Is your AI Model Accurate Enough? The Difficult Choices Behind Rigorous AI Development and the EU AI Act
Fuente:
arXiv
Enregistré dans:
| Auteurs principaux: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Publié: |
2026
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| _version_ | 1866910173888512000 |
|---|---|
| author | Marin, Lucas G. Uberti-Bona Rijsbosch, Bram Meding, Kristof Spanakis, Gerasimos van Dijck, Gijs Kollnig, Konrad |
| author_facet | Marin, Lucas G. Uberti-Bona Rijsbosch, Bram Meding, Kristof Spanakis, Gerasimos van Dijck, Gijs Kollnig, Konrad |
| contents | Technical and legal debates frequently suggest that "accuracy" is an objective, measurable, and purely technical property. We challenge this view, showing that evaluating AI performance fundamentally depends on context-dependent normative decisions. These techno-normative choices are crucial for rigorous AI deployment, as they determine which errors are prioritised, how risks are distributed, and how trade-offs between competing objectives are resolved.
This paper provides a legal-technical analysis of the choices that shape how accuracy is defined, measured, and assessed, using the 2024 European Union AI Act -- which mandates an "appropriate level of accuracy" for high-risk systems -- as a primary case study. We identify and analyse four choices central to any robust performance evaluation: (1) selecting metrics, (2) balancing multiple metrics, (3) measuring metrics against representative data, and (4) determining acceptance thresholds. For each choice, we study its relationship to the AI Act's accuracy requirement and associated documentation obligations, show how its technical implementation embeds implicit or explicit assumptions about acceptable risks, errors, and trade-offs, and discuss the implications for the practical implementation of the AI Act by examples and related technical standards.
By making the techno-normative dimensions of accuracy explicit, this paper contributes to broader interdisciplinary debates on AI governance and regulation, and offers specific guidance for regulators, auditors, and developers tasked with translating (legal) safety requirements into technical practice. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2604_03254 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Is your AI Model Accurate Enough? The Difficult Choices Behind Rigorous AI Development and the EU AI Act Marin, Lucas G. Uberti-Bona Rijsbosch, Bram Meding, Kristof Spanakis, Gerasimos van Dijck, Gijs Kollnig, Konrad Computers and Society Artificial Intelligence Technical and legal debates frequently suggest that "accuracy" is an objective, measurable, and purely technical property. We challenge this view, showing that evaluating AI performance fundamentally depends on context-dependent normative decisions. These techno-normative choices are crucial for rigorous AI deployment, as they determine which errors are prioritised, how risks are distributed, and how trade-offs between competing objectives are resolved. This paper provides a legal-technical analysis of the choices that shape how accuracy is defined, measured, and assessed, using the 2024 European Union AI Act -- which mandates an "appropriate level of accuracy" for high-risk systems -- as a primary case study. We identify and analyse four choices central to any robust performance evaluation: (1) selecting metrics, (2) balancing multiple metrics, (3) measuring metrics against representative data, and (4) determining acceptance thresholds. For each choice, we study its relationship to the AI Act's accuracy requirement and associated documentation obligations, show how its technical implementation embeds implicit or explicit assumptions about acceptable risks, errors, and trade-offs, and discuss the implications for the practical implementation of the AI Act by examples and related technical standards. By making the techno-normative dimensions of accuracy explicit, this paper contributes to broader interdisciplinary debates on AI governance and regulation, and offers specific guidance for regulators, auditors, and developers tasked with translating (legal) safety requirements into technical practice. |
| title | Is your AI Model Accurate Enough? The Difficult Choices Behind Rigorous AI Development and the EU AI Act |
| topic | Computers and Society Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03254 |