AI Governance

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

34 papers in the last four weeks, up 143% on the four weeks before. 0.3% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 254

May 30, 2026cs.AI

AI Sovereignty as National Learning Capacity: A Human-Centered Learning Mechanics Viewpoint on France, the United States, and China

Artificial intelligence in France is often discussed through separate dimensions such as investment, compute, regulation, employment, sovereignty, and education. This viewpoint paper proposes a unified interpretation: France can be analyzed as a national AI learning system. Building on Human-Centered Learning Mechanics (HCLM), we use HCLM not as a validated econometric model, but as a conceptual and diagnostic lens for interpreting national AI development as a balance between information injection, absorptive capacity, and institutional dissipation. Information injection includes compute, data, talent, research, capital, industrial deployment, and policy experimentation. Institutional dissipation refers to avoidable frictions such as administrative overload, coordination failures, energy constraints, regulatory uncertainty, talent mobility pressures, and weak industrial absorption. Regulation is not treated as mere friction: adaptive governance, trusted data spaces, and safety-oriented standards may increase long-term learning capacity by improving legitimacy, interoperability, and social trust. The central claim is not that a country follows neural-network equations, but that AI sovereignty depends on how effectively it converts distributed information into absorbed, coordinated, and socially legitimate capability. The paper connects HCLM with neural scaling laws, endogenous growth theory, creative destruction, absorptive capacity, and coordination mechanisms. It offers a formal heuristic, policy indicators, illustrative scenarios, and implications for France. The numerical results are diagnostic scenarios, not econometric estimates or official rankings. The proposed viewpoint reframes AI policy as the governance of an open, strategic, non-equilibrium learning system that should be tested with historical and cross-country data.

Kim Phuc Tran

Univ. Lille, ENSAIT, ULR 2461 - GEMTEX - G´enie et Mat´eriaux Textiles, F-59000 Lille, France

May 30, 2026cs.CR

Authenticity Debt and the Synthetic Content Threat Landscape: A Layered Framework for Trust, Provenance, and IP Governance in the Generative AI Era

Generative artificial intelligence has fundamentally changed how content is now produced. It has enabled how high-fidelity text, images, audio, and videos are created, modified, and redistributed at near-zero marginal cost. This shift exposes enterprises and ecosystems to a number of risks across four reinforcing authenticity layers -- authenticity, provenance, integrity, and accountability -- that traditional controls are inadequate to address in isolation. We introduce the concept of authenticity debt: the cumulative institutional liability that accumulates when organizations deploy AI-generated content without preserving verifiable origin, integrity, and accountability, deferring exposure that surfaces under regulatory, legal, or market scrutiny. This paper presents a comprehensive, multi-dimensional taxonomy of generative AI harms and attack vectors, surveys the capabilities and failure modes of technical controls including digital watermarking, provenance frameworks (C2PA, Adobe CAI), and detection technologies, and argues that no single mechanism is sufficient in open, adversarial, and evolving environments. Drawing on Zero Trust Architecture principles and enterprise governance frameworks, we propose a layered reference architecture that integrates cryptographic provenance, human-in-the-loop verification, and continuous governance to sustain defensible authenticity at scale. We further examine the regulatory landscape (EU AI Act, U.S.\ FTC, NIST AI RMF) and identify practical guiding principles for organizations seeking to build authenticity as institutional infrastructure rather than an afterthought.

Shubhashis Sengupta, Benjamin McCarty, Milind Savagaonkar +1

Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd.

AI Accountability Data Provenance AI Governance

May 29, 2026physics.soc-ph

Civilizational Metamaterials: Engineering Coordination Under Capability Gradients and Structural Turbulence

We argue that governance must transition from a normative discipline to an engineering discipline, and we develop a formal framework, inspired by the physics of metamaterials, to make this transition quantitative and testable. Artificial General Intelligence affects civilization primarily by increasing decision velocity while human verification capacity remains bounded. When the cost of validating AI-generated outputs exceeds the expected utility of acting on them, rational agents default to inaction: a stable but catastrophic Nash equilibrium we term the Freezing Equilibrium. Drawing on metamaterials, where emergent macro-properties arise from designed microstructure, we develop a phenomenological constitutive law for institutional coordination:

R_{\mathrm{eff}} = β\cdot (1-ρ) \cdot (1-τ) \cdot (1-γρτ)

, where

β

is the decision branching factor,

ρ

is provenance fidelity,

τ

is the verification rate, and

γ\in [0,1]

captures correlated-detection synergy between provenance and verification failures. The model predicts a sharp phase transition between self-healing (

R_{\mathrm{eff}} < 1

) and self-destabilizing (

R_{\mathrm{eff}} > 1

) regimes. We introduce a three-class provenance taxonomy: cryptographic, institutional, and context binding, and derive four falsifiable hypotheses with a proposed 12-week stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial in government grant review panels. The framework bridges AI alignment theory and institutional design.

