TARU PUBLICATIONS
Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences cover

Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences

(Since 1980)
Hybrid ·Peer-reviewed·ISSN (Online): 2169-0103·ISSN (Print): 0252-2667

WoS  JIF 2026 : 0.4 (Q4)

Powered by:Powered by

Monthly Journal: Publishes theoretical and applied research on topics in information and optimization sciences.

Issues up to 2022 co-published with and available at:Taylor & Francis
submissions@tarupublications.com
Taru Online First Current IssueSpecial IssuesBrowse all Issues
Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences
Open Access Research Article

Understanding importance of probability-driven ethical frameworks in navigating cybersecurity and AI ethics

, * ,

* Corresponding author · click or hover a name for details

pp. 2243–2252Vol. 46Issue 7October 2025DOI: 10.47974/JIOS-2126XML
Received:
05 Mar 2025
Published Online:
31 Oct 2025
Article type:
Research Article
Language:
EN
Article no.:
JIOS-2126
Pages:
2243–2252

Abstract

Probability driven frameworks are necessary for implementation of ethics in cybersecurity with Artificial intelligence (AI). By having these framework more informed decisions can be taken that will balance interest of stakeholders as these models will quantify risks and uncertainties. Fairness, accountability, and transparency are prioritized in this probability driven framework, that will ensure ethical norms and societal values are aligned with decisions. Structured approach these mathematical based frameworks provides valuable tool for developing fair practices in cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence development. In the literature survey of this paper gaps are identified based on available work that further highlights different problems involved in ethical implementation of AI. The framework proposed in paper will provide way to different stakeholders for including risk involved, ethical implementation and promoting the responsible and unbiased use of Artificial Intelligence technologies in order to protect digital privacy.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence (AI)FairnessCybersecurityProbabilityRisk mitigation

Subject Classifications

Primary 68M25Secondary 68Q87

References

[1] S. Sudha, A. Narmadha, G. Amutha, and N. Ayedee, “Role of emerging technologies in marketing and decision making – PRISMA model,” Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 1591–1605 (2024), doi: 10.47974/JIOS-1636.
[2] S. K. Singh, N. K. Bhasin, and D. Kumar, “Unleashing the fintech revolution: Transformative impacts of technology on financial services in the National Capital Region (NCR),” Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 1501–1514 (2023), doi: 10.47974/JIOS-1472.
[3] F. Cremer, F. Cremer, T. Holz, R. Mertens, and A. Risius, “Cyber risk and cybersecurity: a systematic review of data availability,” Geneva Pap Risk Insur Issues Pract, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 698–736 (Jul. 2022), doi: 10.1057/s41288-022-00266-6.
[4] A. Trotta, M. Ziosi, and V. Lomonaco, “The future of ethics in AI: challenges and opportunities,” AI & Soc, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 439–441 (Apr. 2023), doi: 10.1007/s00146-023-01644-x.
[5] M. F. Dixon, I. Halperin, and P. Bilokon, “Probabilistic Modeling,” in Machine Learning in Finance: From Theory to Practice, M. F. Dixon, I. Halperin, and P. Bilokon, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 47–80 (2020). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-41068-1_2.
[6] R. Nishant, M. Kennedy, and J. Corbett, “Artificial intelligence for sustainability: Challenges, opportunities, and a research agenda,” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 53, pp. 102104 (Aug. 2020), doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102104.
[7] C. Vidal and F. Heylighen, “Ethics and Complexity: Why Standard Ethical Frameworks Cannot Cope with Socio-Technological Change,” in Humanism and its Discontents: The Rise of Transhumanism and Posthumanism, P. Jorion, Ed., Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 197–216 (2022). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-67004-7_12.
[8] J. Chaki, “Probability and Bayesian Theory to Handle Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence,” in Handling Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, J. Chaki, Ed., Singapore: Springer Nature, pp. 13–24 (2023). doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-5333-2_2.
[9] A. Jobin, M. Ienca, and E. Vayena, “The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines,” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1 (Sep. 2019), doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2.
[10] C. Huang, Z. Zhang, B. Mao, and X. Yao, “An Overview of Artificial Intelligence Ethics,” IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 799–819 (Aug. 2023), doi: 10.1109/TAI.2022.3194503.
[11] V. Belle, “Tractable Probabilistic Models for Ethical AI,” in Graph-Based Representation and Reasoning, T. Braun, D. Cristea, and R. Jäschke, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 3–8 (2022). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-16663-1_1.
[12] R. L. Baskerville, J. Kim, and C. Stucke, “The cybersecurity risk estimation engine: A tool for possibility based risk analysis,” Computers & Security, vol. 120, pp. 102752 (Sep. 2022), doi: 10.1016/j.cose.2022.102752.
[13] R. Kaur, D. Gabrijelčič, and T. Klobučar, “Artificial intelligence for cybersecurity: Literature review and future research directions,” Information Fusion, vol. 97, pp. 101804 (Sep. 2023), doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101804.
[14] M. Braun, P. Hummel, S. Beck, and P. Dabrock, “Primer on an ethics of AI-based decision support systems in the clinic,” J Med Ethics, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. e3 (Dec. 2021), doi: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105860.
[15] T. Miller, “Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 267, pp. 1–38 (Feb. 2019), doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007.
[16] L. Floridi, “Translating Principles into Practices of Digital Ethics: Five Risks of Being Unethical,” Philosophy & Technology, vol. 32 (May 2019), doi: 10.1007/s13347-019-00354-x.
[17] D. Dennehy, A. Griva, N. Pouloudi, Y. K. Dwivedi, M. Mäntymäki, and I. O. Pappas, “Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Information Systems: Perspectives to Responsible AI,” Inf Syst Front, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1–7 (Feb. 2023), doi: 10.1007/s10796-022-10365-3.
[18] M. Ashok, R. Madan, A. Joha, and U. Sivarajah, “Ethical framework for Artificial Intelligence and Digital technologies,” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 62, pp. 102433 (Feb. 2022), doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102433.
[19] K. Xivuri and H. Twinomurinzi, “A Systematic Review of Fairness in Artificial Intelligence Algorithms,” in Responsible AI and Analytics for an Ethical and Inclusive Digitized Society, D. Dennehy, A. Griva, N. Pouloudi, Y. K. Dwivedi, I. Pappas, and M. Mäntymäki, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 271–284 (2021). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-85447-8_24.
[20] Pfeiffer, J., Gutschow, J., Haas, C. et al. Algorithmic Fairness in AI. Bus Inf Syst Eng 65, 209–222 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00787-x.
[21] “A Causal Bayesian Networks Viewpoint on Fairness | SpringerLink.” Accessed: Apr. 13 (2024). [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-16744-8_1
[22] “Fairness-aware machine learning engineering: how far are we? | Empirical Software Engineering.” Accessed: Apr. 13 (2024). [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10664-023-10402-y
[23] Z. Irfan, F. McCaffery, and R. Loughran, “Evaluating Fairness Metrics,” in Advances in Bias and Fairness in Information Retrieval, L. Boratto, S. Faralli, M. Marras, and G. Stilo, Eds., Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, pp. 31–41 (2023). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-37249-0_3

Views: 105Downloads: 76Citations: 0