arXiv:2605. 24727v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: While large-scale models such as LLMs and diffusion models have achieved practical success, public institutions have emphasized the importance of explainability in AI.
arXiv:2606. 14838v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: How to define a good explanation is a long-standing philosophical debate which has found recent renewed interest in the context of AI outputs.
arXiv:2604. 07778v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Existing accountability frameworks for AI systems, legal, ethical, and regulatory, rest on a shared assumption: for any consequential outcome, at least one identifiable person had enough involvement and foresight to bear meaningful responsibility.
arXiv:2606. 16786v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Algorithmic explanations are intended to help stakeholders understand opaque algorithmic decisions, but in practice, they often fall short.
The paper proposes five runtime primitives—discovery, identity, governance, attestation, and supply chain—to manage autonomous AI agents in enterprise settings. It argues that traditional control models fail because agents are transient, model-driven, and self‑discoverable, making runtime governance essential. The authors detail an implementation that mediates agent actions against policy, authorizes them via a per‑tenant vocabulary, and records them in a verifiable ledger, noting the associated operational costs and partial deployment status.
arXiv:2607. 21209v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In the field of Artificial Intelligence, an agent is a system which is able to autonomously make decisions in order to reach a desired goal.
The paper discusses how Large Language Models can produce natural language self‑explanations that appear plausible but may not accurately reflect the model’s reasoning. It critiques current evaluation methods for such explanations and offers practical guidelines to assess their plausibility and faithfulness. Additionally, it argues that evaluation should also consider the actionability of these explanations, showing how they can aid decision‑making for various stakeholders.
arXiv:2607. 25648v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Public services face growing pressure to adopt artificial intelligence (AI) to close the gap between rising demand and falling resources.
arXiv:2606. 26523v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We develop a framework for interpreting AI systems as agents, drawing on the philosophical tradition of radical interpretation and the tools of mechanistic interpretability.
arXiv:2607. 21268v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In many social-science research tasks, such as economics, LLM-based agents must produce outputs for which no cheap, task-complete, machine-readable correctness signal exists.
arXiv:2606. 12268v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Advanced AI systems have extensive knowledge of their environments; in fact, their knowledge may (far) exceed that of their developers or users.
arXiv:2608. 11344v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Financial institutions are delegating consequential decisions to agentic AI systems that decompose goals, coordinate models and tools, and act with little oversight.
The paper argues that AI should be evaluated not only by principles but by concrete protocols that translate commitments into roles, requirements, records, oversight, and assessment. It introduces a rupture test linking institutional baselines to system evaluation, and distinguishes evidence‑bounded deployment from measurement‑bounded governance. The authors propose the RISE AI architecture to make bounded, evidence‑based claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment, emphasizing the need for engineering, institutional repair, and ongoing moral judgment.