arXiv:2608. 12352v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI governance frameworks can be known, used, and implemented in form without becoming governance in practice.
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:2607. 13040v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This paper examines where final authority should sit once capable AI systems are embedded in organizational workflows.
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.
arXiv:2607. 25368v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The intersection of artificial intelligence adoption, cybersecurity governance, and public sector institutional constraints has not been examined as a unified analytical problem in the existing literature.
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.
arXiv:2609.21192v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Organizations deploying agentic artificial intelligence must determine more than whether a model is trustworthy; they must establish what to validate,...
arXiv:2607. 15992v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Over the past decade, responsible AI (RAI) has produced a substantial body of practice for identifying and mitigating the risks AI poses in high-stakes settings.