arXiv:2607.15480cs.AI2026-07

剖析可信AI工具与认证框架的落地鸿沟,指出当前实践重技术轻全周期、缺多方参与。

A Critical Analysis of Trustworthy AI Tools, Mark Frameworks, and the Implementation Chasms

论文配图:A Critical Analysis of Trustworthy AI Tools, Mark Frameworks, and the Implementation Chasms
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 基于OECD数据,对比分析可信AI工具的伦理侧重与生命周期覆盖差异。
  • 发现公平、透明、鲁棒性受重视,而可解释性、安全、可持续性关注不足。
  • 建议扩展伦理目标、贯穿全生命周期,并推动多利益相关方协同治理。

随着人工智能系统对社会影响日益加深,确保其伦理与可信部署已成为全球优先事项。尽管涌现出大量高层级伦理指南,但批评仍指出这些框架抽象且缺乏具体实施机制。本文基于OECD的综合性数据集,对旨在实现可信AI(TAI)的工具与信任标记框架进行批判性分析。通过实证映射与描述性比较,揭示了在伦理重点、生命周期覆盖、利益相关方定位和工具类型上的显著不对称。研究显示,公平性、透明度和鲁棒性受到强烈关注,而可解释性、数字安全和环境可持续性则被相对忽视。此外,多数工具与认证集中于开发后阶段,对早期设计或数据收集阶段指导有限。教育举措与政策参与明显薄弱,表明当前可信AI努力主要局限于行业内的技术和程序措施。我们主张,弥合原则与实践之间的持续鸿沟,需拓展伦理目标,将伦理嵌入人工智能全生命周期,并促进更广泛的多利益相关方参与。本研究既诊断了现有实施差距,也提供了推进更全面、包容且可执行的AI治理的可操作建议。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly impact society, ensuring their ethical and trustworthy deployment has become a global priority. While a myriad of high-level ethical guidelines have emerged, criticism persists that these frameworks remain abstract and lack concrete mechanisms for implementation. This paper conducts a critical analysis of tools and trust mark frameworks intended to operationalize trustworthy AI (TAI), drawing on a comprehensive dataset from the OECD. Through empirical mapping and descriptive comparative analysis, we identify significant asymmetries in ethical focus, lifecycle coverage, stakeholder targeting, and tool typology. Our findings show a strong emphasis on fairness, transparency, and robustness, with comparatively little attention paid to explainability, digital security, and environmental sustainability. Moreover, most tools and certifications concentrate on post-development stages, with limited guidance for early design or data collection phases. Educational initiatives and policy engagement are notably underdeveloped, suggesting that current TAI efforts are dominated by technical and procedural measures within industry contexts. We argue that bridging the persistent chasm between AI principles and practice requires expanding ethical objectives, embedding ethics across the AI lifecycle, and fostering broader multi-stakeholder participation. This study provides both a diagnosis of existing implementation gaps and actionable recommendations for advancing more holistic, inclusive, and enforceable AI governance

可信AI伦理治理工具框架多利益方

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。