arXiv:2607. 24243v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Mainstream AI research emphasises capability growth and tolerates low failure rates when average-case performance is high.
By Keivan Navaie
arXiv:2602.08889v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Quantitative risk assessment relies on structured expert elicitation to estimate unobservable properties. The Delphi method produces calibrated, au...
By Tobias Lorenz, Mario Fritz
arXiv:2608. 00794v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Agentic AI evaluation pipelines produce benchmark scores that justify deployment decisions, safety certifications, and regulatory compliance claims.
By William Caban
arXiv:2606. 30219v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM evaluation and AI safety face a shared measurement problem: benchmark scores, reward-model signals, and reported safety metrics can improve while the latent properties they are meant to represent remain difficult to verify.
By Bu\u{g}ra Alperen Ulu{\i}rmak, Rifat Kurban
The study shows that while large language model (LLM) annotations of stakeholder consultation submissions are highly reproducible (intraclass correlations > 0.99), they do not reliably capture the intended construct measured by structured survey responses. Divergence between LLM-inferred and survey measures varies by stakeholder group, with business associations expressing more AI risk concern in text than in surveys, and spatial autocorrelation indicates neighboring European countries share similar text-based stances. Despite these divergences, survey-reported concerns remain strongly linked to support for explainability across all levels of divergence.
By Veronika Batzdorfer (KIT), Carlo Romano Marcello Alessandro Santagiustina (ALMAnaCH, m\'edialab, Sciences Po)
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%.
By Rudrendu Kumar Paul, Sourav Nandy