David Orban

Independent Researcher

Multi-Agent Coordination Mechanism Design AI Alignment AI Governance

May 28, 2026cs.CY

Does Distributed Training Undermine Compute Governance?

Compute governance proposals often rely on the assumption that frontier AI training requires large, detectable computing clusters. However, recent advances in distributed training algorithms could allow developers to conduct frontier-scale training on distributed agglomerations of hardware, rather than needing large datacenter facilities. Developers who prefer not to be constrained by regulations may structure their hardware in a manner that evades the registration and monitoring requirements associated with compute governance. Therefore, regulations must be designed to detect and prevent illicit distributed training operations. This paper evaluates the feasibility of such evasion and outlines recommended countermeasures, including whistleblowing, chip tracking, forensic accounting, and memory and compute thresholds for clusters.

Robi Rahman

Machine Intelligence Research Institute

Distributed Training AI Governance

May 27, 2026cs.AI

Operational AI Deployment Assurance: Governance-State Orchestration Under Threshold-Sensitive Deployment Conditions -- A Governance Framework for High-Stakes AI Systems

AI governance frameworks increasingly emphasize fairness, transparency, accountability, and lifecycle risk management in high-stakes domains. However, many current approaches remain observational, relying on static metric reporting, post-hoc auditing, and monitoring dashboards without directly governing deployment readiness, remediation progression, escalation states, or assurance-driven deployment control. This paper introduces Operational AI Deployment Assurance (OADA), a governance framework for translating fairness disagreement, subgroup instability, threshold sensitivity, remediation outcomes, and operational uncertainty into deployment-oriented assurance decisions. Building on prior work on the Fairness Disagreement Index (FDI) and FairRisk-FDI, OADA reframes governance uncertainty as an operational concern within AI deployment pipelines rather than a byproduct of metric disagreement. The framework introduces Deployment Assurance Scores, Deployment Readiness Classifications, Threshold Stability Zones, Governance Escalation States, and remediation-aware assurance progression. These constructs support lifecycle-oriented governance decisions across high-stakes settings by connecting evaluation outputs to deployment-state interpretation, reassessment, escalation, and operational control. Through deployment-oriented evaluation across facial recognition systems, with discussion extended to healthcare AI as a representative high-stakes domain, the paper demonstrates how systems may appear acceptable under isolated fairness or performance metrics while still exhibiting instability that affects deployment readiness. The proposed framework positions operational deployment assurance as a governance layer between evaluation and real-world AI deployment.

Khalid Adnan Alsayed

Ducaltus — AI Assurance & Governance Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom · School of Computing, Engineering & Digital Technologies Teesside University Middlesbrough, United Kingdom

AI Assurance Algorithmic Fairness AI Governance

May 26, 2026cs.AI

Cyberbullying Governance on Social Media: A Unified Framework from Content Identification to Intervention

The proliferation of social media platforms and online communities has inadvertently catalyzed the spread of cyberbullying, hate speech, and other forms of online toxicity, making the effective governance of such harm a critical societal and computational challenge. While significant strides have been made in automating content moderation, existing research predominantly treats cyberbullying governance as passive, isolated detection at the post level. This reductionist view overlooks the continuous behavioral dynamics of users, the structural diffusion of toxic events, and the critical need for proactive mitigation. To bridge these gaps, this paper proposes a unified full-lifecycle governance framework that shifts the paradigm of cyberbullying governance from isolated static detection toward integrated, continuous, and proactive moderation. Drawing on cyberbullying research and adjacent fields, we systematically synthesize the state-of-the-art literature across four interconnected stages: (1) Content Identification, (2) User and Behavior Modeling, (3) Diffusion Dynamics and Early Warning, and (4) Intervention and Governance. Furthermore, we review available datasets and evaluation practices, and discuss emerging challenges including multimodality, explainability, algorithmic fairness, and the dual-use risks of generative AI, providing a roadmap for future research toward a safer and more resilient digital ecosystem.

