Powering LLM Regulation through Data: Bridging the Gap from Compute Thresholds to Customer Experiences

Wesley Pasfield

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Powering LLM Regulation through Data: Bridging the Gap from Compute Thresholds to Customer Experiences

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that LLM regulation should be built on domain-specific evaluation datasets rather than compute thresholds.

desk verdict A coherent, well-cited position paper that consolidates known critiques of compute thresholds into a concrete dataset-certification workflow, but the load-bearing assumption that certification tracks real-world consumer protection is asserted, not argued. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03472 v1 pith:W7XPVYUH submitted 2025-01-12 cs.CY

Wesley Pasfield This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CY

keywords LLMregulationcomputethresholdsdomain-specificdatasetsAIcertificationconsumerprotectionLLM-as-judgedatasetcurationpolicy

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes shifting consumer-protection regulation of LLM products away from compute thresholds and generic model benchmarks, which are indirect proxies, and toward certification of specific user-facing experiences using expert-curated domain-specific datasets. It argues that such datasets, carefully maintained sets of prompts with ground-truth responses, can test whether a particular LLM-based product performs at an acceptable level in the actual context where consumers encounter it. If the approach works, regulators could target high-risk use cases directly, businesses would have a clear path to demonstrate credibility, and consumers would get a meaningful signal about the products they use.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a dynamic, expert-curated prompt-response dataset: pairs of realistic user inputs and ground-truth responses for a specific use case, kept current over time. Around this dataset the paper builds a certification procedure with a rubric and scoring system, tiered passing criteria, a public training set and a hidden test set, and a phased audit plan that starts with expert manual review and later adds LLM-as-judge automation. The dataset, not the model's compute budget, is the measuring instrument, which is why it must be domain-specific and continually maintained.

What would settle it

An observational study comparing certified and uncertified LLM products in the same high-risk domain, using expert review of live user interactions, would settle the claim: if certified products show the same rate of harmful or incorrect outputs as uncertified ones, then passing a domain-specific test set does not protect consumers as proposed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that compute thresholds and generalized model evaluations are not sufficient measures of the risk of a specific LLM-based consumer experience. The paper asserts that domain-specific datasets should be the engine of LLM regulation for consumer protection, and it sketches a certification workflow centered on these datasets. The workflow pairs expert-curated prompts with ground-truth responses, uses a rubric and tiered passing criteria, keeps a hidden test set, and moves from manual expert review to LLM-as-judge automation for scalability.

Load-bearing premise

The proposal stands on the assumption that a hidden, expert-curated set of sample prompts and ideal answers, continuously updated, is a reliable measure of whether a real LLM-based product is safe and effective for consumers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Regulators would stop treating all LLM-based systems as one uniform entity and instead certify specific user-facing experiences for specific use cases.
Smaller, specialized models that fall below compute thresholds would still be covered if their specific use case is high-risk, since coverage follows the experience rather than the compute bill.
Businesses gain a standardized path to prove product safety and effectiveness, which could unlock offerings in areas like healthcare that are currently considered too risky.
Certification would need to be dynamic, with continually curated test sets and explicit re-certification triggers as systems and marketplaces evolve.
Evaluation would scale through a phased process: expert manual review first, then LLM-as-judge automation with manual auditing retained.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A testable extension the paper leaves implicit: certifying an experience and then tracking real-world consumer complaints against it would calibrate whether passing thresholds are set too leniently.
If domain-specific test sets become commercially valuable, dataset leakage and overfitting become the central failure mode; an independent adversarial audit of hidden test questions would be needed to keep certification meaningful.
The same logic could extend beyond LLMs to any probabilistic generative system where the user-facing behavior, not the model card, determines harm.
Synthetic data could make dataset curation cheaper, but the paper's reliance on expert ground truth implies synthetic data would need validation against human expert judgment before it can replace it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What you should know: this is a position paper, not a study. The critique of compute thresholds is solid but not new—Hooker's point is the foundation, and the paper builds on it. The real contribution is the concrete five-step certification workflow in Section 3.4, which is specific enough to argue with. That alone makes it worth a referee's time.

The paper does well in structuring the argument. It names the three limitations of compute-level regulation cleanly, uses the drug-ingredient analogy effectively, and honestly flags the labor cost of dataset curation. The citation pattern is fine: Hooker, domain-specific evaluation work, NIST guidance, and the EU AI Act are all appropriately placed. No self-citation, no fitted parameters, no circularity.

