LAAF: A Layered Accountability Architecture Framework for LLM Applications

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27102v1
• Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 13:18:26 GMT
• Title: LAAF: A Layered Accountability Architecture Framework for LLM Applications
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) operate in hospitals, courtrooms, banks, and public service desks, where fluent, confident outputs are treated as authoritative even when ungrounded or incorrect.<n>This review consolidates a sociotechnical account of accountability as an actor-forum relation resolved into five dimensions.<n>The corpus is read through a four-layer classification device spanning provenance, application logic, human oversight, and governance and redress.
• Score: 11.15280916125281
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) operate in hospitals, courtrooms, banks, and public service desks, where fluent, confident outputs are treated as authoritative even when ungrounded or incorrect. When such an output contributes to harm, who is answerable, and through what mechanisms can responsibility be traced, explained, and acted upon? Following PRISMA guidance, five databases were searched from January 2022 to March 2026 against four review questions; of 4,512 records identified, 122 primary studies were included, together with 12 regulatory and standards documents analysed as primary sources. The review consolidates a sociotechnical account of accountability as an actor-forum relation resolved into five dimensions, and synthesises mechanisms across four families: technical controls, human oversight, organisational governance, and documentation and traceability, each with a maturity assessment. The corpus is read through a four-layer classification device spanning provenance, application logic, human oversight, and governance and redress, cross-cut by traceability, role clarity, and continuous monitoring. Both are mapped onto the EU AI Act, whose high-risk obligations have applied since 2 August 2026, the NIST AI RMF with its Generative AI Profile, ISO/IEC 42001, and sectoral guidance in healthcare, consumer finance, education, and the public sector. Four persistent gaps emerge: under-specification of human oversight, absence of shared accountability metrics, disciplinary disconnection, and limited empirical evaluation, alongside five structural tensions that no surveyed instrument resolves. The review closes by consolidating the classification device into an integrated accountability architecture, LAAF, with cybersecurity aligned to the OWASP LLM Top 10 (2025); it is a synthesis of the surveyed evidence rather than a validated artefact.

Related papers

• Governing at Machine Speed: An Adaptive Intelligence Architecture for Real-Time AI Policy Enforcement [0.0]
  Enterprise AI adoption has reached 78% of organizations globally, yet the infrastructure to govern that adoption has not kept pace.<n>We propose AGIL, a conceptual five-layer architecture designed to use machine learning for real-time AI governance enforcement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-11T19:35:00Z)
• No One to Blame: A Framework of Constitutive AI Unaccountability [2.665734616339289]
  We argue that certain configurations of actors, systems, and institutions render AI accountability conceptually unachievable regardless of effort.<n>We introduce the concept of AI unaccountability to capture these configurations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T14:25:05Z)
• From Interpretability to Control: Insights from Six Years of the TrustNLP Workshop [63.00693129203923]
  The Workshop on Trustworthy Natural Language Processing has grown from 8 proceedings papers to 41 over six editions.<n>We synthesize insights from all 144 proceedings papers, classifying them along six trust dimensions grounded in established frameworks.<n>Analysis from the classification study reveals that truthfulness is the fastest-growing dimension (absent in 2021-2022, comprising 37% of papers by 2025-2026)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-11T17:30:16Z)
• CEDAR-42001: From ISO/IEC 42001 Conformity to Architecture-Aware, Audit-Visible Assurance Posture for AI Cyber-Physical Systems [25.852577434268273]
  We present a two-stage method that converts ISO/IEC 42001 audit evidence into an architecture-aware assurance posture traceable to the audit record.<n> CEDAR-42001 does not estimate exploitability or replace technical CPS-security testing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-19T09:50:04Z)
• Definitional alignment before capability alignment: a Design-Science framework for adjudicating claims about AGI [0.0]
  "AGI" lacks a single shared and stable referent and competing operationalizations can return different verdicts on the same system.<n>This article treats that under-specification as a design and governance problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-10T22:04:56Z)
• ScientistOne: Towards Human-Level Autonomous Research via Chain-of-Evidence [57.37494162084001]
  Chain-of-Evidence (CoE) is a verifiability framework requiring every claim to be traceable to its evidence source.<n>CoE Audit is a post-hoc audit whose four integrity checks -- score verification, specification violation, reference verification, and method-code alignment -- apply uniformly to all systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-25T21:30:27Z)
• When the Agent Is the Adversary: Architectural Requirements for Agentic AI Containment After the April 2026 Frontier Model Escape [0.0]
  This paper analyzes four categories of current containment approaches.<n>We categorize five behavioral incidents from the public disclosure and situate them within 698 real-world AI scheming incidents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-25T19:41:00Z)
• Automated Self-Testing as a Quality Gate: Evidence-Driven Release Management for LLM Applications [51.56484100374058]
  We present an automated self-testing framework that introduces quality gates with evidence-based release decisions.<n>We evaluate the framework through a longitudinal case study of an internally deployed multi-agent conversational AI system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T20:44:15Z)
• Agents of Chaos [50.53354213047402]
  We report an exploratory red-teaming study of autonomous language-model-powered agents deployed in a live laboratory environment.<n>Twenty AI researchers interacted with the agents under benign and adversarial conditions.<n>Our findings establish the existence of security-, privacy-, and governance-relevant vulnerabilities in realistic deployment settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T16:28:48Z)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)
• AIR-Bench 2024: A Safety Benchmark Based on Risk Categories from Regulations and Policies [80.90138009539004]
  AIR-Bench 2024 is the first AI safety benchmark aligned with emerging government regulations and company policies. It decomposes 8 government regulations and 16 company policies into a four-tiered safety taxonomy with granular risk categories in the lowest tier. We evaluate leading language models on AIR-Bench 2024, uncovering insights into their alignment with specified safety concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-11T21:16:48Z)

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.