Validity, Reliability, and Transparency in Artificial Intelligence Regulation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05800v1
• Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2026 09:36:15 GMT
• Title: Validity, Reliability, and Transparency in Artificial Intelligence Regulation
• Abstract summary: Article argues that modern AI raises concerns of construct validity, confounding, representativeness, distribution shift, and fairness trade-offs.<n>We argue that inference should function as a precondition for proportionality assessment and deployment approval.
• Score: 2.588958866512272
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly mediate decisions affecting individuals and societies. Existing data protection frameworks address certain privacy-related harms, particularly those arising from data leakage, re-identification, and profiling. However, they inadequately capture a more fundamental risk: unreliable or unjustified inference produced by AI systems even when data collection and processing are legitimate. This article argues that modern AI raises distinct concerns of construct validity, confounding, representativeness, distribution shift, and fairness trade-offs that require specialised regulatory attention. In the context of AI, transparency and explainability acquire distinct and significantly more challenging meanings than in conventional software. A substantial body of work in critical data studies and the measurement-theoretic literature has diagnosed these epistemological limitations. This article's contribution is to derive from that diagnosis a structured and operationalizable regulatory framework. We argue that validity of inference should function as a precondition for proportionality assessment and deployment approval --- a move that existing frameworks, including the EU AI Act's domain-based risk tiers, do not make. We ground this argument in the constitutional principle of informational self-determination articulated in the Indian Supreme Court's \emph{Puttaswamy} judgement, extending its reach from data collection to the legitimacy of use of data. Effective governance must therefore incorporate AI-specific validity assessment, post-deployment monitoring, and proportionality assessments grounded in structured articulation of both epistemic risk and potential benefit.

Related papers

• Trustworthy AI Suffers from Invariance Conflicts and Causality is The Solution [80.98492754957466]
  Core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously.<n>This paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T14:26:28Z)
• Why Avoid Generative Legal AI Systems? Hallucination, Overreliance, and their Impact on Explainability [0.0]
  This article argues that the deployment of generative AI systems in legal profession requires strong restraint due to the critical risks of hallucination and overreliance.<n>Central to this analysis is the definition of Generative Legal AI (GLAI), an umbrella term for systems specifically adapted for the legal domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T21:40:43Z)
• Is your AI Model Accurate Enough? The Difficult Choices Behind Rigorous AI Development and the EU AI Act [11.9330079062021]
  The 2024 European Union AI Act mandates an "appropriate level of accuracy" for high-risk systems.<n>This paper provides a legal-technical analysis of the choices that shape how accuracy is defined, measured, and assessed.<n>By making the techno-normative dimensions of accuracy explicit, this paper contributes to broader interdisciplinary debates on AI governance and regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T15:51:37Z)
• 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 Conjecture on a Fundamental Trade-Off between Certainty and Scope in Symbolic and Generative AI [0.0]
  Article introduces a conjecture that formalises a fundamental trade-off between provable correctness and broad data-mapping capacity in AI systems.<n>By making this implicit trade-off explicit and open to rigorous verification, the conjecture significantly reframes both engineering ambitions and philosophical expectations for AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T19:18:13Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Ethical AI: Towards Defining a Collective Evaluation Framework [0.3413711585591077]
  Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming sectors such as healthcare, finance, and autonomous systems.<n>Yet its rapid integration raises urgent ethical concerns related to data ownership, privacy, and systemic bias.<n>This article proposes a modular ethical assessment framework built on ontological blocks of meaning-discrete, interpretable units.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T21:10:47Z)
• Is Trust Correlated With Explainability in AI? A Meta-Analysis [0.0]
  We conduct a comprehensive examination of the existing literature to explore the relationship between AI explainability and trust.<n>Our analysis, incorporating data from 90 studies, reveals a statistically significant but moderate positive correlation between the explainability of AI systems and the trust they engender.<n>This research highlights its broader socio-technical implications, particularly in promoting accountability and fostering user trust in critical domains such as healthcare and justice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T23:30:55Z)
• Auditing and Generating Synthetic Data with Controllable Trust Trade-offs [54.262044436203965]
  We introduce a holistic auditing framework that comprehensively evaluates synthetic datasets and AI models. It focuses on preventing bias and discrimination, ensures fidelity to the source data, assesses utility, robustness, and privacy preservation. We demonstrate the framework's effectiveness by auditing various generative models across diverse use cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-21T09:03:18Z)
• Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space [62.997667081978825]
  Counterfactual explanations aim to provide to end users a set of features that need to be changed in order to achieve a desired outcome. Current approaches rarely take into account the feasibility of actions needed to achieve the proposed explanations. We present Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space (CEILS), a methodology to generate counterfactual explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-14T20:48:48Z)
• Trustworthy AI [75.99046162669997]
  Brittleness to minor adversarial changes in the input data, ability to explain the decisions, address the bias in their training data, are some of the most prominent limitations. We propose the tutorial on Trustworthy AI to address six critical issues in enhancing user and public trust in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-02T20:04:18Z)

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.