arXiv AI

Comprehensive AI governance requires addressing non-model gains

arXiv:2606. 00047v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frontier AI governance often centres on the model-level governance paradigm, which assumes that a model's capability profile is primarily a function of the compute and data used during training.

arXiv AI
Aug 28

Thomson: Continual Learning of Frontier Models for SovereignAI

The paper introduces Thomson, a frontier AI model developed through continual learning on open-weight models, aiming to democratize access to high-performance AI. It argues that institutions with limited resources can achieve frontier-level performance by applying a modern mid- & post-training stack, preserving model plasticity and stability while minimizing high-impact interventions. Thomson demonstrates competitive performance across agentic tasks, safety, legal, tax, multilingualism, and large-scale deep research, exhibiting a distinctive π-shaped improvement pattern and effectively mitigating the forgetting problem seen in narrow domain adaptation.

By Shengzhuang Chen, Jerrod Parker, Yejin Bang, Andrew M. Bean, Nabeel Seedat, Stefan Winzeck, Daniil Glazko, Jannik Zgraggen, Fangyi Yu, Scott Arnott, Dietrich Trautmann, Luca Ciuffreda, Guglielmo Bonifazi, Davide Romano, Bradley Bell, Kirsty Fielding, Daniele Giofr\`e, Tom Zielund, Ipshita Chatterjee, Sneha Murthy Ghantasala, Manpreet Nanreh, John Scoville, Maciej Sakowicz, Wassim Seifeddine, Lukas Thede, Jonathan Richard Schwarz
arXiv AI
Sep 11

Beyond Training: A Feasibility Taxonomy for Inference-Time AI Governance

The paper "Beyond Training: A Feasibility Taxonomy for Inference-Time AI Governance" presents a taxonomy of twenty inference‑time mechanisms for monitoring, verification, and enforcement, each evaluated on a four‑point readiness scale using evidence from four vendors. It applies this taxonomy to a two‑dimensional adversary model and maps the mechanisms to four governance scenarios, finding that most mechanisms are commercially available but only adequate against cooperative or low‑to‑medium‑capability users, not high‑capability state‑level deployers. The study also links inference‑stage controls to hardware‑stage mechanisms through a substitution principle and reports a second‑rater reliability of 0.74. whyItMatters":"The work identifies the current gaps and readiness of inference‑time governance tools, highlighting that existing mechanisms are insufficient against powerful adversaries and thus informing future regulatory and technical development."

By Samar Ansari
arXiv AI
Sep 15

Governing at Machine Speed: An Adaptive Intelligence Architecture for Real-Time AI Policy Enforcement

The paper "Governing at Machine Speed: An Adaptive Intelligence Architecture for Real-Time AI Policy Enforcement" highlights a gap in enterprise AI governance, where 78% of organizations lack auditable evidence of policy enforcement. It introduces AGIL, a five-layer adaptive governance architecture that uses machine learning for real-time detection, risk classification, sub-100ms policy enforcement, continuous attestation, and policy evolution. The authors argue that the failure is organizational and architectural, not technical, and call for future empirical validation of AGIL.

By Sandeep Bokkasam, B. Durgalakshmi
arXiv AI
Sep 11

The Biggest Risk of Embodied AI is Governance Lag

The article argues that embodied AI poses a significant governance lag, the delay between technological deployment and institutional response. It identifies three interlinked forms of lag—observational, institutional, and distributive—and proposes a compliance architecture featuring deployment visibility, stack-level accountability, trigger-based adjustments, and automatic distributional responses. The central policy challenge highlighted is ensuring governance systems become observable, responsive, and adaptive before disruption becomes entrenched.

By Shaoshan Liu
arXiv AI
Aug 26

Quantifying System-Level Harms from AI Adoption in Complex Sociotechnical Systems

The paper proposes a framework that connects structured hazard analysis, component-level testing, and probabilistic system modelling to assess system-level harms from AI in complex sociotechnical systems. It demonstrates the approach using the UK's Real Time Gross Settlement system, showing how adversarial inputs to LLM-based trading can shift AI behaviour, reduce system resilience, and increase the likelihood of cascading bank failures. The framework aims to provide a traceable pathway from model behaviour to systemic outcomes, enabling evidence-based governance of AI in critical infrastructure.

By Paul Vautravers, Oliver Chalkley, Gabriel Downer, Kate S, Damian Ruck
arXiv AI
4d ago

CIRCLE: A Framework for Evaluating AI from a Real-World Lens

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 AI
Sep 24

The Capability Manifold and ML Scaling Laws

The paper introduces a capability manifold, a multidimensional framework that maps downstream capabilities—such as reasoning, retrieval, planning, and adaptation—to pre‑training, post‑training, and test‑time resources via bounded scaling functions. It provides analytical Jacobians to quantify how sensitive each capability is to changes in resources and their interactions. By embedding existing Kaplan‑ and Chinchilla‑type scaling laws and test‑time compute into this manifold, the authors demonstrate that these scaling relationships can be unified as trajectories on a common capability manifold.

By Syed Ali Raza Zaidi, Maryam Hafeez