Yiting Huang, Wenting Zhu, Zekun Wang +6

School of Cyberspace Security, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, China · School of Cyberspace Security, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications,2026 China

Social Media Analysis Hate Speech Detection AI Governance

May 26, 2026cs.ET

Beyond the Data Mesh Illusion: Designing Modern AI-augmented Lakehouses to Bridge the Gap Between Theory and Practice

Enterprise data platforms face an enduring tension between domain self-service and holistic governance. The data mesh paradigm proposed decentralized domain ownership as a remedy, but pure implementations frequently underdeliver: teams inherit new responsibilities without the platform maturity, tooling, or coordination mechanisms needed to exercise them effectively. This paper argues that the flexibility-versus-control trade-off can be relaxed through an AI-augmented hub-and-spoke model layered on a modern lakehouse architecture. A central hub (Center of Excellence) provides shared platform services, policy automation, and AI-enabled governance, automatically standardizing data products, generating quality rules, drafting data contracts, and reviewing changes for regressions. Domain spokes own business semantics, product backlogs, and local iteration cadence, progressively assuming greater responsibility as they mature. The same LLMs that automate governance tasks also lower the barrier for domain practitioners to develop genuine cross-functional expertise spanning business and data engineering, enabling spoke teams to take on greater end-to-end ownership without proportionally increasing their dependence on the hub. Natural-language conversational interfaces further democratize access for business users, exposing historically underutilized enterprise data. On the organizational side, we propose a staged framework that shifts ownership from hub to spokes, avoiding both centralized bottlenecks and uncoordinated decentralization. We evaluate the architecture through three outcome metrics: data product adoption, time-to-find, and time-to-insight, that tie platform success to measurable business value rather than internal activity.

Oliver Angélil, Jan Migon

ishango.ai Zurich, Switzerland · Independent Researcher Lausanne, Switzerland

May 26, 2026cs.CY

Examining the Challenges of Intellectual Property in AI-Generated Productions

With the advancement of artificial intelligence systems capable of autonomously generating artistic, literary, musical works, and even inventions without direct human intervention, the intellectual property (IP) regime faces unprecedented questions and challenges. The most critical issue concerns the ownership of moral and economic rights in the absence of a human creator, and how such outputs can be granted legal protection. This paper first reviews the theoretical foundations and existing literature in this domain, then comparatively examines Iranian legal frameworks such as the 1969 Law for the Protection of Authors, Composers, and Artists Rights and the Patent and Trademark Registration Law-alongside other legal systems, including the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Furthermore, existing legal perspectives on the intellectual property of AI-generated works and the related enforcement challenges are analyzed. The findings reveal significant regulatory gaps within the current Iranian legal framework. To balance the promotion of innovation with the preservation of human creativity, revising existing laws and introducing novel approaches such as defining a specific intellectual property right for AI-generated works or designating ownership among associated human agents appears to be essential.

Ali Mazhar, Mohammad Zare, Marjan Veysi

Attorney at Law, Central Bar Association, Tehran, Iran · Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Arioobarzan Engineering Team, Shiraz, Iran

May 25, 2026cs.CY

"AI Watermarking": Bridging Policy Discourse and Technical Capabilities

The widespread deployment of generative artificial intelligence (AI) models has raised serious concerns about the proliferation of AI-generated content. This has led to a surge of interest in, and demand for, reliable tracking and detection mechanisms for content that is AI-generated, such as watermarking, metadata tagging, content tagging, and more. The problem has captured the attention of policymakers as well as the popular media, and a spate of recent bills in the US have sought to regulate the spread of AI content, and enforce or promote methods to track and label it. This work performs a critical analysis of the policy discourse surrounding generative AI content transparency in the US and EU. Through a broad document selection methodology, we first collect a broad corpus of documents containing legislative language and policy-relevant discourse on the topic. We then analyze these through inductive coding, and leverage our coding to systematize these documents, identifying key patterns, gaps, and open questions. We identify critical points of disconnect between policy and technological capabilities and practice, and we highlight and discuss potential ambiguities and pitfalls raised by the trends in our corpus.

