CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Apr 29, 2026

Making AI-Assisted Grant Evaluation Auditable without Exposing the Model

arXiv Security Archived Apr 29, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2604.25200v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Public agencies are beginning to consider large language models (LLMs) as decision-support tools for grant evaluation. This creates a practical governance problem: the model and scoring rubric should not be exposed in a way that allows applicants to optimize against them, yet the evaluation process must remain auditable, contestable, and accountable. We propose a TEE-based architecture that helps reconcile these requirements through remote attestat

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Cryptography and Security [Submitted on 28 Apr 2026] Making AI-Assisted Grant Evaluation Auditable without Exposing the Model Kemal Bicakci Public agencies are beginning to consider large language models (LLMs) as decision-support tools for grant evaluation. This creates a practical governance problem: the model and scoring rubric should not be exposed in a way that allows applicants to optimize against them, yet the evaluation process must remain auditable, contestable, and accountable. We propose a TEE-based architecture that helps reconcile these requirements through remote attestation. The architecture allows an external verifier to check which model, rubric, prompt template, and input representation were used, without exposing model weights, proprietary scoring logic, or intermediate reasoning to applicants or infrastructure operators. The main artifact is an attested evaluation bundle: a signed, timestamped record linking the original submission hash, the canonical input hash, the model-and-rubric measurement, and the evaluation output. The paper also considers a scenario-specific prompt injection risk: applicant-controlled documents may contain hidden or indirect instructions intended to influence the LLM evaluator. We therefore include a canonicalization and sanitization layer that normalizes document representations and records suspicious transformations before inference. We position the design relative to confidential AI inference, attestable AI audits, zero-knowledge machine learning, algorithmic accountability, and AI-assisted peer review. The resulting claim is deliberately narrow: remote attestation does not prove that an evaluation is fair or scientifically correct, but it can make part of the evaluation process externally verifiable. Comments: 12 pages, 2 figures Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY); Machine Learning (cs.LG) Cite as: arXiv:2604.25200 [cs.CR]   (or arXiv:2604.25200v1 [cs.CR] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.25200 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Kemal Bicakci [view email] [v1] Tue, 28 Apr 2026 04:10:04 UTC (18 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.CR < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-04 Change to browse by: cs cs.AI cs.CY cs.LG References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv Security
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Apr 29, 2026
    Archived
    Apr 29, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