The soft spot is the one the stress-test flags: the load-bearing assumption is that passing an expert-curated hidden prompt-response set tracks real-world consumer protection. The paper asserts this proxy without evidence. It doesn't address that for high-risk open-ended tasks like mental-health coaching there is no unique ground-truth response, so expert disagreement is likely and the "ground truth" in Section 3.2 is not well-defined. It also doesn't address distribution shift after certification, or the leakage and Goodhart dynamics that arise when a training set is shared publicly. Passing certification may not imply consumer safety, and the central regulatory benefit is therefore unestablished.

This is a validation gap, not an internal contradiction. The internal logic is coherent. But the paper should be clearer in Section 3.1 that the benefits are hypotheses, not measured outcomes. The claims about consumer confidence and business credibility are restatements of the proposal.

Who is this for? People working on AI governance, especially regulators and workshop attendees. It is not a technical contribution and it offers no empirical evidence, so it should not be judged as one. For a position paper it does its job: it gives the community a concrete proposal to critique.

My recommendation: send it to peer review for a workshop venue like Regulatable ML, with the expectation that the authors add a section on validity threats—expert disagreement, distribution shift, contamination—and ideally a small case study. If it's being considered for a journal, it needs substantially more. As a workshop position paper, it deserves engagement.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This position paper argues that compute-level thresholds and generalized model evaluations are insufficient for consumer protection in LLM-based systems, and proposes that domain-specific, expert-curated prompt-response datasets should be the central mechanism of LLM regulation. The paper critiques existing compute-based proposals, outlines a potential certification workflow involving ground-truth dataset construction, public training sets, hidden test sets, and phased auditing, and claims benefits for consumers, businesses, and regulators. The paper is explicitly non-prescriptive about governance details and acknowledges that dataset curation is labor-intensive, but it offers no empirical or formal validation of the proposed certification mechanism.

Significance. The paper makes a timely and useful argument by shifting the regulatory conversation from model-level proxies to user-facing, domain-specific evaluation, and it correctly identifies the brittleness of compute thresholds. It also gives a concrete workflow that could, in principle, be pilot-tested, and it is honest about the labor cost of dataset curation. However, the entire regulatory proposal rests on an unvalidated assumption: that passing a hidden, expert-curated prompt-response test set is a valid proxy for real-world safety and effectiveness. That assumption is load-bearing and, as the paper stands, unsupported. The paper would be a meaningful contribution if it either narrowed its claims to domains with well-defined ground truth or provided evidence from analogous certification regimes, a pilot study, or a structured argument addressing validity threats.

major comments (4)

[§3.2] The central claim depends on the assertion that expert-curated prompt-response datasets with 'ground truth' responses validly measure the safety and effectiveness of real-world LLM-based experiences. This assertion is not defended. In the paper's own high-risk examples, such as mental-health coaching or medical advice, there is often no unique correct response, so 'ground truth' is not well-defined. The paper does not discuss inter-annotator agreement, adjudication of expert disagreement, or how a rubric resolves ambiguity. Without such a protocol, a certification outcome would not be reproducible or legally defensible, which undermines the proposed mechanism for consumer protection.
[§3.4, steps 4 and 5] The proposed workflow's hidden test set is effectively a static sample of prompts evaluated at certification time, but real deployments face distribution shift, adversarial inputs, and multi-turn dynamics that a static sample cannot capture. The paper stipulates that the test set should be 'continually curated' but does not specify how drift is detected, how often refresh occurs, or how certification remains valid between recertifications. Appendix A says that recertification timing and update triggers 'should be explicitly defined' as part of the process, but it does not define them. This gap matters because a certification that is stale at deployment time cannot deliver the promised consumer protection.
[§3.4, steps 2 and 4] The paper does not adequately address contamination and Goodhart-style overfitting to the certification. The one-sentence stipulation that the test set should be 'continually curated as a means to prevent the evaluation from directly leaking into model training' is not a contamination-resistance strategy. Moreover, step 2 permits LLM-as-judge evaluation, despite citing Bavaresco et al. [29], which empirically documents cases where LLM judges diverge from human judgments. The paper does not reconcile this evidence with the use of LLM-as-judge in high-risk certification, nor does it specify how the hidden test set remains secret and fresh in a domain where a public training set is shared. For a regulatory test, a concrete contamination-resistance and validation protocol is required.
[§3.1] The claimed benefits — increased consumer confidence, enabling businesses to demonstrate credibility, and expansion into previously risky domains — are asserted rather than demonstrated. No evidence from analogous certification schemes (e.g., FDA approvals, professional licensing, or third-party seals) is provided, and no cost-benefit or stakeholder analysis is offered. Since these benefits are the stated motivation for the regulatory shift, the paper needs at least a structured argument from existing certification regimes or a small case study to make the proposal persuasive.

