ACPR published a discussion paper on the governance of artificial intelligence in finance. In this paper, ACPR has proposed four principles for evaluating artificial intelligence algorithms and tools—namely, data management, performance, stability, and explainability. ACPR also recommends the governance concerns that need to be taken into account, as early as the design phase of an algorithm. These concerns involve the integration of artificial intelligence into traditional business processes; the impact of this integration on internal controls; the relevance of outsourcing (partially or fully) the design or maintenance phases; and the internal and external audit functions. The comment period for this discussion paper ends on September 04, 2020.
The governance of artificial intelligence algorithms requires careful consideration of the validation of each decision-making process. The regulatory compliance and the performance objectives of these algorithms are only achievable through a certain level of explainability and traceability. In the discussion paper, ACPR recommends focus on the following aspects of governance concerns:
- Integration of artificial intelligence into business processes. This involves ascertaining whether the artificial intelligence component fulfills a critical function, by dint of its operational role or of the associated compliance risk and whether the engineering process follows a well-defined methodology throughout the machine learning lifecycle (from algorithmic design to monitoring in production), in the sense of reproducibility, quality assurance, architectural design, auditability, and automation.
- Human-algorithm interactions. Those can require a particular kind of explainability, intended either for internal operators who need to confirm or reject an algorithm’s output, or for customers who are entitled to understand the decisions impacting them or the commercial offers made to them. Besides, processes involving artificial intelligence often leave room for human intervention, which is beneficial or even necessary, but also bears new risks. Such new risks include the introduction of biases into the explanation of an 4 algorithm’s output, or a stronger feeling of engaging one’s responsibility when contradicting the algorithm than when confirming its decisions.
- Security and outsourcing. Machine learning models are exposed to new kinds of attacks. Furthermore, strategies such as development outsourcing, skills outsourcing, and external hosting should undergo careful risk assessment. More generally, third-party risks should be evaluated.
- Initial and continuous validation process. This process must often be re-examined when designing an artificial intelligence algorithm intended for augmenting or altering an existing process. For instance, the governance framework applicable to a business line may in some cases be maintained, while, in other cases, it will have to be updated before putting the artificial intelligence component into production. Continuous validation process. The continuous monitoring of machine learning algorithm, for instance, requires technical expertise and machine-learning-specific tools to ensure the aforementioned principles are followed over time (appropriate data management, predictive accuracy, stability, and availability of valid explanations).
- Audit. For internal and external audits of artificial-intelligence-based systems in finance, exploratory work led by the ACPR suggests adopting a dual approach. The first facet combines analysis of the source code and data with methods for documenting artificial intelligence algorithms, predictive, models and datasets. The second facet leverages methods providing explanation for an individual decision or for the overall behavior of the algorithm; it also relies on two techniques for testing an algorithm as a black box: challenger models (to compare against the model under test) and benchmarking datasets, both curated by the auditor.
Comment Due Date: September 04, 2020
Keywords: Europe, France, Banking, Insurance, Governance, Artificial Intelligence, Fintech, Machine Learning, Regtech, Outsourcing Arrangements, ACPR
Previous ArticleACPR Publishes Version 2.1.0 of the CREDITHAB Taxonomy
FDIC is seeking comments on a rule to amend the interagency guidelines for real estate lending policies—also known as the Real Estate Lending Standards.
ISDA is consulting on the implementation of fallbacks for the sterling LIBOR ICE Swap Rate and for the USD LIBOR ICE Swap Rate.
BIS and BoE launched the BIS Innovation Hub Center in London, which is the fourth new Innovation Hub Centre to be opened in the past two years.
ESRB published recommendations on the reciprocation of macro-prudential measures in Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Norway, and Sweden.
SEC announced that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs released the Spring 2021 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
EC published the Delegated Regulation 2021/931, which supplements the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR or Regulation 575/2013) with regard to the regulatory technical standards specifying the method for identifying derivative transactions with one or more than one material risk driver.
BCBS is consulting on preliminary proposals for the prudential treatment of cryptoasset exposures of banks.
EBA issued a revised list of validation rules under the implementing technical standards on supervisory reporting.
BIS Innovation Hub, BDF, and SNB announced that, together with a private-sector consortium led by Accenture, they will conduct an experiment using wholesale central bank digital currency (wCBDC) for cross-border settlement.
ESAs published two amended implementing technical standards on the mapping of credit assessments of External Credit Assessment Institutions (ECAIs).