Sari la conținut

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

perspectiva aiqbenchSiguranță AI

analiza aiqbench

This research demonstrates that standard prediction-based metrics like accuracy and calibration are insufficient for guaranteeing AI trustworthiness, as they fail to detect compromised models with identical output distributions but divergent internal decision mechanisms. The authors propose a "competence envelope" framework that integrates explanation certification alongside predictive performance to uncover failure modes invisible to traditional evaluation methods. This work is critical for advancing rigorous safety protocols in high-stakes AI deployments where understanding the model's reasoning process is as vital as its final predictions.
Surse care acoperăarXiv, Quantum Zeitgeist
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

Prediction certification cannot replace explanation certification: a competence envelope for trustworthy AI under compound stress

arXiv2 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2608.20825v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Artificial intelligence systems increasingly make consequential judgments - which patient is deteriorating, which building is safe to enter, whether an image is authentic and are trusted on the strength of how accurately and confidently they predict. The safeguards that certify them are correspondingly prediction-based: accuracy, calibration and conformal coverage all measure how well a model performs. Whether such checks are sufficient to establish model trustworthiness has remained unclear. Here we prove that they cannot. We establish a separation theorem showing that a reliable model and a compromised one can be identical under every prediction-side certificate, including accuracy, calibration and coverage, yet differ arbitrarily in explanation fidelity and deployment behaviour. Detecting this failure requires access to the model's decision mechanism in addition to its predictions. We introduce the competence envelope as an operational framework that combines prediction and explanation certification into a single deployable criterion. Across diverse datasets and model classes, the proposed framework reveals failure modes that prediction-side certification alone does not capture. Certification against failures that are invisible in prediction behaviour therefore requires evidence about the model's decision mechanism as well as its outputs.

Abstract:Artificial intelligence systems increasingly make consequential judgments - which patient is deteriorating, which building is safe to enter, whether an image is authentic and are trusted on the strength of how accurately and confidently they predict. The safeguards that certify them are correspondingly prediction-based: accuracy, calibration and conformal coverage all measure how well a model performs. Whether such checks are sufficient to establish model trustworthiness has remained unclear. Here we prove that they cannot. We establish a separation theorem showing that a reliable model and a compromised one can be identical under every prediction-side certificate, including accuracy, calibration and coverage, yet differ arbitrarily in explanation fidelity and deployment behaviour. Detecting this failure requires access to the model's decision mechanism in addition to its predictions. We introduce the competence envelope as an operational framework that combines prediction and explanation certification into a single deployable criterion. Across diverse datasets and model classes, the proposed framework reveals failure modes that prediction-side certification alone does not capture. Certification against failures that are invisible in prediction behaviour therefore requires evidence about the model's decision mechanism as well as its outputs.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2608.20825 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2608.20825v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.20825 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

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 · 279 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe