment environment may also introduce bounds on the hyperparameter selection [42]. Accountability issues arise when the hyperparameter's choices and bounds are insufficiently justified. Inaccurately tuned hyperparameters result in overfitting, underfitting, or bias.

The model selection and training are based on the objective and available features. The feature engineering process usually includes extraction, selection, and transformation phases. Accountability risks arise from the feature selection process due to incorrect formulation of the objectives and assumptions, resulting in feature extraction and transformation flaws. Improper feature selection

The training process is initiated after carefully implementing and selecting the hyperparameters, usually in parallel with the performance evaluation. Accountability of this step is defined through extensive validation with a feasible selection of the validation metrics that should cover accuracy, bias, and fairness. Accountability may be compromised if the chosen metrics fail to consider bias issues or detect parameter errors for the training and unseen test sets. However, the test set can further compromise accountability by not being representative or infected with training data. Such risks will be explicitly evaluated in a future use-case study.

© Anna Volkova 2024. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in International Conference on Information Technology for Social Good (GoodIT '24), September 04-06, 2024, Bremen, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1145/3677525.3678651

Table 5: Accountability issues in model training

| Step                       | Possible risks to accountability                                                                  | Examples of preservation methods                                                                               |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Feature Selection [11]     | Improper usage of selection techniques; Usage of too complex techniques                           | Preference towards deterministic methods                                                                       |
| Feature Transformation     | Improper scaling and encoding                                                                     | Preference towards simple features; Recorded and justified rules for complex features                          |
| Model Selection            | Insufficient analysis of model applicability; Insufficient preliminary analysis of model benefits | Model selection adequate problem requirements; Risk assessment for each candidate model                        |
| Model Training             | Insufficient cross-validation; Inaccurate processing of hyperparameters; Model bias               | Validation metrics for each training cycle; Clear track of model performance evolution                         |
| Hyperparameter Tuning [44] | Insufficient parameters; Unnecessary probabilistic models to find hyperparameters                 | Search space analysis; Guaranteed reproducibility of the selection process                                     |
| Model Validation           | Not representative training set; Insufficient metrics; Lack of analysis                           | Recorded configuration of validation experiments; Analysis of data preprocessing decisions in validation phase |

## 6 CONCLUSION

Additional measures are needed to ensure responsible development and deployment for reliable AI usage in critical infrastructures. This paper analyzes the current AI Act and demonstrates its limited granularity in considering technical aspects of the smart grid, e.g., in safety component definition. A delegated act could include a methodology for supervising critical AI-based services in the energy sector, closing the current gap in the AI Act. An accountabilitybased framework is suggested as a fundamental part of a delegated act. A literature survey of existing definitions of accountability identifies the most significant accountability dimensions, and sectorspecific quantifiable accountability definition for AI-based smart grid service is derived. The quantification of the accountability risks can be narrowed down to each phase of the AI-based service development from planning to commissioning. This work discusses accountability risks for data collection, preprocessing, and model training phases. The future work will consider implementing the discussed accountability preservation in an exemplary AI-based service, underlining the impact of design decisions on operation and the assigning responsibility of different parties.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was funded by project 'EnerSat (Satellitengestützte Kommunikation für das Energiesystem)' that has received funding from BMWK(Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz) under funding indicator 50RU2303C and by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 957845. The authors would like to thank Dr. Brenda Espinosa Apráez from the Tilburg University, the Netherlands, for insightful discussions on the AI Act.

