arXiv (All)
open access
Measuring AI Accountability Through Argumentation Analysis: Can Model Reasoning Withstand Scrutiny?
AI oversight methods rely on ground truth for validation, but what constitutes appropriate AI behavior is contested. This leaves evaluation of moral reasoning in LLMs and debate-based oversight implicitly avoiding realistic ambiguity. We investigate an alternative standard designed to function despi
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Moral Disagreement and the Limits of AI Value Alignment: a dual challenge of epistemic justification and political legitimacy#113449
- The Agentic AI Framework (AAIF): a policy-enforced architecture for accountable and high-performance intrusion detection.#295441
- AgentAudit: An Open, Extensible Framework for Full-Lifecycle Trust Evaluation of AI Agents#996690
- The Mutualism Accord#80000
- Foundations for Risk Assessment of AI in Protecting Fundamental Rights#100570
Record · ID 972039
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive