RAIL: An Automatic Classifier of the Artificial Intelligence Readiness Level

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.13428v1
• Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 16:17:41 GMT
• Title: RAIL: An Automatic Classifier of the Artificial Intelligence Readiness Level
• Abstract summary: Assessing the maturity of artificial intelligence technologies is essential for investment decisions, project management, and policy monitoring.<n>The available readiness frameworks are heterogeneous and difficult to apply automatically.<n>This paper makes two contributions: first, we unify these three frameworks into the Unified AI Readiness Level (AIRL), a nine-level scale built on an environmental evidence ladder.<n>Second, we propose RAIL, a panel-of-experts classifier that operationalizes the scale.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Assessing the maturity of artificial intelligence technologies is essential for investment decisions, project management, and policy monitoring, yet the available readiness frameworks are heterogeneous and difficult to apply automatically: the adaptation of Technology Readiness Levels to AI lacks AI-specific gating criteria, the Machine Learning Technology Readiness Levels presuppose access to internal process artifacts, and AI/data readiness dimension models employ scales that resist direct comparison. This paper makes two contributions. First, we unify these three frameworks into the Unified AI Readiness Level (AIRL), a nine-level ordinal scale built on an environmental evidence ladder and complemented by dimensional caps (covering specification, data existence, data quality, data legality, expert knowledge, and algorithmic maturity) together with a generality-anchoring rule and explicit assignment disciplines, so that a readiness level becomes decidable from a natural-language description of the work alone. Second, we propose RAIL (Readiness Assessment via Independent LLM-experts), a panel-of-experts classifier that operationalizes the scale: one evidence agent and six independent dimension agents, each a large language model with a narrowly scoped mandate, deliver verdicts that a deterministic minimum rule aggregates and a chief expert reviews under asymmetric authority, confirming or lowering the panel's recommendation but never raising it above the caps. The method was tested in the analysis of several research works showing consistency and avoiding overestimation from monolithic LLM classifiers.

Related papers

• The Context Access Divide: Interaction-Level Architecture as a Complementary Dimension of Agentic Inequality [0.0]
  Two users with nominally equivalent AI access may experience qualitatively different AI utility.<n>For knowledge-intensive workers whose intellectual capital spans tens of thousands of files, the Context Access Divide (CAD) constitutes a qualitative threshold in AI usefulness.<n>We propose contextuality as a dimension of AI-mediated inequality that complements, but is not reducible to, the Sharp et al. framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-09T13:53:40Z)
• Declarative Skills for AI Agents in Knowledge-Grounded Tool-Use Workflows [1.9573380763700712]
  We study orchestration mechanisms for tool-using AI agents in realistic customer-service errors over an unstructured knowledge base.<n>We compare (i) a DeclarativeAgent that reads three domain-specific skill files at inference time and decides its own control flow, (ii) an ImperativeAgent based on a programmatic state machine with explicit phases, and (iii) an unscaffolded baseline agent modeled after the $$-Knowledge benchmark agent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T05:38:51Z)
• LLM-FACETS: A Privacy-Preserving Framework for Evaluating LLM Transparency and Accountability [0.937536571362766]
  We introduce LLMFACETS (LLM FActuality Cross-EvaluaTion System): an open-source framework with a browser-accessible interface and a plugin architecture.<n>A plugin architecture allows any new metric dataset to be integrated without modifying the evaluation pipeline.<n>We verify the framework through cross-validation of 18 metric implementations against canonical reference libraries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T11:20:47Z)
• Governing AI-Assisted Security Operations: A Design Science Framework for Operational Decision Support [0.0]
  This study uses Kusto Query Language (KQL) and Microsoft Azure security capabilities as a bounded technical instantiation of an engineering management problem.<n>The study develops a governed AI query-broker artifact that separates AI planning from operational execution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-10T13:35:17Z)
• Rethinking Data Protection in the (Generative) Artificial Intelligence Era [138.07763415496288]
  We propose a four-level taxonomy that captures the diverse protection needs arising in modern (generative) AI models and systems.<n>Our framework offers a structured understanding of the trade-offs between data utility and control, spanning the entire AI pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T02:45:51Z)
• AutoMind: Adaptive Knowledgeable Agent for Automated Data Science [70.33796196103499]
  Large Language Model (LLM) agents have shown great potential in addressing real-world data science problems.<n>Existing frameworks depend on rigid, pre-defined and inflexible coding strategies.<n>We introduce AutoMind, an adaptive, knowledgeable LLM-agent framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-12T17:59:32Z)
• 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)
• A Survey of Frontiers in LLM Reasoning: Inference Scaling, Learning to Reason, and Agentic Systems [93.8285345915925]
  Reasoning is a fundamental cognitive process that enables logical inference, problem-solving, and decision-making.<n>With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), reasoning has emerged as a key capability that distinguishes advanced AI systems.<n>We categorize existing methods along two dimensions: (1) Regimes, which define the stage at which reasoning is achieved; and (2) Architectures, which determine the components involved in the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-12T01:27:49Z)
• General Scales Unlock AI Evaluation with Explanatory and Predictive Power [57.7995945974989]
  benchmarking has guided progress in AI, but it has offered limited explanatory and predictive power for general-purpose AI systems.<n>We introduce general scales for AI evaluation that can explain what common AI benchmarks really measure.<n>Our fully-automated methodology builds on 18 newly-crafted rubrics that place instance demands on general scales that do not saturate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-09T01:13:56Z)
• Towards a Responsible AI Metrics Catalogue: A Collection of Metrics for AI Accountability [28.67753149592534]
  This study bridges the accountability gap by introducing our effort towards a comprehensive metrics catalogue. Our catalogue delineates process metrics that underpin procedural integrity, resource metrics that provide necessary tools and frameworks, and product metrics that reflect the outputs of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-22T04:43:16Z)
• Human-Centric Multimodal Machine Learning: Recent Advances and Testbed on AI-based Recruitment [66.91538273487379]
  There is a certain consensus about the need to develop AI applications with a Human-Centric approach. Human-Centric Machine Learning needs to be developed based on four main requirements: (i) utility and social good; (ii) privacy and data ownership; (iii) transparency and accountability; and (iv) fairness in AI-driven decision-making processes. We study how current multimodal algorithms based on heterogeneous sources of information are affected by sensitive elements and inner biases in the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-13T16:44:44Z)

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.