<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Knowledge-Augmented Reasoning for EUAIA Compliance and Adversarial Robustness of LLMs · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2410.09078/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2410.09078/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Knowledge-Augmented Reasoning for EUAIA Compliance and Adversarial Robustness of LLMs — mentioned by TomasBM</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41967858</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2410.09078:41967858</guid><pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2024 04:21:10 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m working on ways to allow developers and deployers of LLMs to express how and why their overall system is compliant and adversarially robust, and what to do when that&amp;#x27;s not the case. Specifically, my team and I are making assurance cases and ontologies that can seamlessly integrate with the system and its guardrails. For example, if you want to deploy some mix of filters underneath a user-facing LLM app, you would able to: 1) express the logic of how they should be deployed and why (e.g., if X=1, then Y, else Z); 2) see how they perform over time and evaluate alternatives; 3) investigate…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2410.09078/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
