The paper examines how public bodies use AI-generated evidence—such as classifications and summaries—to inform policy and service delivery, highlighting the need for rigorous testing and governance. Using eight GPT‑4o configurations on 1,200 UK Prime Minister’s Questions, the authors find modest accuracy (68.2–70.3%) but significant label disagreement and variable human‑review flags (0.9–41.0%). Analysis of UK and EU policy documents shows that while testing and oversight are mandated, reporting requirements often miss key issues like changing answers, shared errors, and review routing, underscoring gaps in current AI assurance practices.
arXiv:2607. 25648v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Public services face growing pressure to adopt artificial intelligence (AI) to close the gap between rising demand and falling resources.
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%.
The paper presents LAAF, a Layered Accountability Architecture Framework for Large Language Model (LLM) applications, developed through a systematic review of 122 primary studies and 12 regulatory documents. It identifies five dimensions of accountability and four families of mechanisms—technical controls, human oversight, organisational governance, and documentation/traceability—each assessed for maturity. The framework is mapped onto major regulatory standards (EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001) and highlights persistent gaps such as under‑specified human oversight and lack of shared accountability metrics.
The paper introduces LAAF, a Layered Accountability Architecture Framework for Large Language Model (LLM) applications, developed through a systematic review of 122 primary studies and 12 regulatory documents. It identifies five accountability dimensions and four families of mechanisms—technical controls, human oversight, organisational governance, and documentation/traceability—evaluated across maturity levels. The framework maps onto major standards such as the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, and sectoral guidance, highlighting gaps in human oversight, accountability metrics, disciplinary alignment, and empirical validation.
The Global Index on Responsible AI 2026 (GIRAI) 2nd Edition refines its predecessor by distinguishing between framework existence and implementation, expanding from three to five thematic areas, and adding granular variables for framework quality. It evaluates responsible AI governance across five dimensions—Inclusion and Diversity, Ethics and Sustainability, Labour and Skills, Trust and Safety, and Use of AI in Public Service—using 38 indicators organized into three pillars: AI Policy, CSO Engagement, and Enabling Conditions, plus a separate Use of Unacceptable Risk AI penalty. Data from 135 country-level researchers and secondary sources are normalized to a 100-point scale, weighted by pillar importance, and used to facilitate systematic cross‑national comparisons for policymakers, civil society, and AI developers.
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.
arXiv:2606. 13039v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The UK government has adopted a pro-AI stance to help transform public service delivery in the face of severe financial pressures, but the path to translate this vision into responsible AI practice remains ill-defined.
arXiv:2608. 15417v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Governments use laws, institutions, funding programs and nonbinding guidance to shape how AI is developed and used.
arXiv:2608. 19278v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The most capable general-purpose AI (GPAI) models are mostly built in two jurisdictions, the United States and China, but the risks they carry land globally.
arXiv:2607. 14782v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Grounded in human rights-based frameworks such as the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, the Global Index on Responsible AI (GIRAI) examines how countries translate responsible AI commitments into enforceable protections, institutional capacity, and redress mechanisms.
Governments use laws, institutions, funding programs and nonbinding guidance to shape how AI is developed and used. Comparing these national approaches is difficult. A binding rule and a detailed volu...
The paper introduces the AI Assessment Sandbox Configurator, an open‑source framework designed to support technical assessment in AI Regulatory Sandboxes (AIRS) mandated by the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. It outlines 11 architectural and governance requirements for infrastructure that enables large‑scale, structured technical testing, and presents a catalogue of tests, a shared data model, dashboards, and reporting tools that harmonise heterogeneous outputs. An early‑stage pilot demonstrated the framework’s harmonisation and reporting capabilities within a live AIRS engagement, contributing to an official Exit Report.