Andrés Fábrega, Arkaprabha Bhattacharya, Miranda Christ +1

Cornell University · Columbia University · New York University

Text Watermarking AI Accountability AI Governance

May 24, 2026cs.CL

Translators as Invisible Teachers of AI: Copyright, Translation Memory, and the Political Economy of Linguistic Data

This paper examines how the labour of translators has been transformed into foundational data capital for the age of artificial intelligence (AI). Translation memories (TM) and parallel corpora preserve a one-to-one correspondence between source and target text and therefore constitute extraordinarily valuable supervised training data for machine translation. The development of statistical machine translation (SMT), neural machine translation (NMT), the Transformer architecture, and multilingual large language models (LLMs) cannot be disentangled from the accumulation of such translation data. And yet, translators' renditions have been bought as deliverables under contract, segmented as technical objects, and processed as "information analysis" data under copyright law -- losing their moral, creative, and economic attribution to the translators who produced them. The paper develops two concepts to capture this process. The first is appropriation without consumption: a mode of use in which works are not read, viewed, or listened to, but only mined for statistical features -- a use that is legitimated under Article 30-4 of the Japanese Copyright Act. The second is the invisible teacherisation of translators: the process by which translators, through the construction of translation memories, post-editing, and quality assessment, have functioned as teachers of AI without recognition as such. Drawing on the data supply chain that runs from translators through language service providers (LSPs) and platforms to model developers, on a comparative reading of Japanese, European, and United States legal frameworks, on the distinction between open and proprietary AI models, and on the premium status that human-generated data has acquired in the era of model collapse, the paper asks what translators are actually afraid of, and points toward concrete directions for redistributive design.

Masaru Yamada

College and Graduate School of Intercultural Communication, Rikkyo University

AI Governance Machine Translation

May 23, 2026cs.CL

Who judges the judges? Governance from metrics: a runtime framework for continuous LLM compliance monitoring

Current approaches to AI compliance treat conformity as a binary, audit-time verdict rather than a continuous, measurable property of production systems. We argue that this compliance fiction is structurally ill-suited to the requirements of the EU AI Act, which demands ongoing human oversight and the detection of emergent behavioural drift in deployed systems. We introduce governance from metrics, a principle whereby regulatory compliance is derived as a continuous signal from runtime observability rather than from static assessments. Building on this principle, we present govllm, an open-source framework implementing a governance-driven routing architecture in which model selection is determined by accumulated compliance scores rather than by latency or cost alone. Central to our approach is a panel of regulatory judges - LLM evaluators specialised per criterion (EU AI Act, GDPR, ANSSI, accessibility) - whose inter-judge disagreement we reframe not as noise but as a regulatory uncertainty signal warranting human arbitration. We validate this approach through a ground truth corpus of 49 annotated prompt/response pairs across five regulatory criteria, evaluated by four small language models (SLMs, 1.7B-7B parameters) running fully on-premise. Agreement rates range from 51.5% (mistral:7b) to 69.1% (phi4-mini), with no single model dominating across all criteria - empirically motivating the Profile-as-jury design. We further document three structural failure modes in small regulatory judges and a judge-specific position bias that degrades agreement by up to 25 percentage points across three question-order conditions (original, reversed, permuted). govllm is released as open-source software to support reproducible AI governance research.

Jehanne Dussert

Independent Researcher

LLM-as-a-Judge AI Governance Human Oversight of AI

May 23, 2026cs.CY

The Governance Inversion Hypothesis: Why More AI Regulation May Produce Less Organisational Control

This paper introduces the Governance Inversion Hypothesis (GIH) to explain a growing paradox in artificial intelligence (AI) governance: under conditions of increasing regulatory expansion and technological complexity, organisations may become more formally governed while simultaneously experiencing a decline in operational control over AI systems. Existing AI governance frameworks generally assume that stronger regulation improves accountability, oversight, and organisational control. This paper challenges that assumption by arguing that governance formalisation itself may contribute to the erosion of control in AI-intensive environments. Drawing on institutional theory, organisational governance research, accountability scholarship, and emerging AI governance literature, the paper develops a conceptual framework explaining how regulatory expansion may weaken operational authority through four interconnected mechanisms: authority fragmentation, symbolic governance expansion, externalisation of control, and authority paralysis. As governance systems become increasingly layered and procedurally dense, organisations may struggle to maintain coherent authority, technical visibility, escalation capability, and meaningful intervention power over opaque and externally mediated AI infrastructures. The paper extends institutional decoupling theory by introducing governance inversion as a structural condition in which governance expansion may actively undermine operational coherence rather than strengthen it. It concludes that the central risk in AI governance may not be the absence of governance structures, but the emergence of institutions that appear increasingly governed while progressively losing the capacity to govern effectively.

