arXiv AI By Callum Cockburn, Sam Farrow

AI Assurance in UK Defence: Challenges in Operationalising JSP 936

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2606. 09414v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This report examines practical challenges in operationalising JSP 936 Part 1 for AI assurance in UK Defence.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

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.

By Murat Kantarcioglu
arXiv AI
Jul 31

AI Security Priorities: A Field-Wide Agenda

arXiv:2607. 26069v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI systems are rapidly integrated into critical economic, governmental, and national security functions, the gap between AI adoption and AI security readiness continues to widen.

By Gil Gekker, Rachel Steratore, Everett Smith, Asher Brass-Gershovich, Varun Gandhi, Nicole Nichols, Vijay Bolina, Buck Shlegeris, Lisa Einstein, Dan Lahav, Omer Nevo, Sella Nevo
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 11

From Protocols to Evidence: Bounded Claims for AI in Service of the Common Good

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.

By Nitesh V. Chawla, Paulo Benanti