## REFERENCES

- [1] Tanveer Ahmad, Hongcai Zhang, and Biao Yan. 2020. A review on renewable energy and electricity requirement forecasting models for smart grid and buildings. Sustainable Cities and Society 55 (2020), 102052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scs.2020.102052
- [4] Niels Bantilan. 2018. Themis-ml: A fairness-aware machine learning interface for end-to-end discrimination discovery and mitigation. J. of Technology in Human Services 36, 1 (2018), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2017.1416512

overreliance. Proc. of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5 (2021), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449163

[5] Sweta Bhattacharya, Rajeswari Chengoden, Gautam Srivastava, Mamoun Alazab, Abdul Rehman Javed, Nancy Victor, Praveen Kumar Reddy Maddikunta, and Thippa Reddy Gadekallu. 2022. Incentive mechanisms for smart grid: State of the art, challenges, open issues, future directions. Big Data Cognitive Computing 6 (2022), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc6020047

[7] Auxane Boch, Ellen Hohma, and Rainer Trauth. 2022. Towards an accountability framework for AI: Ethical and legal considerations . Technical Report. 1-12 pages.

[6] Bishnu P. Bhattarai, Sumit Paudyal, Yusheng Luo, Manish Mohanpurkar, Kwok Cheung, Reinaldo Tonkoski, Rob Hovsapian, Kurt S. Myers, Rui Zhang, Power Zhao, Milos Manic, Song Zhang, and Xiaping Zhang. 2019. Big data analytics in smart grids: state-of-the-art, challenges, opportunities, and future directions. IET Smart Grid 2, 2 (2019), 141-154. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-stg.2018.0261

[8] Mark Bovens. 2007. Analyzing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law J. 13 (2007), 447-468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14680386.2007.00378.x

[10] A. Feder Cooper, Emanuel Moss, Benjamin Laufer, and Helen Nissenbaum. 2022. Accountability in an algorithmic society: Relationality, responsibility, and robustness in machine learning. FAccT '22: Proc. of the 2022 ACM Conf. on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (2022), 864-876. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533150

[9] Madalina Busuioc. 2021. Accountable artificial intelligence: Holding algorithms to account. Public Administration Review 81 (2021), 825-836. https://doi.org/10. 1111/puar.13293

[11] Pradip Dhal and Chandrashekhar Azad. 2022. A comprehensive survey on feature selection in the various fields of machine learning. Applied Intelligence 52, 4 (2022), 4543-4581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02550-9

Energy 146 (2020), 2589-2625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.08.092

[12] Simon Diemert, Laure Millet, Jonathan Groves, and Jeff Joyce. 2023. Safety integrity levels for artificial intelligence. In Int. Conf. on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security . Springer, 397-409. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40953-0\_34 [13] G. Dileep. 2020. A survey on smart grid technologies and applications. Renewable,

[14] European Parliament and Council. 2006. Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (recast). , 24-86 pages.

[16] European Parliament and Council. 2024. Corrigendum to the European Parliaments legislative resolution of 13 March 2024 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on laying down harmonised rules on AI (AI Act) and amending certain Union Legislative Acts (COM(2021)0206 C9-0146/2021 - 2021/0106(COD)).

- [2] Claudio A Ardagna, Nicola Bena, Cédric Hébert, Maria Krotsiani, Christos Kloukinas, and George Spanoudakis. 2023. Big data assurance: An approach based on service-level agreements. Big Data 11, 3 (2023), 239-254. https: //doi.org/10.1089/big.2021.0369

[15] European Parliament and Council. 2022. Directive (EU) 2022/2557 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on the resilience of critical entities and repealing Council Directive 2008/114/EC. , 164-198 pages.

[17] European Parliament and Council. 2024. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (AI Act).

[3] Zahra Ashktorab, Michael Desmond, Josh Andres, Michael Muller, Narendra Nath Joshi, Michelle Brachman, Aabhas Sharma, Kristina Brimijoin, Qian Pan, Christine T. Wolf, Evelyn Duesterwald, Casey Dugan, Werner Geyer, and Darrell Reimer. 2021. AI-assisted human labeling: Batching for efficiency without

[18] Luciano Floridi, Josh Cowls, Thomas C. King, and Mariarosaria Taddeo. 2020. Howto design AI for social good: Seven essential factors. Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (2020), 1771-1796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00213-5

- © Anna Volkova 2024. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in International Conference on Information Technology for Social Good (GoodIT '24), September 04-06, 2024, Bremen, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1145/3677525.3678651

