Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

RAIL in the Wild: Operationalizing Responsible AI Evaluation Using Anthropic's Value Dataset

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2505.00204 v1 pith:GCEREFG7 submitted 2025-04-30 cs.AI

RAIL in the Wild: Operationalizing Responsible AI Evaluation Using Anthropic's Value Dataset

classification cs.AI
keywords railanthropicbehaviordatasetdimensionsethicalevaluationframework
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

As AI systems become embedded in real-world applications, ensuring they meet ethical standards is crucial. While existing AI ethics frameworks emphasize fairness, transparency, and accountability, they often lack actionable evaluation methods. This paper introduces a systematic approach using the Responsible AI Labs (RAIL) framework, which includes eight measurable dimensions to assess the normative behavior of large language models (LLMs). We apply this framework to Anthropic's "Values in the Wild" dataset, containing over 308,000 anonymized conversations with Claude and more than 3,000 annotated value expressions. Our study maps these values to RAIL dimensions, computes synthetic scores, and provides insights into the ethical behavior of LLMs in real-world use.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. RAIL Guard: Closing the Evaluation-to-Remediation Gap in Responsible AI for LLM Agents

    cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Closed-loop remediation on eight responsible-AI dimensions converges far more often than block-and-retry (96.9% vs 49.1%) and pre-tool-call evaluation cuts unsafe agent executions by 33%.

  2. When In-Distribution Gains Fail: Evaluating Weak-to-Strong Reward Models under Preference Shift

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Weak-to-strong reward models succeed in-distribution but fail to transfer under preference shift due to source-domain feature pull; Representation Anchoring regularizer improves OOD performance.