minor comments (4)

[§1] There is a typo: 'The EU AI Act [11] uses also uses a fixed threshold' should read 'also uses a fixed threshold.'
[§1 and references] The paper refers to the 'Whitehouse' in the text and reference [30]; the standard spelling is 'White House,' and the M-24-10 memorandum should be cited with the specific appendix or section numbers relevant to the claim.
[§3.3] The choice of the M-24-10 Appendix 1 lists as the starting point for prioritization is not justified relative to other frameworks, such as the EU AI Act's high-risk categories or the Colorado AI Act. A brief comparative rationale would strengthen the prioritization discussion.
[§3.2] The paper acknowledges that dataset creation and maintenance are labor-intensive but does not give even rough estimates of cost, time, or required expertise. Since the proposal's feasibility depends on these resources, a brief discussion of scale would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: this is a policy position paper with no fitted parameters, no self-citations, and no derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper is a policy argument and certification proposal, not an empirical derivation. Its central claims—that compute thresholds and generalized benchmarks are insufficient proxies for consumer-relevant LLM risk, and that domain-specific curated datasets should anchor LLM certification—rest on external sources and stated assumptions rather than on any equation fitted to data or on the paper's own prior findings. There are no fitted parameters being relabeled as predictions, no self-citations, and no invocation of an author-supplied uniqueness theorem. The workflow in Section 3.4 defines what a certification would consist of: expert-curated prompts, ground-truth responses, a hidden test set, and phased auditing. A certification outcome is by definition the result of that workflow; the paper does not claim to derive empirical evidence for real-world safety from the workflow itself. The Section 3.1 benefits are advocacy restatements of the proposal rather than independently derived consequences, but assertion-without-evidence is an evidence gap, not a circular reduction. Whether passing such a certification actually tracks consumer-protection outcomes is a load-bearing empirical validity assumption and the paper's main weakness, but it is not internal circularity. Under the hard rule that a circularity finding requires quoting a specific reduction, no such step exists here.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a policy position paper, so there are no fitted parameters or invented physical or mathematical entities. The argument rests on three domain assumptions about the validity and feasibility of dataset-based certification; none are quantified or empirically tested in the paper.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Compute-level thresholds are an indirect and unreliable proxy for real-world LLM experience risk.
Invoked in Section 2.1 as a core premise; supported only by citation [1] and an analogy to drug ingredients, not by quantitative evidence.
domain assumption Domain-specific prompt-response datasets provide a more direct and valid measure of experience efficacy than generalized benchmarks.
Stated in Section 2.2 and used as the foundation of the certification proposal; relies on expert-curated ground truth being available and representative.
domain assumption An expert-annotated test set can be kept hidden and continually curated so that certification scores reflect true performance rather than leakage or gaming.
Assumed in Section 3.4 step 4 without discussion of adversarial dynamics, dataset decay, or Goodhart effects.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Powering LLM Regulation through Data: Bridging the Gap from Compute Thresholds to Customer Experiences." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W7XPVYUH

@misc{pith2026250203472,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Powering LLM Regulation through Data: Bridging the Gap from Compute Thresholds to Customer Experiences},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W7XPVYUH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03472}
}

read the original abstract

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has created a critical gap in consumer protection due to the lack of standardized certification processes for LLM-powered Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. This paper argues that current regulatory approaches, which focus on compute-level thresholds and generalized model evaluations, are insufficient to ensure the safety and effectiveness of specific LLM-based user experiences. We propose a shift towards a certification process centered on actual user-facing experiences and the curation of high-quality datasets for evaluation. This approach offers several benefits: it drives consumer confidence in AI system performance, enables businesses to demonstrate the credibility of their products, and allows regulators to focus on direct consumer protection. The paper outlines a potential certification workflow, emphasizing the importance of domain-specific datasets and expert evaluation. By repositioning data as the strategic center of regulatory efforts, this framework aims to address the challenges posed by the probabilistic nature of AI systems and the rapid pace of technological advancement. This shift in regulatory focus has the potential to foster innovation while ensuring responsible AI development, ultimately benefiting consumers, businesses, and government entities alike.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[29]

