arXiv:2606. 16652v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Temporary accommodation has become a major fiscal and administrative pressure for English local authorities, particularly in London, where demand and costs have risen sharply.
By Hankun He, Jordan Richards, Gopalakrishnan Netuveli, Kumar Aniket, Ramya Pachatcharam, Binta Ade-olusile, Nathan Nagaiah, Matthew I Bellgard
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.
By Prachi Chaturvedi, Shahnawaz Ahmad, Ehsan Nowroozi, Muhammad Waqas, George Loukas, Alireza Jolfaei, Lucas Cordeiro, Pierre Dantas
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.
By Sam Relins, Daniel Birks
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 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.
By Fola Adeleke, Rachel Adams, Ayantola Alayande, Daniela Benavente, Ana Florido, Nicol\'as Grossman, Leah Junck
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.
By Josephine Schwab, Nathan Naidoo, Ferruccio Barazzutti, Sheryn Lee, Caio Vieira Machado