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 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%.
By Rudrendu Kumar Paul, Sourav Nandy
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 "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
Code-as-Auditor is an LLM-based framework that transforms regulatory information into formal checklists and executable decision trees, encoding rules as interpretable code. During inference, the model expands each checklist item into factual and counterfactual questions, guiding reasoning over case-specific evidence and potential violations. This pipeline moves from evidence identification to rule application and final decision-making, with a self‑verification loop that enhances logical consistency and traceability, leading to more accurate and evidence‑backed compliance evaluations in privacy and data protection scenarios.
By Jisoo Kim, Taeyoon Kwack, Jinwoo Jang, Woo Kyung Kim, Honguk Woo
The paper presents a decision‑support framework for Law Enforcement Agencies that formalises EU regulations such as the Law Enforcement Directive and uses symbolic AI with SPARQL to reason over legal rules. It includes an algorithm that generates justifications for its conclusions and a decision‑tree method to identify additional information needed when reasoning is inconclusive. The framework emphasizes explainability to build user confidence in automated legal decisions.