- [19] Saud Hakem Al Harbi, Lionel Nganyewou Tidjon, and Foutse Khomh. 2023. Responsible Design Patterns for Machine Learning Pipelines. arXiv:2306.01788 [cs.SE]
- [21] Hanne Hirvonen. 2023. Just accountability structures-A way to promote the safe use of automated decision-making in the public sector. AI and Society 39 (2023), 155-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01731-z
- [20] Reihaneh H Hariri, Erik M Fredericks, and Kate M Bowers. 2019. Uncertainty in big data analytics: survey, opportunities, and challenges. J. of Big data 6, 1 (2019), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-019-0206-3
- [22] Independent High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. 2019. Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI . Technical Report. European Commission.
- [24] Mina Jafari, Abdollah Kavousi-Fard, Tao Chen, and Mazaher Karimi. 2023. A review on digital twin technology in smart grid, transportation system and smart city: Challenges and future. IEEE Access 11 (2023), 17471-17484. https: //doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3241588
- [23] International Electrotechnical Commission. 2010. IEC 61508-1:2010 Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-related Systems Part 1: General Requirements. https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/5510
- [25] Severin Kacianka and Alexander Pretschner. 2021. Designing accountable systems. FAccT '21: Proc. of the 2021 ACM Conf. on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (2021), 424-437. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445905
- [27] Tobias D Krafft, Katharina A Zweig, and Pascal D. König. 2020. How to regulate algorithmic decision-making: A framework of regulatory requirements for different applications. Regulation and Governance 16 (2020), 119-136. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12369
- [26] Jonathan GS Koppell. 2005. Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of multiple accountabilities disorder. Public Administration Review 65 (2005), 94-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00434.x
- [28] Oluwabukunmi Latifat Olorunfemi, Olukunle Oladipupo Amoo, Akoh Atadoga, Oluwatoyin Ajoke Fayayola, Temitayo Oluwaseun Abrahams, and Philip Olaseni Shoetan. 2024. Towards a conceptual framework for ethical AI development in IT systems. Computer Science and IT Research J. 5 (2024), 616-627. https://doi.org/10.51594/csitrj.v5i3.910
- [30] Gabriel Lima, Nina Grgić-Hlača, Jin Keun Jeong, and Meeyoung Cha. 2022. The conflict between explainable and accountable decision-making algorithms. FAccT '22: Proc. of the 2022 ACM Conf. on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (2022), 2103-2113. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3534628
- [29] Theodore M. Lechterman. 2022. The concept of accountability in AI ethics and governance. The Oxford Handbook of AI governance (2022), 164-182. https: //doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197579329.013.10
- [31] Haochen Liu, Yiqi Wang, Wenqi Fan, Xiaorui Liu, Yaxin Li, Shaili Jain, Yunhao Liu, Anil Jain, and Jiliang Tang. 2022. Trustworthy AI: A computational perspective. ACM T. on Intel. Systems and Tech. 14 (2022), 1-59. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3546872
- [33] Michele Loi and Spielkamp Matthias. 2021. Towards accountability in the use of artificial intelligence for public administrations. AIES '21: Proc. of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conf. on AI, Ethics, and Society (2021), 757-766. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3461702.3462631
- [32] Jing Liu, Yang Xiao, and Jingcheng Gao. 2014. Achieving accountability in smart grid. IEEE Sys. J. 8 (2014), 493-508. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2013.2260697
- [34] Ram Machleva, Leena Heistrenec, M. Perla, Kfir Yehuda Levya, Juri Belikovb, S. Mannora, and Y. Levron. 2022. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques for energy and power systems: Review, challenges and opportunities. Energy and AI 9 (2022), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyai.2022.100169
- [36] Irene Niet. 2022. Between vision and practice: Lack of alignment between AI strategies and energy regulations in the Dutch electricity sector. Discover Artificial Intelligence 2 (2022), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-022-00040-6
- [35] Alfredo Nazabal, Christopher K. I. Williams, Giovanni Colavizza, Camila Rangel Smith, and Angus Williams. 2020. Data Engineering for Data Analytics: A Classification of the Issues, and Case Studies. arXiv:2004.12929 [cs.DB]
- [37] Irene Niet, Rinie van Est, and Frank Veraart. 2021. Governing AI in electricity systems: Reflections on the EU artificial intelligence bill. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 4 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2021.690237
- [39] Claudio Novelli, Mariarosaria Taddeo, and Luciano Floridi. 2023. Accountability in artificial intelligence: What it is and how it works. AI and Society (2023), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01635-y
- [38] Helen Nissenbaum. 1996. Accountability in a computerized society. Science and engineering ethics 2 2 (1996), 25-42.
- [40] Eirini Ntoutsi, Pavlos Fafalios, Ujwal Gadiraju, Vasileios Iosifidis, Wolfgang Nejdl, Maria-Esther Vidal, Salvatore Ruggieri, Franco Turini, Symeon Papadopoulos, Emmanouil Krasanakis, Ioannis Kompatsiaris, Katharina Kinder-Kurlanda, Claudia Wagner, Fariba Karimi, Miriam Fernandez, Harith Alani, Bettina Berendt, Tina Kruegel, Christian Heinze, Klaus Broelemann, Gjergji Kasneci, Thanassis Tiropanis, and Steffen Staab. 2020. Bias in data-driven artificial intelligence systems-An introductory survey. Data Mining Knowledge Discovery 10 (2020), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1356
- [41] Joseph Oluwaseyi and Godwin Oluwafemi Olaoye. 2024. Addressing biases and implications in privacy-preserving AI for industrial IoT, ensuring fairness and
- © Anna Volkova 2024. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in International Conference on Information Technology for Social Good (GoodIT '24), September 04-06, 2024, Bremen, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1145/3677525.3678651

