arXiv:2607.16130cs.CYcs.AI2026-07被引 1

提出可审计的AI可信度分级方法,支持全生命周期监控与透明记录。

A Methodology for Auditable Trustworthiness Levels in AI Lifecycle Governance

  • 用可解释规则建模可信度水平,基于决策树实现可观测变化
  • 生成可信度平台、状态迁移路径及边界裕度、配置漂移等诊断指标
  • 配套轻量治理流程,明确责任人和关键控制节点,适合合规监管

AI治理需判断系统在生命周期中是否持续可信、变化是否可接受,并以透明可争辩的方式记录。现有工作或过于抽象难以支撑持续监控,或过度依赖具体指标而脱离治理需求。为此,本文提出一种轻量级可审计可信度分级方法,包含两个部分:一是面向治理的可信度形式化框架,通过上下文敏感的可测量维度建模,利用可解释规则(以决策树为例)从可信度画像中学习可信度等级;二是轻量化的AI生命周期治理流程,用于标注、监测、再评估并报告可信度水平。该方法产出可信度平台、可读的状态转移及两类简单诊断:边界裕度和配置漂移。治理流程嵌入符合性导向工作流,涵盖设计阶段标记、部署后监控、再评估与报告,并明确协议设计、验证、监控与再评估的人类责任与控制节点。通过合成的生命周期轨迹(含退化、冲击、更新、异步监控、系统对比)验证了方法的有效性。该方法不替代法律或专家判断,而是为追踪与记录治理相关变化提供证据基础。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

AI governance increasingly requires judgments about whether an AI system remains adequately trustworthy over time, whether observed changes are tolerable, and how such judgments should be documented in a transparent and contestable way. Yet existing work on AI trustworthiness remains either too high-level to support lifecycle monitoring and reassessment or too narrowly metric-driven to connect with governance needs. We therefore propose a lightweight methodology for auditable trustworthiness levels in AI governance. The methodology has two components: a formal framework for representing and learning trustworthiness levels, and a lightweight AI lifecycle governance procedure for documenting, monitoring, and reassessing them over time. The formal framework models governance-relative trustworthiness through a context-sensitive protocol of measurable dimensions and learns trustworthiness levels as interpretable rules over trustworthiness profiles. Using decision trees as an interpretable proof-of-concept model class, the methodology yields explicit trustworthiness plateaus, readable level transitions, and two simple lifecycle diagnostics: boundary margins and profile drift. The governance procedure embeds these formal objects in a conformity-oriented workflow for design-time labeling, post-deployment monitoring, reassessment, and reporting. It also assigns human responsibilities and control gates for protocol design, validation, monitoring, and reassessment. We illustrate the methodology on synthetic AI lifecycle traces involving degradation, shocks, updates, heterogeneous monitoring cadences, and system comparison. Our methodology does not replace legal or other expert judgment: it supports conformity documentation and lifecycle monitoring by providing an evidential basis for documenting and tracking AI governance-relevant changes over time.

可信度评估生命周期治理可解释性

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。