An Instrument to Evaluate Governance Proposals: AI Policy Analysis at Scale

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28094v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2026 12:06:53 GMT
• Title: An Instrument to Evaluate Governance Proposals: AI Policy Analysis at Scale
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces a policy analysis framework for AI governance proposals in an evolving and contested regulatory landscape.<n>We use a mixed-methods approach that integrates qualitative insights from subject matter experts with computational text analysis to inform the design of policy attribute rubrics.<n>Rather than assessing policy effectiveness or desirability, the framework focuses on relevance and alignment across attributes.
• Score: 4.570330752352129
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This paper introduces a policy analysis framework for systematic, transparent assessment of AI governance proposals in an evolving and contested regulatory landscape. AI policy debates often collapse into binary positions that obscure underlying tradeoffs and normative assumptions. The framework structures policy analysis around multiple policy attributes, allowing users to surface priorities and tensions without prescribing outcomes. We use a mixed-methods approach that integrates qualitative insights from subject matter experts with computational text analysis to inform the design of policy attribute rubrics. This quantifies the relative emphasis of different policy objectives and presents them through comparative visualizations that support interpretability and cross-policy comparison. The paper also examines the use of commercial LLMs for rubric-based policy analysis, benchmarking their outputs against a domain-trained rubric-calibrated model with explicitly defined analytical assumptions. Rather than assessing policy effectiveness or desirability, the framework focuses on relevance and alignment across attributes. By making analytical assumptions explicit, including attribute selection, rubric construction, and weighting schemes, the framework enables users to evaluate whether its embedded priorities align with the users' own normative commitments. The approach is jurisdiction-agnostic and intended to support policymakers, analysts, and researchers navigating complex AI governance environments. Contributions: (1) multidimensional policy assessment through empirically grounded rubrics that surface tradeoffs rather than resolving them; (2) a transparent hybrid methodology combining feedback from subject-matter experts with computational validation; and (3) use of domain-trained rubric-calibrated models as a benchmark for comparing different general-purpose large language models.

Related papers

• Proposing Topic Models and Evaluation Frameworks for Analyzing Associations with External Outcomes: An Application to Leadership Analysis Using Large-Scale Corporate Review Data [0.0]
  This study focuses on leadership analysis using corporate review data.<n>It proposes a method leveraging large language models to generate topics that satisfy topic specificity and polarity stance consistency.<n>Using employee reviews from OpenWork, a major corporate review platform in Japan, the proposed method achieves improved interpretability, specificity, and polarity consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-20T23:52:20Z)
• PolicyLLM: Towards Excellent Comprehension of Public Policy for Large Language Models [56.37206340175191]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into real-world decision-making.<n>Yet, their ability to comprehend and reason about policy-related content remains underexplored.<n>We present textbftextitPolicyBench, the first large-scale cross-system benchmark (US-China) evaluating policy comprehension.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T17:27:50Z)
• Scaling Policy Compliance Assessment in Language Models with Policy Reasoning Traces [12.671657542087624]
  Policy Reasoning Traces (PRT) is a form of specialized generated reasoning chains that serve as a reasoning bridge to improve an LLM's policy compliance assessment capabilities.<n>Our empirical evaluations demonstrate that the use of PRTs for both inference-time and training-time scenarios significantly enhances the performance of open-weight and commercial models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T13:10:21Z)
• Expert Preference-based Evaluation of Automated Related Work Generation [54.29459509574242]
  We propose GREP, a multi-turn evaluation framework that integrates classical related work evaluation criteria with expert-specific preferences.<n>For better accessibility, we design two variants of GREP: a more precise variant with proprietary LLMs as evaluators, and a cheaper alternative with open-weight LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-11T13:08:07Z)
• Foundations for Risk Assessment of AI in Protecting Fundamental Rights [0.5093073566064981]
  This chapter introduces a conceptual framework for qualitative risk assessment of AI.<n>It addresses the complexities of legal compliance and fundamental rights protection by itegrating definitional balancing and defeasible reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-24T10:52:22Z)
• Strategic Alignment Patterns in National AI Policies [0.0]
  This paper introduces a novel visual mapping methodology for assessing strategic alignment in national artificial intelligence policies.<n>We analyze 15-20 national AI strategies using a combination of matrix-based visualization and network analysis to identify patterns of alignment and misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-07T18:36:30Z)
• Evaluating LLM-based Agents for Multi-Turn Conversations: A Survey [64.08485471150486]
  This survey examines evaluation methods for large language model (LLM)-based agents in multi-turn conversational settings.<n>We systematically reviewed nearly 250 scholarly sources, capturing the state of the art from various venues of publication.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-28T14:08:40Z)
• Learning to Align Multi-Faceted Evaluation: A Unified and Robust Framework [61.38174427966444]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being used more and more extensively for automated evaluation in various scenarios.<n>Previous studies have attempted to fine-tune open-source LLMs to replicate the evaluation explanations and judgments of powerful proprietary models.<n>We propose a novel evaluation framework, ARJudge, that adaptively formulates evaluation criteria and synthesizes both text-based and code-driven analyses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T06:31:45Z)
• MAEA: Multimodal Attribution for Embodied AI [18.515215371833186]
  We present MAEA, a framework to compute global attributions per modality of any differentiable policy. We show how attributions enable lower-level behavior analysis in EAI policies for language and visual attributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-25T22:51:36Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)
• Reinforcement Learning with Heterogeneous Data: Estimation and Inference [84.72174994749305]
  We introduce the K-Heterogeneous Markov Decision Process (K-Hetero MDP) to address sequential decision problems with population heterogeneity. We propose the Auto-Clustered Policy Evaluation (ACPE) for estimating the value of a given policy, and the Auto-Clustered Policy Iteration (ACPI) for estimating the optimal policy in a given policy class. We present simulations to support our theoretical findings, and we conduct an empirical study on the standard MIMIC-III dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-31T20:58:47Z)

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.