The paper introduces the AI Assessment Sandbox Configurator, an open‑source framework designed to support technical assessment in AI Regulatory Sandboxes (AIRS) mandated by the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. It outlines 11 architectural and governance requirements for infrastructure that enables large‑scale, structured technical testing, and presents a catalogue of tests, a shared data model, dashboards, and reporting tools that harmonise heterogeneous outputs. An early‑stage pilot demonstrated the framework’s harmonisation and reporting capabilities within a live AIRS engagement, contributing to an official Exit Report.
By Alessio Buscemi, German Castignani, Daniele Pagani, Maxime Cordy, Jordi Cabot
arXiv:2609.21841v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Frontier language models now produce professional deliverables that expert graders judge to match human work on a substantial share of economically val...
By Abbas Raza Ali, Muhammad Ajmal Siddiqui, Moona Zahid
arXiv:2606. 01417v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Turkey's e-Government Gateway (e-Devlet) serves over 68 million registered users with more than 9,200 government services, and is increasingly integrating artificial intelligence into citizen-facing applications such as chatbot assistants and eligibility assessments.
By Ahmet Kaplan
arXiv:2606. 09809v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI evaluation results are produced at scale but reported inconsistently across leaderboards, model cards, benchmark papers, and company blogs.
By Avijit Ghosh, Anka Reuel, Jenny Chim, Wm. Matthew Kennedy, Srishti Yadav, Jennifer Mickel, Yanan Long, Andrew Tran, Anastassia Kornilova, Damian Stachura, Kevin Klyman, Felix Friedrich, Jeba Sania, Max Lamparth, Jan Batzner, Anoop Mishra, Eliya Habba, Yixiong Hao, Nathan Heath, Shalaleh Rismani, Usman Gohar, Andrea Loehr, David Manheim, Ruchira Dhar, Sree Harsha Nelaturu, Aarush Sinha, Leshem Choshen, Drishti Sharma, Ishan Khire, Amit Saha, Subramanyam Sahoo, Michael Hardy, Michael Alexander Riegler, Kabir Manghnani, Michelle Lin, Yanan Jiang, Yilin Huang, Asaf Yehudai, Jessica Ji, Aris Hofmann, Mubashara Akhtar, Nuno Moniz, Yacine Jernite, Stella Biderman, Zeerak Talat, Sanmi Koyejo, Mykel Kochenderfer, Irene Solaiman
arXiv:2605. 28508v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Existing AI evaluation practices often fail to capture how systems actually perform in low-resource environments, where operational constraints shape usability as much as model quality.
By Aakash Pant, Kavya Shah, Apoorv Agnihotri, Sneha Nikam, Prasaanth Balraj, Nakul Jain
Claims about AI safety reach audiences well beyond the AI community, yet many rely on opaque evidence or static assessments, when supporting evidence is accessible at all. We present the Systemic Risk...
Litmus is a zero-label system that automatically designs evaluation and monitoring metrics for AI pipelines by extracting evaluation intent from source code and targeted interrogation. It identifies what must be measured and why, then generates a justified, per-stage metric portfolio. In experiments on three real code-defined pipelines, Litmus outperforms AutoMetrics and DynamicRubric baselines in concern coverage, stage span, redundancy, and validity against per-row quality labels, especially on scientific QA.
By Prajjwal Gupta, Prasang Gupta, Vishal Bhutani, Apoorva Sharma, Sumanth Chundru, Waqar Sarguroh, Kevin Paul
The paper "Operationalising AI Regulatory Sandboxes: Activities, Requirements, and Technical Assessment under the EU AI Act" outlines a detailed framework for implementing AI Regulatory Sandboxes (AIRS) under the EU AI Act. It maps the sandbox lifecycle into 29 activities, distinguishes between a Core AIRS and an Extended AIRS that includes an AI Technical Sandbox (AITS), and derives 15 infrastructural and governance requirements linked to these activities and provider obligations. The authors also introduce the Sandbox Configurator, an open‑source tool to instantiate AITS environments, aiming to provide structured workflows for regulators, robust evaluation methods for experts, and a transparent compliance pathway for AI providers.
By Alessio Buscemi, Thibault Simonetto, Daniele Pagani, German Castignani, Maxime Cordy, Jordi Cabot
The paper introduces a unified evaluation framework for assessing the trustworthiness of large language models, agentic AI, and multimodal systems. It connects output-level, trajectory-level, and cross-modal assessments across eight dimensions—capability, robustness, safety, fairness, transparency, governance, oversight, and efficiency—while preserving system-specific metrics and providing uncertainty estimates. A meta-evaluation layer checks the validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the evaluation itself, and the framework aligns with governance standards and regulatory requirements.
By Shaina Raza, Ahmed Y. Radwan, Imran Liaquat, Kathryn Hume
The paper introduces the Systemic Risk Index, an open pipeline and dashboard that aggregates evidence from 19 public AI benchmarks into four systemic‑risk categories defined by the EU GPAI Code of Practice. It evaluates 18 models using harm‑preserving perturbations and simulated deployment contexts, offering users the ability to switch between average and worst‑case aggregation and to trace each risk rating back to its benchmark evidence. The study finds that worst‑case scores can be 14 to 37 points lower than average scores, and that LLM judges agree with human graders at a level comparable to human‑human agreement.
By Jacob T. Emmerson, Phuong-Anh Nguyen-Le, Ronan Romano, Wilber Sean V. Anterola, Yann Billeter, Zhijing Jin
arXiv:2602.24055v5 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: This study proposes CIRCLE, a six-stage, lifecycle-based framework to bridge the reality gap between model-centric performance metrics and AI syste...
By Reva Schwartz, Carina Westling, Morgan Briggs, Marzieh Fadaee, Isar Nejadgholi, Matthew Holmes, Fariza Rashid, Maya Carlyle, Afaf Ta\"ik, Kyra Wilson, Peter Douglas, Theodora Skeadas, Gabriella Waters, Rumman Chowdhury, Thiago Lacerda
arXiv:2608. 06202v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) benchmark evaluations are routinely used to support claims about model safety, reliability, and deployment readiness.
By Ro Encarnaci\'on, Tina Behzad, Emma Lurie, Dana\'e Metaxa