arXiv AI By Rudrendu Kumar Paul, Sourav Nandy

Governance-as-Code: Translating EU AI Act Technical Requirements into Executable Compliance Pipelines for Generative AI Systems

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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%.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Sep 1

Operationalising AI Regulatory Sandboxes: Activities, Requirements, and Technical Assessment under the EU AI Act

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 AI
4d ago

Governing at Machine Speed: An Adaptive Intelligence Architecture for Real-Time AI Policy Enforcement

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
arXiv AI
Aug 11

UGAF-ITS: A Standards Harmonization Framework and Validation Tool for Multi-Framework AI Governance in Distributed Intelligent Transportation Systems

arXiv:2604. 22789v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Organizations deploying AI-enabled Intelligent Transportation Systems face fragmented governance: ISO/IEC~42001 demands a certifiable management system, the EU AI Act imposes binding high-risk obligations from August~2026, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework structures voluntary practice.

By Talal Ashraf Butt, Muhammad Iqbal, Razi Iqbal
arXiv AI
Jun 17

LegalHalluLens: Typed Hallucination Auditing and Calibrated Multi-Agent Debate for Trustworthy Legal AI

arXiv:2606. 18021v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI systems deployed in legal workflows hallucinate at rates that aggregate metrics report at ~52%, but this average conceals where errors concentrate and in which direction they run, leaving compliance officers without an actionable signal for trustworthy deployment.

By Lalit Yadav, Akshaj Gurugubelli
arXiv AI
2d ago

PACT: Can Enterprise AI Assistants Be Trusted Under Pressure?

The paper introduces PACT, a benchmark designed to evaluate how well enterprise AI assistants follow compliance rules when faced with various pressures such as persistent users or hurried managers. PACT covers twelve regulated domains and forty-eight realistic multi‑turn scenarios, pairing each rule with a shortcut that violates it and applying different pressures across wording and system‑prompt modes. Using PACT, the authors profile six metrics of compliance and aggregate them into a PACTScore, revealing significant variability among 22 LLM models and that even top performers misapply rules 6–10% of the time, with user pressure increasing violations by 65% on average.

By Mika Okamoto, Ansel Kaplan Erol