Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchPolitici AI

analiza aiqbench

This paper introduces a lightweight methodology using auditable "trustworthiness level functions" to map AI system profiles into governance-relevant categories throughout their lifecycle. By separating raw trustworthiness evidence from the interpretive rules, it enables transparent monitoring of degradation and drift while maintaining explicit human oversight for validation and approval. This approach directly addresses critical gaps in current frameworks by making governance decisions contestable and adaptable over time without replacing expert judgment.
Surse care acoperăarXiv, Quantum Zeitgeist
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

A Methodology for Auditable Trustworthiness Levels in AI Lifecycle Governance

arXiv3 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2607.16130v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI governance increasingly requires judgments about whether an AI system remains adequately trustworthy over time, whether observed changes are tolerable, and how such judgments should be documented in a transparent and contestable way. Existing approaches remain either too high-level to support lifecycle monitoring and reassessment or too narrowly metric-driven to connect multidimensional trustworthiness evidence with governance decisions. We propose a lightweight methodology centered on \emph{trustworthiness level functions}: auditable rules that map measured trustworthiness profiles to governance-relevant levels. The methodology separates the underlying trustworthiness evidence from the governance rule used to interpret it and treats that rule as a lifecycle governance object. The rule may remain expert-defined or, when available evidence warrants empirical learning, be approximated by an interpretable candidate model. An AI lifecycle governance procedure embeds this choice in explicit decision gates for determining whether learning should be attempted and whether a learned candidate should become operative. The resulting rule supports lifecycle monitoring through level transitions, boundary margins, and profile drift, with explicit human responsibilities for validation, approval, and reassessment. We illustrate the methodology on synthetic AI lifecycle scenarios involving degradation, shocks, updates, heterogeneous monitoring cadences, and system comparison. Our methodology does not replace expert or legal judgment, but makes the governance interpretation of trustworthiness evidence more explicit, auditable, and contestable over time.

Abstract:AI governance increasingly requires judgments about whether an AI system remains adequately trustworthy over time, whether observed changes are tolerable, and how such judgments should be documented in a transparent and contestable way. Existing approaches remain either too high-level to support lifecycle monitoring and reassessment or too narrowly metric-driven to connect multidimensional trustworthiness evidence with governance decisions. We propose a lightweight methodology centered on \emph{trustworthiness level functions}: auditable rules that map measured trustworthiness profiles to governance-relevant levels. The methodology separates the underlying trustworthiness evidence from the governance rule used to interpret it and treats that rule as a lifecycle governance object. The rule may remain expert-defined or, when available evidence warrants empirical learning, be approximated by an interpretable candidate model. An AI lifecycle governance procedure embeds this choice in explicit decision gates for determining whether learning should be attempted and whether a learned candidate should become operative. The resulting rule supports lifecycle monitoring through level transitions, boundary margins, and profile drift, with explicit human responsibilities for validation, approval, and reassessment. We illustrate the methodology on synthetic AI lifecycle scenarios involving degradation, shocks, updates, heterogeneous monitoring cadences, and system comparison. Our methodology does not replace expert or legal judgment, but makes the governance interpretation of trustworthiness evidence more explicit, auditable, and contestable over time.

Version v2. Clarified lifecycle governance procedure and expanded synthetic experiments. 26 pages; 8 figures

Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Systems and Control (eess.SY)

arXiv:2607.16130 [cs.CY]

(or arXiv:2607.16130v2 [cs.CY] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.16130 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 327 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe