Making AI-Assisted Grant Evaluation Auditable without Exposing the Model

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.25200v1
• Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 04:10:04 GMT
• Title: Making AI-Assisted Grant Evaluation Auditable without Exposing the Model
• Abstract summary: We propose a TEE-based architecture that helps reconcile requirements through remote attestation.<n>The architecture allows an external verifier to check which model, rubric, prompt template, and input representation were used.<n>We position the design relative to confidential AI inference, attestable AI audits, zero-knowledge machine learning, algorithmic accountability, and AI-assisted peer review.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Public agencies are beginning to consider large language models (LLMs) as decision-support tools for grant evaluation. This creates a practical governance problem: the model and scoring rubric should not be exposed in a way that allows applicants to optimize against them, yet the evaluation process must remain auditable, contestable, and accountable. We propose a TEE-based architecture that helps reconcile these requirements through remote attestation. The architecture allows an external verifier to check which model, rubric, prompt template, and input representation were used, without exposing model weights, proprietary scoring logic, or intermediate reasoning to applicants or infrastructure operators. The main artifact is an attested evaluation bundle: a signed, timestamped record linking the original submission hash, the canonical input hash, the model-and-rubric measurement, and the evaluation output. The paper also considers a scenario-specific prompt injection risk: applicant-controlled documents may contain hidden or indirect instructions intended to influence the LLM evaluator. We therefore include a canonicalization and sanitization layer that normalizes document representations and records suspicious transformations before inference. We position the design relative to confidential AI inference, attestable AI audits, zero-knowledge machine learning, algorithmic accountability, and AI-assisted peer review. The resulting claim is deliberately narrow: remote attestation does not prove that an evaluation is fair or scientifically correct, but it can make part of the evaluation process externally verifiable.

Related papers

• Reality Is the Final Verifier: On Two Key Gaps in Agentic Software Engineering [78.51705689800838]
  We propose an assurance-revision loop that uses deployment evidence to revise the requirements, model, or evaluator.<n>We then cast assured agentic development as a resource-allocation problem over human judgment, agent capability, and compute.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T17:58:48Z)
• The Evaluation Context Protocol (ECP): A Portable Contract for AI Agent Evaluation [0.0]
  This paper explores the critical methodologies for evaluating AI agents and the essential role of advanced observability infrastructure.<n>We propose the Evaluation Context Protocol (ECP), an early-stage, vendor-neutral framework intended to act as a contract layer for agentic systems.<n>We describe an open-source reference implementation that includes adapters for LangChain, LlamaIndex, CrewAI, and PydanticAI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-18T07:14:36Z)
• What Does the Credential Still Certify? Cognitive Stewardship for AI-Mediated Education [3.2940515388832963]
  This paper develops a framework for AI-mediated assessment that links the learning claim, delegation boundary, evidence standard, and safeguards.<n>We then audit verified public generative AI assessment guidance from 30 universities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-22T10:21:16Z)
• Review the Code, Not the Story: A Vision and Protocol for Code-First Peer Review [2.531440973296736]
  This vision and protocol paper proposes code-first peer review.<n>Authors submit executable research artifacts and minimal claim manifests.<n>A venue-controlled AI system builds the environment, executes experiments, audits code paths, maps claims to evidence, and generates a standardized Review Package for human reviewers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T01:26:07Z)
• Auditable Decision Models with Learned Abstention and Real-Time Steering [6.287457666346811]
  Production AI systems often operate with incomplete, conflicting, or insufficient evidence.<n>We study operational decision control for AI systems, where uncertainty must be explicitly routable.<n>We present EvaluatorDPT, a bounded decision-control model that predicts YES, NO, or TBD.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T23:37:56Z)
• Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents? [61.49434544687523]
  We introduce REFLECT, a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments.<n> REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions.<n>Our experiments show that even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:55:08Z)
• AutoVerifier: An Agentic Automated Verification Framework Using Large Language Models [8.006071608749648]
  AutoVerifier is an agentic framework that automates end-to-end verification of technical claims.<n>It decomposes every technical assertion into structured claim triples of the form.<n>It can reliably evaluate the validity and maturity of emerging technologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T01:11:43Z)
• Explainability and Certification of AI-Generated Educational Assessments [0.0]
  This chapter proposes a comprehensive framework for explainability and certification of AI-generated assessment items.<n>A structured certification metadata schema is introduced to capture provenance, alignment predictions, reviewer actions, and ethical indicators.<n>A proof-of-concept study on 500 AI-generated computer science questions demonstrates the framework's feasibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-18T11:33:58Z)
• Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI [49.995126139461085]
  We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth.<n>We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T17:17:32Z)
• Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation [76.5533899503582]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance.<n>We show this paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state.<n>We demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T06:07:43Z)
• PaperAudit-Bench: Benchmarking Error Detection in Research Papers for Critical Automated Peer Review [54.141490756509306]
  We introduce PaperAudit-Bench, which consists of two components: PaperAudit-Dataset, an error dataset, and PaperAudit-Review, an automated review framework.<n>Experiments on PaperAudit-Bench reveal large variability in error detectability across models and detection depths.<n>We show that the dataset supports training lightweight LLM detectors via SFT and RL, enabling effective error detection at reduced computational cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T04:26:12Z)
• ORCHID: Orchestrated Retrieval-Augmented Classification with Human-in-the-Loop Intelligent Decision-Making for High-Risk Property [6.643427585499247]
  ORCHID is a modular agentic system for HRP classification.<n>It pairs retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) with human oversight to produce policy-based outputs that can be audited.<n>The demonstration shows single item submission, grounded citations, SME feedback capture, and exportable audit artifacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-07T03:48:05Z)
• "Show Me You Comply... Without Showing Me Anything": Zero-Knowledge Software Auditing for AI-Enabled Systems [2.2981698355892686]
  This paper introduces ZKMLOps, a novel MLOps verification framework.<n>It operationalizes Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs)-cryptographic protocols allowing a prover to convince a verifier that a statement is true.<n>We evaluate the framework's practicality through a study of regulatory compliance in financial risk auditing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T15:03:32Z)
• Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Framework [55.078301794183496]
  We focus on a core reviewing skill that underpins high-quality peer review: detecting faulty research logic.<n>This involves evaluating the internal consistency between a paper's results, interpretations, and claims.<n>We present a fully automated counterfactual evaluation framework that isolates and tests this skill under controlled conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:48:00Z)
• Garbage In, Reasoning Out? Why Benchmark Scores are Unreliable and What to Do About It [1.6261897792391753]
  We conduct a systematic audit of three widely used reasoning benchmarks, SocialIQa, FauxPas-EAI, and ToMi.<n>We uncover pervasive flaws in both benchmark items and evaluation methodology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T13:57:28Z)
• OpenFactCheck: Building, Benchmarking Customized Fact-Checking Systems and Evaluating the Factuality of Claims and LLMs [59.836774258359945]
  OpenFactCheck is a framework for building customized automatic fact-checking systems.<n>It allows users to easily customize an automatic fact-checker and verify the factual correctness of documents and claims.<n>CheckerEVAL is a solution for gauging the reliability of automatic fact-checkers' verification results using human-annotated datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-09T07:15:19Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.