Related papers: AI Assurance: A Comprehensive Testing Strategy for Enterprise AI Systems

AI Assurance: A Comprehensive Testing Strategy for Enterprise AI Systems

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.23459v1
Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 10:19:19 GMT
Title: AI Assurance: A Comprehensive Testing Strategy for Enterprise AI Systems
Abstract summary: This paper presents a comprehensive assurance strategy for enterprise AI systems built around three key principles.<n>First, AI testing should focus on continuous risk reduction rather than strict correctness verification; second, evaluation must be treated as a core engineering discipline alongside development.<n>Third, that failures in AI assurance can lead to organizational impacts that are fundamentally different from those seen in traditional deterministic software systems.
Score: 0.0
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract: Enterprise AI systems, built on large language models, retrieval pipelines and autonomous agents, introduce a class of risks that traditional software quality assurance was never designed to address. These systems are probabilistic, context-sensitive and emergent: they cannot be verified to be correct in the classical sense, but only evaluated with increasing confidence. This paper presents a comprehensive assurance strategy for enterprise AI systems built around three key principles: first, that AI testing should focus on continuous risk reduction rather than strict correctness verification; second, that evaluation must be treated as a core engineering discipline alongside development; and third, that failures in AI assurance can lead to organizational impacts that are fundamentally different from those seen in traditional deterministic software systems. We introduce a structured AI Failure Taxonomy, propose a revised five-layer AI Assurance Pyramid and provide operational guidance on evaluation-driven development, RAG system testing, model lifecycle management and governance. The goal is to equip engineering leaders and practitioners with a strategy that is both philosophically grounded and operationally deployable.

Related papers

AI Deployment Accountability Engineering: A Vision for Accountable AI in Safety-Critical Socio-Technical Systems [14.280538199149634]
This vision paper introduces AI Deployment Accountability Engineering (ADAE)<n>ADAE is a proposed AI engineering subdiscipline concerned with establishing measurable, continuous, and actionable accountability for deployed AI systems.<n>We articulate a research agenda built around four interconnected pillars: structured discovery of context-dependent failure modes, privacy-preserving accountability measurement, system-level risk analysis for agentic AI, and translation of technical failures into operational, and institutional risks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-09-13T15:18:41Z)
Toward Third-Party Assurance of AI Systems: Design Requirements, Prototype, and Early Testing [16.53658640529767]
We introduce a third-party AI assurance framework that addresses gaps in AI evaluation.<n>We focus on third-party assurance to prevent conflict of interest and ensure credibility and accountability of the process.<n>Our findings show early evidence that our AI assurance framework is sound and comprehensive, usable across different organizational contexts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-01-30T00:37:12Z)
AI TIPS 2.0: A Comprehensive Framework for Operationalizing AI Governance [0.0]
Organizations struggle with inadequate risk assessment at the use case level.<n>Existing frameworks like ISO 42001 and NIST AI RMF remain at high conceptual levels.<n>No systematic approach to embed AI practices throughout the development lifecycle.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-12-09T20:57:22Z)
AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controls [153.71048309527225]
This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field.<n>We identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception.<n>We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-11-27T16:56:04Z)
Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
A Framework for the Assurance of AI-Enabled Systems [0.0]
This paper proposes a claims-based framework for risk management and assurance of AI systems.<n>The paper's contributions are a framework process for AI assurance, a set of relevant definitions, and a discussion of important considerations in AI assurance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-04-03T13:44:01Z)
Engineering Trustworthy AI: A Developer Guide for Empirical Risk Minimization [53.80919781981027]
Key requirements for trustworthy AI can be translated into design choices for the components of empirical risk minimization. We hope to provide actionable guidance for building AI systems that meet emerging standards for trustworthiness of AI.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-25T07:53:32Z)
EARBench: Towards Evaluating Physical Risk Awareness for Task Planning of Foundation Model-based Embodied AI Agents [53.717918131568936]
Embodied artificial intelligence (EAI) integrates advanced AI models into physical entities for real-world interaction.<n>Foundation models as the "brain" of EAI agents for high-level task planning have shown promising results.<n>However, the deployment of these agents in physical environments presents significant safety challenges.<n>This study introduces EARBench, a novel framework for automated physical risk assessment in EAI scenarios.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-08T13:19:37Z)
Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems [88.80306881112313]
We will introduce and define a family of approaches to AI safety, which we will refer to as guaranteed safe (GS) AI. The core feature of these approaches is that they aim to produce AI systems which are equipped with high-assurance quantitative safety guarantees. We outline a number of approaches for creating each of these three core components, describe the main technical challenges, and suggest a number of potential solutions to them.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-10T17:38:32Z)
Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress [171.05448842016125]
We describe risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. There is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-26T17:59:06Z)
Responsible AI Pattern Catalogue: A Collection of Best Practices for AI Governance and Engineering [20.644494592443245]
We present a Responsible AI Pattern Catalogue based on the results of a Multivocal Literature Review (MLR) Rather than staying at the principle or algorithm level, we focus on patterns that AI system stakeholders can undertake in practice to ensure that the developed AI systems are responsible throughout the entire governance and engineering lifecycle.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-09-12T00:09:08Z)

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