arXiv:2607. 02197v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The society and emerging risk-based regulatory frameworks for AI underscore the need for rigorous risk assessment to ensure safe and reliable AI systems.
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.
The paper systematically classifies the EU AI Act’s high‑risk requirements, finding that only a minority directly address AI‑specific risk sources while most impose organizational and documentation obligations. From these risk‑related requirements, the authors derive a consolidated list of distinct AI‑specific risk sources, creating an EU AI Act Risk Source List. This list aims to bridge the gap between legal obligations and AI risk‑management practice by providing a structured reference for comparing the Act’s implicit risk coverage with existing AI risk taxonomies.
arXiv:2408. 02379v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Developing and certifying safe - or so-called trustworthy - AI has become an increasingly salient issue, especially in light of upcoming regulation such as the EU AI Act.
arXiv:2502. 16184v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) establishes different legal principles for different types of AI systems.
The article proposes a structured framework of behavioral indicators that could signal a progression toward potentially catastrophic threats from AI systems. Drawing on established methods from cybersecurity and national security, it defines clear metrics, indicators, and thresholds across multiple dimensions of AI capability and behavior. The framework is intended to enable researchers and policymakers to implement evidence‑based monitoring protocols for rogue AI progression.
arXiv:2607. 09586v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The proliferation of agentic AI systems across enterprise and public-sector contexts has outpaced the capacity of general-purpose AI risk frameworks to classify and govern them.