Victor Frimpong

SBS Swiss Business School, Kloten-Zurich, Switzerland

May 23, 2026cs.CY

Is Decentralized AI Governable? From Regulative Policy to Constitutive Protocol

Every major framework for governing artificial intelligence presupposes an identifiable entity -- a developer, deployer, or operator -- who can be held responsible and compelled to comply. Decentralized AI (DeAI) dissolves this presupposition. We analyze DeAI as a six-layer decentralizing stack -- model, training, compute, harness, identity, and ownership -- and show how partial decentralization across layers compounds into what we call the \emph{governance vacuum}: a condition in which AI systems are consequential enough to require governance but lack the properties that existing frameworks presuppose in their targets. This vacuum takes two analytically distinct forms: an \emph{accountability gap}, where no addressable principal can be identified, and an \emph{incapacitation gap}, where even an identified principal cannot alter the running system. We demonstrate that these failures are not merely jurisdictional but defeat every presupposition of governance through normative address -- the communication of rules to a comprehending, responsive agent. Drawing on Lessig's modalities of regulation and Searle's distinction between regulative and constitutive rules, we argue for a shift in the locus of governance from policy to protocol, from normative address to architectural constraint. Protocol-based constitutive governance does not address the agents operating within a system but shapes the substrate that determines what kinds of actions are possible within it. We identify four ethical conditions -- legitimacy, contestability, transparency, and non-domination -- that such governance must satisfy to avoid degenerating into unaccountable technocratic power, and we argue that the central political challenge of governing AI in a decentralized world is reconstructing forms of democratic authorization for architectural choices that persist after the ordinary chain of policy has broken down.

Botao Amber Hu, Helena Rong

University of Oxford, UK. · New York University Shanghai, China.

AI Accountability AI Governance

May 23, 2026cs.AI

A governance horizon for ethical-use constraints in open-weight AI models

Ethical constraints on open-weight AI models are both a reflection of societal concerns and a foundation for AI governance policy. They are expected to propagate to downstream derivatives while implemented as voluntary metadata disclosures that must be restated at each generation of reuse. We audit 2,142,823 model repositories on Hugging Face Hub to test whether this disclosure-based governance infrastructure can sustain traceability across deep model lineages. Restriction evidence decays with a half-life of 1.31 derivation steps (

R^2

=0.98), and beyond seven downstream generations at least 80% of descendant models lack sufficient public evidence for a governance determination, a depth boundary we formalize as the governance horizon. Platform-level interventions to restore missing licence metadata reveal that policy design (not enforcement alone) is the binding factor: inheritance-only designs require near-complete enforcement to move the horizon, whereas a mandatory-declaration design that explicitly resolves orphan lineage components shifts the horizon already at moderate enforcement. The structural bottleneck is lineages with no inheritable upstream intent: such orphan components remain undecidable under any inheritance-only policy regardless of enforcement rate, and unresolved upstream nodes additionally create direct downstream undecidability bottlenecks that inheritance rules alone cannot recover. Comparison with PyPI, where governance signals are carried by explicit machine-readable declarations, corroborates that the collapse is topology-specific to open-weight derivation rather than inherent to open ecosystems. These results establish that disclosure-based governance has a shallow, structurally determined reach in open-weight AI, and that achieving deep supply-chain accountability requires provenance mechanisms propagating governance signals through derivation itself.

Weiwei Xu, Hengzhi Ye, Haoran Ye +3

School of Computer Science, Peking University, Beijing, China. · Laboratory of High Confidence Software Technologies, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China. · School of Intelligence Science and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China. +2

AI Accountability Open-Weight Language Models AI Governance

May 22, 2026cs.CY

Signals in the Noise: Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) for AI Loss of Control Detection

This paper applies open-source intelligence (OSINT) and cyber threat intelligence (CTI) methodologies to the problem of detecting AI systems operating outside human control. Drawing on a cross-disciplinary literature review and 14 semi-structured expert interviews conducted under Chatham House Rule, the paper develops two threat models, identifies a range of observable traces, and proposes an institutional architecture for monitoring. The research finds that OSINT-based detection of loss of control is partially feasible and worth building now. Three detection vectors emerge as highest priority: transcript-based collection of user-reported AI behaviour; infrastructure correlation for unexpected external connections or replication; and output analysis for capability concealment. The paper argues for a dedicated, federated international monitoring capability anchored in OSINT methods and independent of frontier AI developers, and identifies sustained non-industry funding as the highest-leverage structural intervention available.