|      | accountability. (2024), 1-15.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [42] | Andrei Paleyes, Raoul-Gabriel Urma, and Neil D Lawrence. 2022. Challenges in deploying machine learning: A survey of case studies. ACM computing surveys 55, 6 (2022), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3533378                                                                                                                                          |
| [43] | Wei Pang, Milan Markovic, Iman Naja, Chiu Pang Fung, and Peter Edwards. 2021. On evidence capture for accountable AI systems. CEUR WS. Proc. 2894 (2021), 33-39.                                                                                                                                                                                      |
| [44] | Philipp Probst, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, and Bernd Bischl. 2019. Tunability: Importance of hyperparameters of machine learning algorithms. J. of Machine Learning Research 20, 53 (2019), 1934-1965. http://jmlr.org/papers/v20/18-444. html                                                                                                            |
| [45] | Mina Razghandi, Hao Zhou, Melike Erol-Kantarci, and Damla Turgut. 2024. Smart home energy management: VAE-GAN synthetic dataset generator and Q-learning. IEEE T. on S. Grid 15 (2024), 1562-1573. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG. 2023.3288824                                                                                                          |
| [46] | Zhongtuo Shi, Wei Yao, Zhouping Li, Lingkang Zeng, Yifan Zhao, Runfeng Zhang, Yong Tang, and Jinyu Wen. 2020. Artificial intelligence techniques for stability analysis and control in smart grids: Methodologies, applications, challenges and future directions. Applied Energy 278 (2020), 115733. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115733 |
| [47] | Ahmad K. Sleiti, Jayanta S. Kapat, and Ladislav Vesely. 2022. Digital twin in energy industry: Proposed robust digital twin for power plant and other complex capital-intensive large engineering systems. Energy Reports 8 (2022), 3704-3726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.02.305                                                             |
| [48] | Stephen C. Slota, Kenneth R. Fleischmann, Sherri Greenberg, Nitin Verma, Brenna Cummings, Lan Li, and Chris Shenefiel. 2021. Many hands make many fingers to point: challenges in creating accountable AI. AI and Society 38 (2021), 1287-1299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01302-0                                                            |
| [49] | Helen Smith. 2020. Clinical AI: opacity, accountability, responsibility and liability. AI and Society 36 (2020), 535-545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01019-6                                                                                                                                                                                  |
| [50] | Arthur A. Z. Sooares, Yona Lopes, Diego Passos, Natalia C. Fernandes, and Debora C. Muchaluat-Saade. 2021. 3AS: authentication, authorization, and accountability for SDN-based smart grids. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 88621-88640.                                                                                                                       |
| [51] | Francesco Sovrano and Giulio Masetti. 2022. Foreseeing the impact of the pro- posed AI Act on the sustainability and safety of critical infrastructures (ICEGOV '22) . 492-498. https://doi.org/10.1145/3560107.3560253                                                                                                                               |
| [52] | Ramya Srinivasan and Beatriz San Miguel Gonzalez. 2022. The role of empathy for artificial intelligence accountability. J. of Responsible Tech. 9 (2022), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2021.100021                                                                                                                                              |