Llms instead of huma n judges? a large scale empirical study across 20 nlp evaluation tasks,

A. Bavaresco, R. Bernardi, L. Bertolazzi, D. Elliott, R . Fernandez, A. Gatt, E. Ghaleb, M. Giu- lianelli, M. Hanna, and A. e. a. Koller, “Llms instead of huma n judges? a large scale empirical study across 20 nlp evaluation tasks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18403 , 2024

arXiv 2024
[1]

On the limitations of compute thresholds as a governance strategy,

S. Hooker, “On the limitations of compute thresholds as a governance strategy,” arXiv:2407.05694 [cs.AI], 2024

arXiv 2024
[2]

Rubicon: Rubric-based evaluation of domain-speciﬁc human ai conversations,

P . Biyani, Y . Bajpai, A. Radhakrishna, G. Soares, and S. G ulwani, “Rubicon: Rubric-based evaluation of domain-speciﬁc human ai conversations,” Alware 2024: Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Conference on AI-Powered Software, 2024

work page 2024
[3]

Constructi ng domain-speciﬁc evaluation sets for llm-as-a-judge,

R. Raju, S. Jain, B. Li, J. Li, and U. Thakkar, “Constructi ng domain-speciﬁc evaluation sets for llm-as-a-judge,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08808 , 2024

arXiv 2024
[4]

Artiﬁcial in- telligence risk management framework: Generative artiﬁci al intelligence proﬁle,

National Institute of Standards and Technology. US Depa rtment of Commerce, “Artiﬁcial in- telligence risk management framework: Generative artiﬁci al intelligence proﬁle,” 2024, https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/NIST.AI.600-1.pdf

work page 2024
[5]

Grounding ai policy towards researcher ac cess to ai usage data,

G. Nicholas, “Grounding ai policy towards researcher ac cess to ai usage data,” The Center for Democracy and T echnology, pp. 1–23, 2024

work page 2024
[6]

Executive order on the safe, secure, an d trustworthy development and use of artiﬁcial intelligence,

The Whitehouse, “Executive order on the safe, secure, an d trustworthy development and use of artiﬁcial intelligence,” 2023, https://www.whitehouse.gov/brieﬁng-room/presidentia l-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-se cure-and-trustw

work page 2023
[7]

Sb 1047: Safe and secure innovation for frontier artiﬁcial intelligence mod els act,

Weiner, Scott and Roth, Richard and Rubio, Susan and Ster n, Henry, “Sb 1047: Safe and secure innovation for frontier artiﬁcial intelligence mod els act,” 2024, https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/bills/ca_202320240sb1047

work page 2024

Show all 34 references

[8]

Exclusive: Anthropic weighs in on california a i bill,

A. Gold, “Exclusive: Anthropic weighs in on california a i bill,” Axios, 2024

2024
[9]

We are writing to express signiﬁcant concer ns about sb 1047, the “safe and secure innovation for frontier artiﬁcial intelligence mod els act

R. Sherman, “We are writing to express signiﬁcant concer ns about sb 1047, the “safe and secure innovation for frontier artiﬁcial intelligence mod els act.”,” Facebook Response to SB- 1047, 2024

2024
[10]

Re:senatebill1047(wiener)-safeandsecure innovationforfrontierartiﬁcialintelligence modelsact-oppose,

J. Kwon, “Re:senatebill1047(wiener)-safeandsecure innovationforfrontierartiﬁcialintelligence modelsact-oppose,” OpenAI Response to SB-1047 , 2024

2024
[11]

European Parliament and of the Council, “Laying down ha rmonized rules on artiﬁcial intelli- gence and amending regulations (ec) no 300/2008, (eu) no 167 /2013, (eu) no 168/2013, (eu) 2018/858, (eu) 2018/1139 and (eu) 2019/2144 and directives 2014/90/eu, (eu) 2016/797 and (eu)...

