The paper proposes rethinking bias in AI as a diagnostic tool rather than merely a flaw to be minimized. It introduces a multidimensional framework that examines bias across origin, lifecycle emergence, technical causes, and validation methods, covering 30 bias types, 16 verification methods, and 20 countermeasures for both traditional and generative AI. The authors present a hierarchical evidence framework distinguishing internal and external validity, and advocate for Ethics by Design principles to embed bias verification throughout the AI development lifecycle.
By Samira Maghool, Paolo Ceravolo
arXiv:2605. 23922v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) establishes a lifecycle governance regime for high-risk AI systems built around ex-ante conformity assessment, post-market monitoring, and re-assessment upon "substantial modification.
By Andrea Ferrario
arXiv:2607. 23365v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, autonomous driving, finance, and education.
By Muhammad Tukur, Hayatullahi B. Adeyemo, Tao Chen, Nour Ali, Anis Zarrad, Rick Kazman, Marco Agus, Rami Bahsoon
The paper introduces the Alignment Flywheel, a governance‑centric hybrid multi‑agent system (MAS) that separates decision generation from safety governance. It defines a Proposer that generates candidate trajectories, a Safety Oracle stack that evaluates safety, and an Enforcement layer that applies risk policies at runtime. A governance MAS oversees monitoring, red‑teaming, verification, and versioned release management, enabling patch‑local fixes to safety failures without retraining the Proposer. The architecture is implementation‑agnostic and is demonstrated in two scenarios: a learned spatial Oracle and a clinical GenAI proxy. The authors provide open‑source code at https://github.com/decide-ugent/Alignment-Flywheel.
By Elias Malomgr\'e, Pieter Simoens
arXiv:2607. 18243v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic AI is crossing trust boundaries faster than current risk models can represent.
By Hassan Karim, Sai Sitharaman, Deepti Gupta, Danda B. Rawat
arXiv:2604. 22789v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Organizations deploying AI-enabled Intelligent Transportation Systems face fragmented governance: ISO/IEC~42001 demands a certifiable management system, the EU AI Act imposes binding high-risk obligations from August~2026, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework structures voluntary practice.
By Talal Ashraf Butt, Muhammad Iqbal, Razi Iqbal
arXiv:2606. 00037v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Machine learning models embedded in deployed AI systems are routinely updated to maintain correct functioning over time.
By Andrea Ferrario, Joshua Hatherley
arXiv:2607. 19292v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current AI safety discourse still focuses disproportionately on visible failures, including obvious harms, dramatic misuse, and hypothetical catastrophic scenarios.
By Gjergji Kasneci, Enkelejda Kasneci
arXiv:2609.22961v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Agentic systems increasingly invoke tools, services, data, and other agents across organizational boundaries, yet a relying party cannot assess a del...
By Huafu Li, Jia Xia
The paper "Governing at Machine Speed: An Adaptive Intelligence Architecture for Real-Time AI Policy Enforcement" highlights a gap in enterprise AI governance, where 78% of organizations lack auditable evidence of policy enforcement. It introduces AGIL, a five-layer adaptive governance architecture that uses machine learning for real-time detection, risk classification, sub-100ms policy enforcement, continuous attestation, and policy evolution. The authors argue that the failure is organizational and architectural, not technical, and call for future empirical validation of AGIL.
By Sandeep Bokkasam, B. Durgalakshmi
The paper introduces a design‑science framework for ensuring legacy, governance, and decision integrity in enterprise AI systems. It defines a normalized Legacy Score based on knowledge retention, governance, oversight, adaptability, feedback learning, and jurisdictional fidelity, along with Decision Confidence and Decision Risk models, authority‑aware retrieval, Decision Memory, Regulatory Change Velocity, and a federated regulatory knowledge‑graph architecture. The authors also propose eight AI Decision Integrity Rules, an evaluation protocol, and a reproducible computational demonstration using stress tests and Monte Carlo simulations to illustrate the framework’s properties.
By Shorab Sarker
arXiv:2608. 04921v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI systems become increasingly integrated into diverse interfaces and applications, model-centric audits are insufficient to address risks arising from interactions among system components and deployment environments.
By Leah Davis, Dominic Martin, AJung Moon