| [53] | Monika Steidl, Michael Felderer, and Rudolf Ramler. 2023. The pipeline for the continuous development of artificial intelligence models-Current state of research and practice. J. of Systems and Software 199 (2023), 111615. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2023.111615                                                                             |
| [54] | Elham Tabassi. 2023. Artificial intelligence risk management framework. Trust- worthy and Responsible AI (2023), 1-48. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1                                                                                                                                                                                          |
| [55] | Anna Volkova, Amit Dilip Patil, Seyyed Ahmad Javadi, and Hermann de Meer. 2022. Accountability challenges of AI in smart grid services. e-Energy '22: Proc. of the 13 ACM Int. Conf. on Future Energy Systems (2022), 597-600. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3538637.3539636                                                                               |
| [56] | Rebecca Williams, Richard Cloete, Jennifer Cobbe, Caitlin Cottrill, Peter Edwards, Milan Markovic, Iman Naja, Frances Ryan, Jatinder Singh, and Wei Pang. 2022. From transparency to accountability of intelligent systems: Moving beyond aspirations. Data and Policy 4 (2022), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2021.37                            |
| [57] | Wenti Yang, Zhitao Guan, Longfei Wu, Xiaojiang Du, and Mohsen Guizani. 2021. Secure data access control with fair accountability in smart grid data sharing: An edge blockchain approach. Internet of Things 8 (2021), 8632-8643.                                                                                                                     |
| [58] | Ameema Zainab, Ali Ghrayeb, Dabeeruddin Syed, Haitham Abu-Rub, Shady S. Refaat, and Othmane Bouhali. 2021. Big data management in smart grids: Technologies and challenges. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 73046-73059. https: //doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3080433                                                                                           |
| [59] | Yufan Zhang, Qian Ai, Zhaoyu Li, Shuangrui Yin, Kaiyi Huang, Muhammad Yousif, and Tianguang Lu. 2020. Data augmentation strategy for small sample short-term load forecasting of distribution transformer. Int. T. on Electrical Energy                                                                                                               |
Anna Volkova Mahdieh Hatamian Alina Anapyanova Hermann de Meer
Being Accountable is Smart: Navigating the Technical and Regulatory Landscape of AI-based Services for Power Grid
The emergence of artificial intelligence and digitization of the power grid
introduced numerous effective application scenarios for AI-based services for
the smart grid. Nevertheless, adopting AI in critical infrastructures presents
challenges due to unclear regulations and lacking risk quantification
techniques. Regulated and accountable approaches for integrating AI-based
services into the smart grid could accelerate the adoption of innovative
methods in daily practices and address society's general safety concerns. This
paper contributes to this objective by defining accountability and highlighting
its importance for AI-based services in the energy sector. It underlines the
current shortcomings of the AI Act and proposes an approach to address these
issues in a potential delegated act. The proposed technical approach for
developing and operating accountable AI-based smart grid services allows for
assessing different service life cycle phases and identifying related
accountability risks.