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.
By Rachel Adams, Fola Adeleke, Ayantola Alayande, Selamawit Engida Abdella, Ana Florido, Nicol\'as Grossman, Leah Junck
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. 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
The paper argues that the commonly cited gap between ethical principles and AI practice is not merely a matter of implementation or compliance, but arises from the complex institutional and professional contexts in which AI actors operate. Through interviews with designers and governors of anti‑trafficking AI systems, it identifies four interconnected moments—perception, judgement, situated action, and socio‑technical materialisation—through which ethical concerns are recognised, weighed, and either realised or sidelined. The authors contend that responsible AI governance must build epistemic infrastructures that transcend these constraints, enabling the knowledge of affected communities and potential harms to be effectively integrated into design and governance.
By Thao Do Ngoc, Emma Carmel
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
The paper introduces the AIRD/AIPD framework, a dual taxonomy that categorises AI’s democratic risks (threats to autonomy, fairness, public discourse, institutions, and trust) and its positive contributions (enhancing efficiency, accessibility, security, informed citizenry, transparency, accountability, inclusive dialogue, and evidence‑based policymaking). Grounded in democratic principles and the European Commission’s Trustworthy AI requirements, the framework offers an operational process for identifying contexts, classifying effects, mapping to governance mechanisms, and defining responsible actors, illustrated with examples on electoral misinformation and public service allocation.
By Oier Mentxaka, Natalia D\'iaz-Rodr\'iguez, Mark Coeckelbergh, Marcos L\'opez de Prado, Emilia G\'omez, David Fern\'andez Llorca, Enrique Herrera-Viedma, Francisco Herrera