Sarah Bollinger, Nada Aboserie, Amanda Coakley +2

AI Governance Taskforce, Arcadia Impact

Cyber Threat Intelligence AI Governance

May 22, 2026cs.AI

Ontological Knowledge Blocks: Executable Compliance and Profile-Based Validation for Trustworthy AI Systems

AI-enabled services deployed in critical digital infrastructure are subject to governance obligations spanning transparency, accountability, fairness, and traceability. Compliance today remains documentation-centric: obligations are described in prose, audits rely on static checklists, and verification depends on manual review. Such approaches do not scale to automated AI systems. This paper introduces Ontological Knowledge Blocks (OKBs), a programmable governance infrastructure that compiles regulatory obligations into machine-checkable constraints over structured evidence graphs. We formalize an OKB as a 5-tuple that binds normative obligations to an RDF/OWL concept schema, executable SHACL validation rules, explicit evidence requirements, and PROV-O provenance links. A deterministic regulatory compiler translates structured Intermediate Representation (IR) records into composable KB modules, enabling profile-based governance reconfiguration without modifying service code. We implement two prototypes and evaluate them in an AI-assisted HPC resource allocation scenario across 24 validation runs and four governance profiles. Results demonstrate profile-sensitive validation, strictly additive violation accumulation, SHACL validation latency between 12.6 ms and 100.3 ms, and profile equivalence testing confirming Combined as the strictly most comprehensive profile. All artefacts are released as open source.

Aasish Kumar Sharma, Julian M. Kunkel

Institute of Computer Science, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen / GWDG, Germany

AI Assurance AI Governance

May 21, 2026cs.CY

Dream machine -- the next creative economy

We examine the structural transformation of creative industries under generative artificial intelligence, drawing on 374 primary sources spanning policy documents, industry data, creator surveys, and platform analytics. Beginning with the December 2024 release of OpenAI's Sora video model as a watershed event, we trace the historical pattern of creative resistance to technological disruption, then develop an analytical framework -- the Human-AI Agency Continuum for mapping the spectrum of human and machine collaboration in creative work. We present evidence for the "slop ceiling," an audience-imposed quality threshold that constrains AI-generated content to approximately 1--3% of platform streams despite comprising 44% of uploads. Analysis of the UK Government's 2025 consultation on AI and copyright (over 11,500 responses, 88% opposing expanded AI training rights) reveals deep structural tensions between technology firms and creative workers. We investigate how major studios, from Disney's $1 billion OpenAI investment to Netflix's AI-native animation unit, are positioning for an AI-augmented production pipeline. The work covers coordination collapse in creative supply chains, the emergence of new professional roles such as prompt engineers and AI orchestrators, and proposes four principles for navigating the transition: transparency, consent, compensation, and human-centred design. Eight appendices provide quantitative analysis, a glossary, topical bibliography, and deep dives into shadow AI adoption, AI stigma, and algorithmic intent.

Peter Woodbridge, John J. O'Hare

Computational Creativity AI Governance Human-AI Co-Creation

May 21, 2026cs.CL

Whose Voice Counts? Mapping Stakeholder Perspectives on AI Through Public Submissions to the U.S. Government

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems become more common in our daily lives, it is important to understand how different stakeholders comprehend and envisage the role that these technologies play in shaping social, political, and economic realities. In this paper, we investigate public perceptions of AI based on a corpus of letters submitted during the public consultation for the Trump Administration's US AI Action Plan. To this aim, we release a corpus cleaning pipeline and perform topic modelling and frequency analysis to explore predominant topics discussed by different subgroups (e.g., academia, individuals, private sector) and those appearing in the AI Action Plan. Our results show that individuals voice strong concerns related to the impact of AI on life, while other stakeholders are more concerned with AI development. Our comparison of topics suggests that the AI Action Plan reflects predominantly the concerns of the private sector on security, policies, and development, with individuals' concerns less represented.

