Triangulating Across U.S. Federal AI Transparency Regimes

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.29540v1
• Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2026 15:36:34 GMT
• Title: Triangulating Across U.S. Federal AI Transparency Regimes
• Abstract summary: This paper examines three existing U.S. federal transparency regimes.<n>It asks how well they, individually and together, describe government AI use.<n>We find that no single regime fully reveals how the government constructs or deploys AI.
• Score: 6.739177252343933
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Federal AI systems can deny benefits or flag individuals for deportation, but the public disclosures meant to make those systems visible are fragmented and unevenly detailed. This paper examines three existing U.S. federal transparency regimes---System of Records Notices (SORNs), Information Collection Requests (ICRs), and the AI Use Case Inventory---and asks how well they, individually and together, describe government AI use. We find that no single regime fully reveals how the government constructs or deploys AI: each discloses different aspects of a system, and the current disclosure infrastructure makes it very challenging for the public to track specific AI systems across regulatory regimes and over time. Persistent identifiers are absent, granularity varies widely, and the annual AI Use Case Inventory cycle means federal agencies can deploy systems months before appearing in any official record. Using hand-validated zero-shot classification and cross-document entity resolution, we contribute a triangulation method that links disclosures across all three regimes and present two case studies. Our case studies finds that linking records provides greater insight into government AI use, but even linked records would constitute insufficient oversight compared to what public reporting has revealed about the same systems. We trace each regime's disclosure weaknesses to its original administrative purpose, showing these gaps are structural, and offer recommendations focused on the AI Use Case Inventory as the mechanism best suited for public-facing transparency: (1) a broad and consistently applied AI system definition, (2) persistent system identifiers with cross-references to related disclosures, and (3) restored public visibility into risk management processes.

Related papers

• FLARE-AI: Flaw Reporting for AI [51.64618567247884]
  Flaw reporting for deployed AI systems is fundamental to identifying system failures and improving AI safety.<n>Yet the AI reporting ecosystem is fragmented: researchers who identify flaws often do not know what to report, and groups who receive reports rarely share them with other relevant stakeholders.<n>We audit 12 reporting systems published by AI developers, cybersecurity groups, and AI flaw aggregators.<n>We introduce FLARE-AI, an open-source AI flaw reporting system designed for interoperability with existing systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-30T12:27:09Z)
• From Democracies to Autocracies: How AI Systems Enable Authoritarianism by Design [8.539323348149509]
  We map the lifecycles of six AI systems deployed in different political regimes, ranging from the US to China.<n>We find that enabling features include the centralization and co-optation of administrative data for law enforcement and political punishment.<n>We also find that both centralized and fragmented AI systems can contribute to authoritarianism by exploiting governance gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-15T20:50:56Z)
• Algorithmic Governance in the United States: A Multi-Level Case Analysis of AI Deployment Across Federal, State, and Municipal Authorities [0.0]
  This study examines how AI is used across federal, state, and municipal levels in the United States.<n>At the federal level, AI is most often institutionalized as a tool for high-stakes control.<n>State governments occupy a more ambiguous middle ground, where AI frequently combines supportive functions with algorithmic gatekeeping.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T14:36:32Z)
• When Autonomy Goes Rogue: Preparing for Risks of Multi-Agent Collusion in Social Systems [78.04679174291329]
  We introduce a proof-of-concept to simulate the risks of malicious multi-agent systems (MAS)<n>We apply this framework to two high-risk fields: misinformation spread and e-commerce fraud.<n>Our findings show that decentralized systems are more effective at carrying out malicious actions than centralized ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-19T15:17:30Z)
• Concerning the Responsible Use of AI in the US Criminal Justice System [5.5215545294476485]
  Piece advocates for clear explanations of AI's data, logic, and limitations.<n>Calls for periodic audits to address bias and maintain accountability in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T20:33:42Z)
• Artificial Intelligence in Government: Why People Feel They Lose Control [44.99833362998488]
  The use of Artificial Intelligence in public administration is expanding rapidly.<n>While AI promises greater efficiency and responsiveness, its integration into government functions raises concerns about fairness, transparency, and accountability.<n>This article applies principal-agent theory to AI adoption as a special case of delegation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T07:46:41Z)
• In-House Evaluation Is Not Enough: Towards Robust Third-Party Flaw Disclosure for General-Purpose AI [93.33036653316591]
  We call for three interventions to advance system safety.<n>First, we propose using standardized AI flaw reports and rules of engagement for researchers.<n>Second, we propose GPAI system providers adopt broadly-scoped flaw disclosure programs.<n>Third, we advocate for the development of improved infrastructure to coordinate distribution of flaw reports.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T05:09:46Z)
• Ensuring Fairness with Transparent Auditing of Quantitative Bias in AI Systems [0.30693357740321775]
  AI systems may exhibit biases that lead decision-makers to draw unfair conclusions. We present a framework for auditing AI fairness involving third-party auditors and AI system providers. We have created a tool to facilitate systematic examination of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T17:16:50Z)
• How VADER is your AI? Towards a definition of artificial intelligence systems appropriate for regulation [39.58317527488534]
  Recent AI regulation proposals adopt AI definitions affecting ICT techniques, approaches, and systems that are not AI.<n>We propose a framework to score how validated as appropriately-defined for regulation (VADER) an AI definition is.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T17:41:15Z)
• Think About the Stakeholders First! Towards an Algorithmic Transparency Playbook for Regulatory Compliance [14.043062659347427]
  Laws are being proposed and passed by governments around the world to regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems implemented into the public and private sectors. Many of these regulations address the transparency of AI systems, and related citizen-aware issues like allowing individuals to have the right to an explanation about how an AI system makes a decision that impacts them. We propose a novel stakeholder-first approach that assists technologists in designing transparent, regulatory compliant systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-10T09:39:00Z)
• Bias in Multimodal AI: Testbed for Fair Automatic Recruitment [73.85525896663371]
  We study how current multimodal algorithms based on heterogeneous sources of information are affected by sensitive elements and inner biases in the data. We train automatic recruitment algorithms using a set of multimodal synthetic profiles consciously scored with gender and racial biases. Our methodology and results show how to generate fairer AI-based tools in general, and in particular fairer automated recruitment systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-15T15:58:05Z)

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.