arXiv subjects

Chris Schmitz

Publications and source records attributed to Chris Schmitz.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Characterizing Agentic Flooding of Government Services

AI agents are making it easier for the public to interact with government, such as by helping them apply for benefits, understand complex policies, and make their opinions heard. Although improving service accessibility is beneficial, any resulting surges in demand could strain unprepared government services. We term such surges agentic flooding of government services ("flooding") and provide three contributions. First, based on a collected dataset of 84 potential cases of flooding across 11 jurisdictions, we posit that flooding is likely occurring widely today, mostly through large language models (LLMs) generating text cheaply. Second, we evaluate what services are most exposed to flooding. We develop a risk matrix to analyze a service's exposure, and suggest that near-term risk is highest for financially attractive, but complex services. Finally, we map possible government responses to flooding. Precedent suggests these responses will likely be sufficient to stop most cases of flooding, but the fastest to deploy - friction-inducing measures like fees - often trade off equitable access to public services. Accordingly, we close by recommending near-term actions that may allow governments to mitigate flooding without invoking this trade-off.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

A Technical Typology of AI Systems in Public Administration

Research on artificial intelligence (AI) in the public sector often treats "AI" as a single category, neglecting technical distinctions between different AI systems. But these distinctions affect how different systems impact core public values like accountability, procedural justice, and non-discrimination. This paper argues that public administration research would benefit from more technical precision on "AI" and makes three contributions to this end. First, we introduce a typology of five categories of AI systems: hand-coded, glass-box, black-box, general-purpose, and agentic systems. We calibrate the typology to public administration by grouping system types by their distinct implications for public values. Second, we evaluate technical precision in recent public administration research about AI by coding 91 highly-cited papers (2019-2025) using our typology. We find widespread imprecision: most papers (55\%) leave the studied system underspecified, 31\% motivate their work with a different system than they study, and 41\% make more general conclusions than the studied system supports. Finally, we give practical recommendations for future research. We highlight common pitfalls to avoid, and suggest that researchers should, at a minimum, provide enough technical detail to locate the studied system in our typology. To this end, we provide a practical guide -- a short set of diagnostic questions answerable from public information and without specialist technical knowledge.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Agent Benchmarks Fail Public Sector Requirements

Deploying Large Language Model-based agents (LLM agents) in the public sector requires assuring that they meet the stringent legal, procedural, and structural requirements of public-sector institutions. Practitioners and researchers often turn to benchmarks for such assessments. However, it remains unclear what criteria benchmarks must meet to ensure they adequately reflect public-sector requirements, or how many existing benchmarks do so. In this paper, we first define such criteria based on a first-principles survey of public administration literature: benchmarks must be \emph{process-based}, \emph{realistic}, \emph{public-sector-specific} and report \emph{metrics} that reflect the unique requirements of the public sector. We analyse more than 1,300 benchmark papers for these criteria using an expert-validated LLM-assisted pipeline. Our results show that no single benchmark meets all of the criteria. Our findings provide a call to action for both researchers to develop public sector-relevant benchmarks and for public-sector officials to apply these criteria when evaluating their own agentic use cases.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Measuring what Matters: Construct Validity in Large Language Model Benchmarks

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is crucial for both assessing their capabilities and identifying safety or robustness issues prior to deployment. Reliably measuring abstract and complex phenomena such as 'safety' and 'robustness' requires strong construct validity, that is, having measures that represent what matters to the phenomenon. With a team of 29 expert reviewers, we conduct a systematic review of 445 LLM benchmarks from leading conferences in natural language processing and machine learning. Across the reviewed articles, we find patterns related to the measured phenomena, tasks, and scoring metrics which undermine the validity of the resulting claims. To address these shortcomings, we provide eight key recommendations and detailed actionable guidance to researchers and practitioners in developing LLM benchmarks.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

A Moral Agency Framework for Legitimate Integration of AI in Bureaucracies

Public-sector bureaucracies seek to reap the benefits of artificial intelligence (AI), but face important concerns about accountability and transparency when using AI systems. In particular, perception or actuality of AI agency might create ethics sinks - constructs that facilitate dissipation of responsibility when AI systems of disputed moral status interface with bureaucratic structures. Here, we reject the notion that ethics sinks are a necessary consequence of introducing AI systems into bureaucracies. Rather, where they appear, they are the product of structural design decisions across both the technology and the institution deploying it. We support this claim via a systematic application of conceptions of moral agency in AI ethics to Weberian bureaucracy. We establish that it is both desirable and feasible to render AI systems as tools for the generation of organizational transparency and legibility, which continue the processes of Weberian rationalization initiated by previous waves of digitalization. We present a three-point Moral Agency Framework for legitimate integration of AI in bureaucratic structures: (a) maintain clear and just human lines of accountability, (b) ensure humans whose work is augmented by AI systems can verify the systems are functioning correctly, and (c) introduce AI only where it doesn't inhibit the capacity of bureaucracies towards either of their twin aims of legitimacy and stewardship. We suggest that AI introduced within this framework can not only improve efficiency and productivity while avoiding ethics sinks, but also improve the transparency and even the legitimacy of a bureaucracy.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Oversight Structures for Agentic AI in Public-Sector Organizations

This paper finds that the introduction of agentic AI systems intensifies existing challenges to traditional public sector oversight mechanisms -- which rely on siloed compliance units and episodic approvals rather than continuous, integrated supervision. We identify five governance dimensions essential for responsible agent deployment: cross-departmental implementation, comprehensive evaluation, enhanced security protocols, operational visibility, and systematic auditing. We evaluate the capacity of existing oversight structures to meet these challenges, via a mixed-methods approach consisting of a literature review and interviews with civil servants in AI-related roles. We find that agent oversight poses intensified versions of three existing governance challenges: continuous oversight, deeper integration of governance and operational capabilities, and interdepartmental coordination. We propose approaches that both adapt institutional structures and design agent oversight compatible with public sector constraints.

cs.CY↗