The paper systematically classifies the EU AI Act’s high‑risk requirements, finding that only a minority directly address AI‑specific risk sources while most impose organizational and documentation obligations. From these risk‑related requirements, the authors derive a consolidated list of distinct AI‑specific risk sources, creating an EU AI Act Risk Source List. This list aims to bridge the gap between legal obligations and AI risk‑management practice by providing a structured reference for comparing the Act’s implicit risk coverage with existing AI risk taxonomies.
By Ronald Schnitzer, Mike Auer, Rumpa Choudhury, Andreas Hapfelmeier, Maximilian Hoeving, Isabelle Painter, Josiane Xavier Parreira, Sonja Zillner
arXiv:2608. 02699v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When algorithms make or influence consequential decisions---about loan eligibility, hiring, or healthcare---EU law grants affected individuals a Right to Explanation.
By Benjamin Fresz, Elena Dubovitskaya, Marco F. Huber
The paper examines AI disclosure policies in top computer science venues, finding them to be highly under‑specified. A survey of 109 researchers shows that disclosures are deemed most necessary for research design tasks and when human involvement is low, and it compiles researchers’ expectations for disclosure content. Analysis of 13,867 disclosure statements from EMNLP 2025 and ICLR 2026 reveals a significant mismatch between these expectations and actual practice, such as frequent disclosure of writing assistance despite it being considered less necessary.
By Arati Mohapatra, Danish Pruthi
As generative AI tools find increasing use in research workflows, ongoing debates on their impact, appropriateness and responsible use have led policymakers to enact policies to disclose AI use at mul...
arXiv:2609.36228v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: The EU AI Act introduces extensive compliance requirements for organizations that develop, deploy, or integrate AI systems. Many of these requirements...
By Zhen Tao, Alize Kahraman, Shidong Pan, Zhenchang Xing, Chiara Ullstein, Jens Grossklags, Chunyang Chen
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:2606. 12415v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid global expansion of artificial intelligence regulation has generated, across multiple jurisdictions, a demand for legal expertise dedicated to AI that the market has addressed in a fragmented manner.
By Nicola Fabiano
The paper argues that AI governance should rely on ISO-like interoperability protocols rather than solely on jurisdiction-specific laws. It proposes standardized AI nutrition labels that include metrics for bias, energy usage, and data provenance to enable machine‑readable risk communication across borders. These protocols aim to reduce regulatory fragmentation, lower barriers for SMEs, and build public trust while allowing modular evolution with technology.
By Azmine Toushik Wasi, Mst Rafia Islam, Mahfuz Ahmed Anik, Taki Hasan Rafi, Md Manjurul Ahsan, Dong-Kyu Chae
arXiv:2502. 16184v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) establishes different legal principles for different types of AI systems.
By Henrik Nolte, Miriam Rateike, Mich\`ele Finck
arXiv:2606. 12437v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The increasing encroachment of artificial intelligence (AI) on social life raises significant risks for society, particularly within the infospheres created and controlled by companies such as Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon.
By Oren Perez, Nurit Wimer
The paper argues that AI should be evaluated not only by principles but by concrete protocols that translate commitments into roles, requirements, records, oversight, and assessment. It introduces a rupture test linking institutional baselines to system evaluation, and distinguishes evidence‑bounded deployment from measurement‑bounded governance. The authors propose the RISE AI architecture to make bounded, evidence‑based claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment, emphasizing the need for engineering, institutional repair, and ongoing moral judgment.
By Nitesh V. Chawla, Paulo Benanti
arXiv:2606. 11217v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The proliferation of large language models (LLMs) and autonomous AI agents has given rise to a rapidly growing methodological paradigm: "in silico" behavioral experiments.
By Michelle Vaccaro