The paper "Operationalising AI Regulatory Sandboxes: Activities, Requirements, and Technical Assessment under the EU AI Act" outlines a detailed framework for implementing AI Regulatory Sandboxes (AIRS) under the EU AI Act. It maps the sandbox lifecycle into 29 activities, distinguishes between a Core AIRS and an Extended AIRS that includes an AI Technical Sandbox (AITS), and derives 15 infrastructural and governance requirements linked to these activities and provider obligations. The authors also introduce the Sandbox Configurator, an open‑source tool to instantiate AITS environments, aiming to provide structured workflows for regulators, robust evaluation methods for experts, and a transparent compliance pathway for AI providers.
By Alessio Buscemi, Thibault Simonetto, Daniele Pagani, German Castignani, Maxime Cordy, Jordi Cabot
arXiv:2608. 07446v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in enterprise settings has introduced operational, security, and governance risks.
By Afreen Alam, Evgenija Popchanovska, Ana Gjorgjevikj, Maryan Rizinski, Lubomir T. Chitkushev, Irena Vodenska, Dimitar Trajanov
arXiv:2606. 14594v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI-assisted software development has moved from line-level autocomplete to agents that can plan changes, edit files, and submit pull requests with limited human supervision.
By Jassem Manita, Aziz Amari
arXiv:2609.37109v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: The rapid, unpredictable advancements in AI system capabilities has seen regulators take adaptive and experimental approaches to policymaking. Establ...
By Idoia Landa-Oregi, Tom Deckenbrunnen, Alessio Buscemi, Daniele Pagani, German Castignani
arXiv:2606. 01417v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Turkey's e-Government Gateway (e-Devlet) serves over 68 million registered users with more than 9,200 government services, and is increasingly integrating artificial intelligence into citizen-facing applications such as chatbot assistants and eligibility assessments.
By Ahmet Kaplan
arXiv:2608. 02679v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Collaborative AI experimentation across industry and academia requires platforms that enable rapid prototyping while preserving controlled access, tenant separation, and transparent workflows.
By Muhammad Waseem, Md Aidul Islam, Md Nasir Uddin Shuvo, Md Mahade Hasan, Kai-Kristian Kemell, Jussi Rasku, Mika Saari, Vilma Saari, Roope Pajasmaa, Markku Oivo, Pekka Abrahamsson
The paper introduces Governance-as-Code (GaC), a framework that translates the EU AI Act’s technical requirements into 43 machine‑checkable acceptance criteria across six compliance modules. GaC runs within a CI/CD pipeline, producing Article‑indexed audit evidence and providing actual Rego policy code. The authors validate GaC on two enterprise deployments, showing it reproduces manual audit findings—including three penalty‑triggering violations—while reducing audit labor by about 75%.
By Rudrendu Kumar Paul, Sourav Nandy
arXiv:2606. 09809v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI evaluation results are produced at scale but reported inconsistently across leaderboards, model cards, benchmark papers, and company blogs.
By Avijit Ghosh, Anka Reuel, Jenny Chim, Wm. Matthew Kennedy, Srishti Yadav, Jennifer Mickel, Yanan Long, Andrew Tran, Anastassia Kornilova, Damian Stachura, Kevin Klyman, Felix Friedrich, Jeba Sania, Max Lamparth, Jan Batzner, Anoop Mishra, Eliya Habba, Yixiong Hao, Nathan Heath, Shalaleh Rismani, Usman Gohar, Andrea Loehr, David Manheim, Ruchira Dhar, Sree Harsha Nelaturu, Aarush Sinha, Leshem Choshen, Drishti Sharma, Ishan Khire, Amit Saha, Subramanyam Sahoo, Michael Hardy, Michael Alexander Riegler, Kabir Manghnani, Michelle Lin, Yanan Jiang, Yilin Huang, Asaf Yehudai, Jessica Ji, Aris Hofmann, Mubashara Akhtar, Nuno Moniz, Yacine Jernite, Stella Biderman, Zeerak Talat, Sanmi Koyejo, Mykel Kochenderfer, Irene Solaiman
The paper introduces a deterministic AI security risk assessment framework that transforms diverse engineering artefacts into a standardized Control ID taxonomy scored on a four‑level ordinal scale. It compiles technique‑level predicates from a fixed MITRE ATLAS snapshot, linking each control to mitigation and producing traceable feasibility and impact outputs. The framework is formally verified for boundedness, totality, consistency, and monotonicity, and is evaluated on five open‑source AI projects, showing that strengthened controls lower feasibility scores while residual risks persist when core controls are missing.
By Yixuan Huang (University of Southampton, Southampton, UK), Basel Halak (University of Southampton, Southampton, UK), Boojoong Kang (University of Southampton, Southampton, UK)
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
arXiv:2606. 31567v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Flaw reporting for deployed AI systems is fundamental to identifying system failures and improving AI safety.
By Shayne Longpre, Elaine Zhu, Carson Ezell, Avijit Ghosh, Sean McGregor, Kevin Paeth, Kevin Klyman, Sayash Kapoor, Rishi Bommasani, Ruth Appel, Gregory Strom, Lauren McIlvenny, Mark M. Jaycox, Peter Slattery, Nathan Butters, Arvind Narayanan, Percy Liang, Alex Pentland
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