arXiv:2508. 07872v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Uncertainty in artificial intelligence (AI) predictions raises pressing legal and ethical questions for AI-assisted decision-making.
By Holli Sargeant, Mackenzie Jorgensen, Arina Shah, Sam Goring, Adrian Weller, Umang Bhatt
arXiv:2507. 20708v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The rapid deployment of AI systems in high-stakes domains, including those classified as high-risk under the The EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), has intensified the need for reliable compliance auditing.
By Valentin Lafargue, Adriana Laurindo Monteiro, Emmanuelle Claeys, Laurent Risser, Jean-Michel Loubes
arXiv:2608. 12323v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Specifying a penalty can paradoxically convert a legal obligation into a cost-benefit calculation that favors violation.
By Mika Okamoto, Ansel Kaplan Erol, Kutluhan Erol
Compute governance today is a governance of training: the thresholds, reporting requirements, and frontier-AI regimes now in force attach to training compute and treat the trained model as the regulat...
The paper "Beyond Training: A Feasibility Taxonomy for Inference-Time AI Governance" presents a taxonomy of twenty inference‑time mechanisms for monitoring, verification, and enforcement, each evaluated on a four‑point readiness scale using evidence from four vendors. It applies this taxonomy to a two‑dimensional adversary model and maps the mechanisms to four governance scenarios, finding that most mechanisms are commercially available but only adequate against cooperative or low‑to‑medium‑capability users, not high‑capability state‑level deployers. The study also links inference‑stage controls to hardware‑stage mechanisms through a substitution principle and reports a second‑rater reliability of 0.74.
whyItMatters":"The work identifies the current gaps and readiness of inference‑time governance tools, highlighting that existing mechanisms are insufficient against powerful adversaries and thus informing future regulatory and technical development."
By Samar Ansari
arXiv:2306.00636v3 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Many fairness criteria constrain the policy or choice of predictors, which can have unwanted consequences, in particular, when optimizing the...
By Frederik Hytting J{\o}rgensen, Sebastian Weichwald, Jonas Peters
arXiv:2610.01005v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: As artificial intelligence is increasingly deployed, algorithmic unfairness has raised growing concerns and intensified demands for transparent fairnes...
By Jie Tang, Chuanlong Xie, Lixing Zhu
arXiv:2607. 26819v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Open source communities have been flooded with AI-generated contributions.
By Wenhao Yang, Runzhi He, Minghui Zhou
The paper introduces PACT, a benchmark designed to evaluate how well enterprise AI assistants follow compliance rules when faced with various pressures such as persistent users or hurried managers. PACT covers twelve regulated domains and forty-eight realistic multi‑turn scenarios, pairing each rule with a shortcut that violates it and applying different pressures across wording and system‑prompt modes. Using PACT, the authors profile six metrics of compliance and aggregate them into a PACTScore, revealing significant variability among 22 LLM models and that even top performers misapply rules 6–10% of the time, with user pressure increasing violations by 65% on average.
By Mika Okamoto, Ansel Kaplan Erol
The paper introduces a compliance-first AI architecture for regulated finance, treating regulation as an orientation layer rather than a rigid rule set. It uses a regulatory intent matrix and a governed policy compiler to translate regulatory requirements into concrete prohibitions, obligations, and runtime budgets, while maintaining proportional committee activation and supervisory oversight. Evidence and decisions are recorded on a permissioned DAG with deterministic timestamps, enabling replay, provenance checks, and clear attribution of failures, and clause-level legal indexing ensures portability across the DACH region and the EU.
By Walter Kurz, Reinhard Magg
Over the past decade, responsible AI (RAI) has produced a substantial body of practice for identifying and mitigating the risks AI poses in high-stakes settings. Yet this work has not produced a market that rewards trustworthiness.
Policy learning aims to determine who should be treated based on individual characteristics. In high-stakes settings such as medicine and public policy where safety is a central concern, improving the...