TRACE:衡量生产级 AI 系统中可解释性债务的治理框架
摘要
本文提出 TRACE 治理框架,用于量化与追踪生产 AI 系统中的「可解释性债务」,并通过为期十二个月的欺诈检测案例研究展示其预测审计风险的能力,为欧盟 AI 法案第 13 条合规提供首个可量化运营架构。
arXiv:2610.10957v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Production AI systems deployed in high-stakes domains accumulate a governance liability that existing monitoring frameworks fail to detect: the progressive inability to explain individual decisions when regulators, auditors, or affected individuals demand accountability. We introduce TRACE (Transparency, Risk, Accountability, Compliance, and Explainability), a seven-instrument governance framework for measuring, tracking, and remediating Explainability Debt in production AI systems. The foundational instrument, the Explainability Debt Score (EDS), quantifies the proportion of production decisions falling below a governance-defined explainability confidence threshold at any point in time. Complementary instruments include DART (Debt Accumulation Rate Tracker for breach forecasting), SHIV (Scenario Health and Integrity Validator for daily governance), FDE (Feature Drift Evaluator for causal attribution), HVE (Human Validation Engine), AIDE (Audit Intervention Decision Engine), and ZERO (Zero Explainability Risk Optimiser for remediation). Through a twelve-month longitudinal case study of a production fraud detection system processing 50,000 daily financial transactions, achieving 98.46% accuracy and ROC-AUC of 0.9990, we demonstrate that an EDS of 0.23 on audit day was statistically predictable six months in advance using DART trajectory analysis (beta = 0.008/week, R-squared = 0.94, 95% CI: [0.006, 0.010]), and that 78% of Explainability Debt was concentrated in the highest-regulatory-risk decision category (transactions above $10,000), a risk asymmetry completely invisible to system-level metrics. TRACE provides the first quantitative operational architecture for EU AI Act Article 13 compliance in production AI deployment, establishing a new subdiscipline of explanation governance distinct from explanation generation.
查看缓存全文
缓存时间: 2026/10/09 06:44
# TRACE: A Governance Framework for Measuring Explainability Debt in Production AI Systems Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10957](https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10957) [View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.10957) > Abstract:Production AI systems deployed in high\-stakes domains accumulate a governance liability that existing monitoring frameworks fail to detect: the progressive inability to explain individual decisions when regulators, auditors, or affected individuals demand accountability\. We introduce TRACE \(Transparency, Risk, Accountability, Compliance, and Explainability\), a seven\-instrument governance framework for measuring, tracking, and remediating Explainability Debt in production AI systems\. The foundational instrument, the Explainability Debt Score \(EDS\), quantifies the proportion of production decisions falling below a governance\-defined explainability confidence threshold at any point in time\. Complementary instruments include DART \(Debt Accumulation Rate Tracker for breach forecasting\), SHIV \(Scenario Health and Integrity Validator for daily governance\), FDE \(Feature Drift Evaluator for causal attribution\), HVE \(Human Validation Engine\), AIDE \(Audit Intervention Decision Engine\), and ZERO \(Zero Explainability Risk Optimiser for remediation\)\. Through a twelve\-month longitudinal case study of a production fraud detection system processing 50,000 daily financial transactions, achieving 98\.46% accuracy and ROC\-AUC of 0\.9990, we demonstrate that an EDS of 0\.23 on audit day was statistically predictable six months in advance using DART trajectory analysis \(beta = 0\.008/week, R\-squared = 0\.94, 95% CI: \[0\.006, 0\.010\]\), and that 78% of Explainability Debt was concentrated in the highest\-regulatory\-risk decision category \(transactions above $10,000\), a risk asymmetry completely invisible to system\-level metrics\. TRACE provides the first quantitative operational architecture for EU AI Act Article 13 compliance in production AI deployment, establishing a new subdiscipline of explanation governance distinct from explanation generation\. ## Submission history From: Harish Pathak \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/7c8da388/2610.10957)\] **\[v1\]**Wed, 7 Oct 2026 22:19:36 UTC \(515 KB\)
相似文章
通过执行轨迹解释AI代理
本文介绍了一个事后可解释AI框架,该框架将AI代理执行轨迹转换为结构化报告和自然语言解释,以实现透明度和可审计性。
用于评估可解释AI方法的合成真实基准框架
本文提出一个用于评估可解释AI方法的合成真实基准框架,通过受控干预来创建跨越不同数据领域的可靠基准。
金融合规基础设施作为AI代理问责制的蓝图——包含现有技术调查
本文认为,数十年来为自动化金融交易建立的问责制基础设施为治理AI代理提供了蓝图,借鉴了FINRA规则5310和SEC规则17a-4等具体监管机制。
面向欧盟解释权的可解释人工智能:法律-XAI转化差距的系统综述
针对欧盟解释权背景下的可解释人工智能(XAI)研究进行系统综述,分析GDPR与《人工智能法案》中法律要求与技术实施之间的差距。
可解释人工智能中鲁棒性与保真度审计的形式化方法框架:从应用到信任认证
本文介绍了一个用于审计事后可解释人工智能工具(如SHAP和LIME)的鲁棒性与保真度的方法框架,将这些指标结合成一个信任评分。该框架应用于马达加斯加的粮食安全数据集,强调了在敏感领域中审计XAI输出对于可信赖决策的必要性。