arXiv:2606. 11769v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The European AI Act is the first comprehensive regulation of artificial intelligence (AI), setting out extensive obligations, particularly for so-called high-risk and general-purpose AI systems.
Two instruments of EU digital law place inference at their centre and mean different things by it. Article 3(1) of the AI Act uses the capability to infer constitutively: it is the central feature separating the regulated category from conventional software.
arXiv:2608. 10601v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Two instruments of EU digital law place inference at their centre and mean different things by it.
arXiv:2410. 22526v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: To effectively address potential harms from Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, it is essential to identify and mitigate system-level hazards.
The paper introduces the Agentic Adoption Index (AAI), a new measure of delegated exposure that captures whether workers actually commit tasks to AI within structured workflows. Using semantic embeddings of 888,000 agent skill specifications from GitHub and 18,000 O*NET task statements, the authors find that occupations with high delegation differ from those most vulnerable to pre-AI automation, that AAI correlates more with technical capability than with current LLM use, and that for lower‑educated occupations AAI rises with wages while it falls for higher‑educated, high‑earning workers. These patterns also appear in an independent corpus from the Manus Skills Marketplace.
The paper systematically classifies the EU AI Act’s high‑risk requirements, finding that only a minority directly address AI‑specific risk sources while most impose organizational and documentation obligations. From these risk‑related requirements, the authors derive a consolidated list of distinct AI‑specific risk sources, creating an EU AI Act Risk Source List. This list aims to bridge the gap between legal obligations and AI risk‑management practice by providing a structured reference for comparing the Act’s implicit risk coverage with existing AI risk taxonomies.
arXiv:2601. 12913v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: This paper argues that interpretability research in Artificial Intelligence (AI) is fundamentally ill-posed as existing definitions of interpretability fail to describe how interpretability can be formally tested or designed for.
The paper proposes rethinking bias in AI as a diagnostic tool rather than merely a flaw to be minimized. It introduces a multidimensional framework that examines bias across origin, lifecycle emergence, technical causes, and validation methods, covering 30 bias types, 16 verification methods, and 20 countermeasures for both traditional and generative AI. The authors present a hierarchical evidence framework distinguishing internal and external validity, and advocate for Ethics by Design principles to embed bias verification throughout the AI development lifecycle.
The paper introduces a formal framework for measuring AI propensities—tendencies of models to exhibit particular behaviours—using a bilogistic formulation that identifies an "ideal band" of success probability. It estimates the limits of this band with task‑agnostic rubrics and applies the method to six families of LLMs, showing how shifts in propensity affect task performance. The study finds that propensity estimates from one benchmark predict behaviour on held‑out tasks and that combining propensity with capability metrics yields stronger predictive power than either alone.
The paper introduces the Agentic Adoption Index (AAI), a new metric that captures whether workers actually delegate tasks to AI within their workflows, rather than merely measuring potential AI applicability. Using 53,000 agent skill specifications and 18,000 O*NET task statements, the authors find that occupations with high delegation differ from those previously deemed most at risk, that AAI aligns more closely with AI’s capabilities than current usage, and that adoption peaks at mid‑wage, bachelor’s‑level occupations while declining at both ends of the wage and education spectrum. The study highlights that technical availability explains much of the variation, but other factors—such as resistance to specification or professional discretion—also influence who adopts AI. whyItMatters":"The findings suggest that actual AI adoption patterns differ from prior risk assessments, indicating that factors beyond technical feasibility shape who delegates to AI, which has implications for workforce planning and policy."
arXiv:2607. 04448v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Ensuring software compliance with regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) poses a significant challenge, as requirements engineers must translate complex legal text into actionable software requirements - a process that remains largely manual and error-prone in practice.
arXiv:2604. 23716v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Information-theoretic (IT) measures are ubiquitous in artificial intelligence: entropy drives decision-tree splits and uncertainty quantification, cross-entropy is the default classification loss, mutual information underpins representation learning and feature selection, and transfer entropy reveals directed influence in dynamical systems.
The paper proposes Causal Evidentiary Governance (CEG), a framework that requires regulated institutions to maintain a versioned directed acyclic graph (DAG) separating allowable from disallowed causal pathways in high‑risk machine learning systems. CEG introduces the Causal Harm Rate to quantify prediction variation due to disallowed pathways and pairs each decision with a signed Decision‑Evidence Packet (DEP) that cryptographically links the prediction to the DAG and path‑specific attributions, enabling efficient inclusion proofs via a Merkle tree. Empirical validation on synthetic credit data and the German Credit dataset demonstrates that CEG more clearly isolates causal effects than traditional fairness metrics and that a proof‑of‑concept implementation shows operational feasibility with manageable performance tradeoffs.