2008
[12]

In pursuit of regulatable llm s,

E. M. Kenny and J. A. Shah, “In pursuit of regulatable llm s,” Proc. NeurIPS W orkshop Regu- latable ML, pp. 1–19, 2023

2023
[13]

Scaling monosemanticity : Extracting interpretable fea- tures from claude 3 sonnet,

A. Templeton, T. Conerly, J. Marcus, J. Lindsey, T. Bric ken, B. Chen, A. Pearce, C. Citro, E. Ameisen, and e. a. Jones, Andy, “Scaling monosemanticity : Extracting interpretable fea- tures from claude 3 sonnet,” Transformer Circuits Thread, 2024

2024
[14]

Artiﬁcial intelligence/ machine learning (ai/ml)-based software as a medical device (samd) action plan,

Food and D. Administration, “Artiﬁcial intelligence/ machine learning (ai/ml)-based software as a medical device (samd) action plan,” 2021, https://www.fda.gov/media/145022/download

2021
[15]

Policy for device softw are functions and mobile medical ap- plications. guidance for industry and food and drug adminis tration staff,

Food and Drug Administration, “Policy for device softw are functions and mobile medical ap- plications. guidance for industry and food and drug adminis tration staff,” 2023, https://www.fda.gov/media/80958/download

2023
[16]

The imperative for regulator y oversight of large language models (or generative ai) in healthcare,

B. M’esko and E. J. Topol, “The imperative for regulator y oversight of large language models (or generative ai) in healthcare,” NPJ Digit Med , pp. 6–120, 2023

2023
[17]

Generativ e ai and large language models in health care: pathways to implementation,

M. M. Raza, K. P . V enkatesh, and J. C. Kvedar, “Generativ e ai and large language models in health care: pathways to implementation,” NPJ Digit Med , p. 62, 2024

2024
[18]

Sb 1047, ai regulation, and unlikely allie s for open models,

N. Lambert, “Sb 1047, ai regulation, and unlikely allie s for open models,” Interconnects, 2024

2024
[19]

Ofﬁce of the governor,

G. Newsom, “Ofﬁce of the governor,” SB-1047 V eto Message, 2024. 5

2024
[20]

Sb24-205 consumer protec tions for artiﬁcial intelligence,

Colorado General Assembly, “Sb24-205 consumer protec tions for artiﬁcial intelligence,” 2024, https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-205

2024
[21]

Open llm leaderboard,

H. Face, “Open llm leaderboard,” https://huggingface .co/docs/leaderboards/open_llm_leaderboard/about, accessed: 2024-08-20

2024
[22]

Holistic evaluation of langu age models,

P . Liang, R. Bommasani, T. Lee, D. Tsipras, D. Soylu, M. Y asunaga, Y . Zhang, D. Narayanan, Y . Wu, and e. a. Kumar, Ananya, “Holistic evaluation of langu age models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09110, 2022

2022 arXiv
[23]

Generative ai for synthetic data gen eration: Methods, challenges and the future,

X. Guo and Y . Chen, “Generative ai for synthetic data gen eration: Methods, challenges and the future,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04190 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[24]

Gpt-4 technica l report,

J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L . Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Al- tenschmidt, S. Altman, and e. a. S. Anadkat, “Gpt-4 technica l report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

2023 arXiv
[25]

Towards expert-level medic al question answering with large language models,

K. Singhal, T. Tu, J. Gottweis, R. Sayres, E. Wulczyn, L. Hou, K. Clark, S. Pfohl, H. Cole- Lewis, and e. a. Neal, Darlene, “Towards expert-level medic al question answering with large language models,” arXiv preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.09617, 2023

2023 arXiv
[26]

The evolving landscape of llm evaluation,

S. Ruder, “The evolving landscape of llm evaluation,” NLP News, 2024

2024
[27]

Chatbot arena: An open platform for eva luating llms by human preference,

W . e. a. Chiang, “Chatbot arena: An open platform for eva luating llms by human preference,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04132 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[28]

Walking a tightrope – eval- uating large language models in high-risk domains,

C.-C. Hung, W . B. Rim, L. Frost, L. Bruckner, and C. Lawre nce, “Walking a tightrope – eval- uating large language models in high-risk domains,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.14966 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[30]

M-24-10 advancing governance, innovation and risk management for agency use o f artiﬁcial intelligence,

Executive Ofﬁce of the President Ofﬁce of Management an d Budget, “M-24-10 advancing governance, innovation and risk management for agency use o f artiﬁcial intelligence,” 2024, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/M-24-10-Advancing-Governance-Innovation-and-R...

