The paper presents a framework of formal operations for assembling context in large language model (LLM)-based engineering design, involving modular context units such as policy prompts, reference units with persistence, and user questions with prompt vectoring. It also introduces a formal method for evaluating modelling-as-code LLM outputs, assessing compliance to intent from LLM answers and the support LLMs provide for systems architecture modelling.
By Vinicius Kaster Marini, Petter Krus
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.
By Samira Maghool, Paolo Ceravolo
arXiv:2607. 14275v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Context engineering has become central to building reliable AI agents, yet it remains largely unmeasured.
By Fouad Bousetouane
arXiv:2410. 22526v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: To effectively address potential harms from Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, it is essential to identify and mitigate system-level hazards.
By Shalaleh Rismani, Roel Dobbe, AJung Moon
arXiv:2606. 14306v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current Generative AI (GenAI) interfaces remain largely constrained to chatbox interaction, which can impose high cognitive demands on users and create substantial barriers for people with intellectual disabilities (ID), including prompt formulation difficulties, response overload, and limited mechanisms to assess information reliability.
By Virginia Francisco, Daniel Guasch, Raquel Herv\'as
arXiv:2607. 26220v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Context: Large Language Models (LLMs) offer natural-language flexibility for automated requirements elicitation but frequently generate structurally invalid requirements and logical inconsistencies, lacking formal correctness guarantees.
By Ahmed Ibrahim