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
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:2607. 21345v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Regulating activities where regulatees use autonomous and agentic AI is challenging.
By Chris Reed, Alex Austria, Anmol Bharuka, Pragnitha Mandava, Khushiya Mujawar, Luka Shakhkulashvili
arXiv:2608. 14562v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI governance is shifting from voluntary ethics to enforceable, risk-based regulation, yet cross-jurisdictional divergence creates compliance uncertainty for operators of high-stakes AI.
By Aasish Kumar Sharma, Dimitar Koysev, Christopher Anich, Roshni Kumari Ojha, Julian Kunkel
arXiv:2605. 16281v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Post-deployment accountability has become central to AI governance, yet little empirical evidence shows whether monitoring, incident reporting, and impact assessment obligations are visible when AI systems fail.
By Ummara Mumtaz, Summaya Mumtaz
arXiv:2608. 16470v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We examine the worldwide trend of mandatory labeling of generative artificial intelligence(GenAI) as a reactive, symbolic form of legislation triggered by technological panic and institutional responses.
By Jingyi Chen, Chaofan Bu, Shibo Yan, Xuesong Li
arXiv:2607. 15480v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly impact society, ensuring their ethical and trustworthy deployment has become a global priority.
By Michael Papademas, Xenia Ziouvelou, Kostas Karpouzis, Vangelis Karkaletsis
arXiv:2606. 26117v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This paper introduces the Governance Inversion Hypothesis (GIH) to explain a growing paradox in artificial intelligence (AI) governance: under conditions of increasing regulatory expansion and technological complexity, organisations may become more formally governed while simultaneously experiencing a decline in operational control over AI systems.
By Victor Frimpong
arXiv:2607. 26069v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI systems are rapidly integrated into critical economic, governmental, and national security functions, the gap between AI adoption and AI security readiness continues to widen.
By Gil Gekker, Rachel Steratore, Everett Smith, Asher Brass-Gershovich, Varun Gandhi, Nicole Nichols, Vijay Bolina, Buck Shlegeris, Lisa Einstein, Dan Lahav, Omer Nevo, Sella Nevo
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 article argues that embodied AI poses a significant governance lag, the delay between technological deployment and institutional response. It identifies three interlinked forms of lag—observational, institutional, and distributive—and proposes a compliance architecture featuring deployment visibility, stack-level accountability, trigger-based adjustments, and automatic distributional responses. The central policy challenge highlighted is ensuring governance systems become observable, responsive, and adaptive before disruption becomes entrenched.
By Shaoshan Liu
arXiv:2608. 15417v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Governments use laws, institutions, funding programs and nonbinding guidance to shape how AI is developed and used.
By Kaushik Sanjay Prabhakar, Tarun Adarsh R S, Amal Dhivyan Gregory, Sreeparvathy Sajeev, Utkarsh Tomar, Avyay M Casheekar