arXiv AI
Jun 30
Defeat Devices in AI Systems
arXiv:2606. 28863v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI systems increasingly exhibit behavior that differs systematically between evaluation and deployment contexts.
When Compliance Data Masquerades as Evaluation: Measurement Validity for Deployed AI Systems
Related stories
arXiv AI
Sep 15
AI Deployment Accountability Engineering: A Vision for Accountable AI in Safety-Critical Socio-Technical Systems
The paper proposes AI Deployment Accountability Engineering (ADAE), a new subdiscipline focused on establishing measurable, continuous, and actionable accountability for AI systems once they are deployed. ADAE treats accountability as a deployment-layer property, aiming to ensure systems remain within acceptable risk limits, identify failure contexts, attribute failures across technical and human components, and translate technical failures into downstream consequences. The authors outline a research agenda built around four pillars—structured discovery of context-dependent failure modes, privacy-preserving accountability measurement, system-level risk analysis for agentic AI, and translation of technical failures into operational and institutional risks—to support timely intervention in safety-critical socio-technical environments.
arXiv AI
Aug 6
A Chain Is Only as Strong as Its Weakest Link: A Scoping Review of System Integration Audits in AI
arXiv:2608. 04921v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI systems become increasingly integrated into diverse interfaces and applications, model-centric audits are insufficient to address risks arising from interactions among system components and deployment environments.
arXiv AI
Aug 5
Measurement Without Validity: The Compounding Reliability Problem in Agentic AI Evaluation
arXiv:2608. 00794v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Agentic AI evaluation pipelines produce benchmark scores that justify deployment decisions, safety certifications, and regulatory compliance claims.
arXiv AI
Jul 16
Post-Deployment Accountability in AI Governance: A Cross-Regulatory Empirical Analysis of AI Incidents
arXiv:2605. 16281v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Post-deployment accountability has become central to AI governance, yet little empirical evidence shows whether monitoring, incident reporting, and impact assessment obligations are visible when AI systems fail.
arXiv AI
Aug 3
Beyond Component Testing: Validating Agentic AI Systems
arXiv:2607. 29405v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic AI systems act through multi-step trajectories that combine planning, tool use, memory, interaction, and adaptation.
arXiv AI
Aug 11
UGAF-ITS: A Standards Harmonization Framework and Validation Tool for Multi-Framework AI Governance in Distributed Intelligent Transportation Systems
arXiv:2604. 22789v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Organizations deploying AI-enabled Intelligent Transportation Systems face fragmented governance: ISO/IEC~42001 demands a certifiable management system, the EU AI Act imposes binding high-risk obligations from August~2026, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework structures voluntary practice.
arXiv AI
Sep 18
Governance-as-Code: Translating EU AI Act Technical Requirements into Executable Compliance Pipelines for Generative AI Systems
The paper introduces Governance-as-Code (GaC), a framework that translates the EU AI Act’s technical requirements into 43 machine‑checkable acceptance criteria across six compliance modules. GaC runs within a CI/CD pipeline, producing Article‑indexed audit evidence and providing actual Rego policy code. The authors validate GaC on two enterprise deployments, showing it reproduces manual audit findings—including three penalty‑triggering violations—while reducing audit labor by about 75%.
arXiv AI
Jul 7
Open Problems in AI Incident Governance
arXiv:2607. 05163v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI systems may produce failures after deployment that pre-deployment safety assessments do not anticipate.
arXiv AI
Sep 24
An Open Pipeline and Dashboard for Systemic-Risk Evidence under the EU AI Act's Code of Practice
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.
arXiv AI
Sep 25
The Gold in Bias: Maturing the AI Design Process through Verification
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.
arXiv AI
Sep 3
READY or Not: Reliable Enterprise Agent Deployment
READY or Not: Reliable Enterprise Agent Deployment introduces a framework for qualifying AI agents for enterprise workflows. It measures reliability and operating cost under various oversight policies, selects the minimum‑cost policy that meets a specified reliability target, and statistically qualifies it on held‑out cases. In a clinical audit study, READY revealed that two agents with nearly identical autonomous accuracy required markedly different levels of human review to achieve the same reliability target.