2024
[31]

Ai models collapse when trained on recursively generated data,

I. Shumailov, Z. Shumaylov, Y . Zhao, N. Papernot, R. And erson, and Y . Gal, “Ai models collapse when trained on recursively generated data,” Nature 631, pp. 755–759, 2024

2024
[32]

Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatb ot arena,

L. Zheng, W .-L. Chiang, Y . Sheng, S. Zhuang, Z. Wu, Y . Zhuang, Z. Lin, Z. Li, D. Li, and E. P . e. a. Xing, “Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatb ot arena,” NeurIPS 2023 Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2023

2023
[33]

Evaluating the evaluator: Measuring llms’ adhe rence to task evaluation instruc- tions,

B. Murugadoss, C. Poelitz, I. Drosos, V . Le, N. McKenna, C. S. Negreanu, C. Parnin, and A. Sarkar, “Evaluating the evaluator: Measuring llms’ adhe rence to task evaluation instruc- tions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08781 , 2024

2024
[34]

Best practices and lessons learned on synthetic data for la nguage models,

R. Liu, J. Wei, F. Liu, C. Si, Y . Zhang, J. Rao, S. Zheng, D. Peng, D. Y ang, and D. e. a. Zhou, “Best practices and lessons learned on synthetic data for la nguage models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07503, 2024. 5 Appendix A: Proposed Certiﬁcation Logistics When a company su...

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [29]

Llms instead of huma n judges? a large scale empirical study across 20 nlp evaluation tasks,

A. Bavaresco, R. Bernardi, L. Bertolazzi, D. Elliott, R . Fernandez, A. Gatt, E. Ghaleb, M. Giu- lianelli, M. Hanna, and A. e. a. Koller, “Llms instead of huma n judges? a large scale empirical study across 20 nlp evaluation tasks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18403 , 2024

arXiv 2024

[2] [1]

On the limitations of compute thresholds as a governance strategy,

S. Hooker, “On the limitations of compute thresholds as a governance strategy,” arXiv:2407.05694 [cs.AI], 2024

arXiv 2024

[3] [2]

Rubicon: Rubric-based evaluation of domain-speciﬁc human ai conversations,

P . Biyani, Y . Bajpai, A. Radhakrishna, G. Soares, and S. G ulwani, “Rubicon: Rubric-based evaluation of domain-speciﬁc human ai conversations,” Alware 2024: Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Conference on AI-Powered Software, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [3]

Constructi ng domain-speciﬁc evaluation sets for llm-as-a-judge,

R. Raju, S. Jain, B. Li, J. Li, and U. Thakkar, “Constructi ng domain-speciﬁc evaluation sets for llm-as-a-judge,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08808 , 2024

arXiv 2024

[5] [4]

Artiﬁcial in- telligence risk management framework: Generative artiﬁci al intelligence proﬁle,

National Institute of Standards and Technology. US Depa rtment of Commerce, “Artiﬁcial in- telligence risk management framework: Generative artiﬁci al intelligence proﬁle,” 2024, https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/NIST.AI.600-1.pdf

work page 2024

[6] [5]

Grounding ai policy towards researcher ac cess to ai usage data,

G. Nicholas, “Grounding ai policy towards researcher ac cess to ai usage data,” The Center for Democracy and T echnology, pp. 1–23, 2024

work page 2024

[7] [6]

Executive order on the safe, secure, an d trustworthy development and use of artiﬁcial intelligence,

The Whitehouse, “Executive order on the safe, secure, an d trustworthy development and use of artiﬁcial intelligence,” 2023, https://www.whitehouse.gov/brieﬁng-room/presidentia l-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-se cure-and-trustw

work page 2023

[8] [7]

Sb 1047: Safe and secure innovation for frontier artiﬁcial intelligence mod els act,

Weiner, Scott and Roth, Richard and Rubio, Susan and Ster n, Henry, “Sb 1047: Safe and secure innovation for frontier artiﬁcial intelligence mod els act,” 2024, https://digitaldemocracy.calmatters.org/bills/ca_202320240sb1047

work page 2024