Referential Security as a New Paradigm for AI Evaluations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.25673v1
• Date: Mon, 25 May 2026 10:24:10 GMT
• Title: Referential Security as a New Paradigm for AI Evaluations
• Abstract summary: We propose referential security as a new paradigm for AI evaluation.<n>This approach reframes model identity as an empirically verifiable property and separates referential stability from the substantive security claims it conditions.
• Score: 5.748110232428846
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Security evaluations inherently depend on stable identifiers. Any finding, audit, or regulatory decision must remain attached to the specific artifact it pertains to. Continuously updated artificial intelligence systems violate this core assumption, with public model designations remaining static while underlying weights, prompts, retrieval mechanisms, misuse classifiers, inference settings, and serving infrastructures undergo unannounced modifications. Consequently, current evaluations frequently apply to superficial labels rather than identifiable and distinct systems. To resolve this, we propose referential security as a new paradigm for AI evaluation. The fundamental security question extends beyond whether a model is safe to whether subsequent parties can conclusively determine which system a specific safety claim addressed. This approach reframes model identity as an empirically verifiable property and separates referential stability from the substantive security claims it conditions. This framework brings tractability to three critical workflows that current practices handle poorly. Specifically, it enables reproducible evaluation, longitudinal audit validity, and cross-provider equivalence. By grounding these evaluations in verifiable artifacts, our approach ensures that safety audits and regulatory findings maintain their empirical utility across the operational lifecycle of dynamic systems.

Related papers

• Conformal Changepoint Localization and Root Cause Analysis with Corrupted Observations [55.76952683833966]
  This paper proposes weighted CONCH (W-CONCH) and weighted CROC (W-CROC) to reduce confidence set size when data may be corrupted.<n>Experiments on image-based and real-world changepoint and root-cause benchmarks show that uncertainty-based weighting substantially reduces confidence set size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-29T05:16:59Z)
• Can We Trust AI-Inferred User States. A Psychometric Framework for Validating the Reliability of Users States Classification by LLMs in Operational Environments [0.0]
  This paper empirically tests the assumption that the metrics used for user state assessment are stable and interpretable at the level of individual scores.<n>Analyses include both individual score reliability and aggregated reliability, allowing us to distinguish metrics potentially useful for real-time adaptation.<n>The main contribution of this work is the proposal of a replicable evaluation framework, enabling measurable evaluations of metric applicability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T08:43:26Z)
• Beyond single-channel agentic benchmarking [0.0]
  This paper argues that evaluating AI agents in isolation systematically mischaracterizes their operational safety when deployed within human-in-the-loop environments.<n>Even imperfect AI systems can nonetheless provide substantial safety utility by functioning as redundant audit layers against well-documented sources of human failure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T08:22:02Z)
• SafeEvalAgent: Toward Agentic and Self-Evolving Safety Evaluation of LLMs [37.82193156438782]
  This paper introduces a new paradigm of agentic safety evaluation, reframing evaluation as a continuous and self-evolving process.<n>We propose a novel multi-agent framework SafeEvalAgent, which autonomously ingests unstructured policy documents to generate and perpetually evolve a comprehensive safety benchmark.<n>Our experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of SafeEvalAgent, showing a consistent decline in model safety as the evaluation hardens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T11:20:41Z)
• Aurora: Are Android Malware Classifiers Reliable and Stable under Distribution Shift? [51.12297424766236]
  AURORA is a framework to evaluate malware classifiers based on their confidence quality and operational resilience.<n>AURORA is complemented by a set of metrics designed to go beyond point-in-time performance.<n>The fragility in SOTA frameworks across datasets of varying drift suggests the need for a return to the whiteboard.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T20:22:43Z)
• Safety by Measurement: A Systematic Literature Review of AI Safety Evaluation Methods [0.0]
  This literature review consolidates the rapidly evolving field of AI safety evaluations.<n>It proposes a systematic taxonomy around three dimensions: what properties we measure, how we measure them, and how these measurements integrate into frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-08T16:55:07Z)
• Advancing Neural Network Verification through Hierarchical Safety Abstract Interpretation [52.626086874715284]
  We introduce a novel problem formulation called Abstract DNN-Verification, which verifies a hierarchical structure of unsafe outputs.<n>By leveraging abstract interpretation and reasoning about output reachable sets, our approach enables assessing multiple safety levels during the formal verification process.<n>Our contributions include a theoretical exploration of the relationship between our novel abstract safety formulation and existing approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-08T13:29:46Z)
• Advancing Embodied Agent Security: From Safety Benchmarks to Input Moderation [52.83870601473094]
  Embodied agents exhibit immense potential across a multitude of domains.<n>Existing research predominantly concentrates on the security of general large language models.<n>This paper introduces a novel input moderation framework, meticulously designed to safeguard embodied agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-22T08:34:35Z)
• Trustworthiness for an Ultra-Wideband Localization Service [2.4979362117484714]
  This paper proposes a holistic trustworthiness assessment framework for ultra-wideband self-localization. Our goal is to provide guidance for evaluating a system's trustworthiness based on objective evidence. Our approach guarantees that the resulting trustworthiness indicators correspond to chosen real-world threats.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-10T11:57:10Z)
• Recursively Feasible Probabilistic Safe Online Learning with Control Barrier Functions [60.26921219698514]
  We introduce a model-uncertainty-aware reformulation of CBF-based safety-critical controllers. We then present the pointwise feasibility conditions of the resulting safety controller. We use these conditions to devise an event-triggered online data collection strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-23T05:02:09Z)
• Evaluating the Safety of Deep Reinforcement Learning Models using Semi-Formal Verification [81.32981236437395]
  We present a semi-formal verification approach for decision-making tasks based on interval analysis. Our method obtains comparable results over standard benchmarks with respect to formal verifiers. Our approach allows to efficiently evaluate safety properties for decision-making models in practical applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-19T11:18:06Z)

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.