Alina Karakanta, Alex Christiansen, Tomás Dodds +4

Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Leiden University · Department of Linguistics and Communication, University of Birmingham · School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison

May 20, 2026physics.app-ph

AIMBio-Mat: An AI-Native FAIR Platform for Closed-Loop Materials Discovery and Biomedical Translation

Materials discovery and biomedical translation increasingly require models that can reason across composition, processing, structure, biological response, manufacturability, safety, and governance constraints. Existing materials and biomedical data ecosystems are powerful but remain poorly coupled for AI-guided discovery. Here we present AIMBio, a conceptual framework for an AI-native, FAIR, and governance-aware decision layer that links materials provenance, biomedical context, knowledge graphs, uncertainty-aware machine learning, and human-in-the-loop active learning. The framework formulates biomedical-materials discovery as constrained multi-objective optimization under uncertainty and introduces practical requirements for metadata, model documentation, risk-tiered governance, evaluation metrics, and phased implementation. To make the roadmap testable, we add a minimum viable prototype specification and a worked pilot for AI-guided nanomaterials for drug delivery. AIMBio is positioned as exploratory and preclinical discovery infrastructure, not as clinical decision-support software; any clinical or regulated-device use would require separate validation, change control, and regulatory review. The central contribution is a publishable platform blueprint for converting fragmented materials and biomedical records into auditable, experimentally actionable, and translationally responsible discovery workflows.

D. -M. Mei, K. Acharya, C. M. Adhikari +51

Materials Science Autonomous Scientific Discovery AI Governance

May 19, 2026cs.HC

Zhinong AI: A Design-Science Study of an AI-Enabled Agricultural Decision-Support Platform for Smallholder Production

Artificial intelligence is increasingly moving from single-purpose agricultural recognition tools toward integrated decision-support systems that connect information access, diagnosis, task execution and post-action feedback. This paper presents a design-science case study of the Zhinong AI Agricultural Decision Platform, a farmer-facing system that integrates agricultural information push services, natural-language question answering, image-based crop disease diagnosis, plot and farming-calendar management, workflow orchestration, a Hainan Free Trade Port agricultural service zone and an age-friendly care mode. Based on public project materials, policy context and prior research on smart agriculture, machine learning and design science, the paper constructs a layered system architecture and a closed-loop decision process summarized as sensing, analysis, planning, execution and feedback. It further proposes a function-pain-point mapping matrix, an evaluation indicator system and a governance framework covering data provenance, model risk, expert review, privacy and adoption risk. The study does not claim measured field performance because production logs, controlled user studies and expert-labeled local image datasets were not available at the time of writing. Instead, the contribution is a structured research framework for transforming an AI agricultural prototype into an empirically testable, accountable and localized decision-support infrastructure for smallholder production.

Zhaoyang Li, Jiaqi Liu, Ruijie Zhang

University of Sanya · Hebei International Studies University

AI-Assisted Decision Making Human-Centered AI AI Governance

May 19, 2026cs.CY

Reframing AI Loss of Control: What It Is, How to Have It, How to Lose It

At present, loss of control risks have gained much prominence in public discussion, particularly in relation to AI, with extensive discourse present among academics, frontier labs, and even governments. However, in the existing literature, the concept seems to rest on surprisingly weak foundations, where even those that discuss loss of control extensively do not first establish what control is and what exactly is being lost. Our paper aims to address these gaps. We establish a working definition of control by anchoring it to the "setting and getting of goals". Then, we discuss various aspects of control, built on foundational concepts from related fields like cybernetics, management control, and control theory. This includes who (or what) can be in control, and the things they require to be in control, such as the ability to set goals, having a functional control loop, having requisite variety, and having sufficient goal alignment. Once a framework for control is established, we then discuss how control can be lost, how AIs can contribute to such loss of control, and offer relevant recommendations for how one can maintain control. One interesting consequence of our work is that humanity, as individuals and as groups, can lose varying degrees of control as a result of AI behaviour that is far below the level of superintelligence; the potential for loss of control scenarios (as we define them) already exist, and have existed for a long time.

Ze Shen Chin, Maurice Chiodo, Dennis Müller +1

Oxford Martin AI Governance Initiative AI Standards Lab · Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, University of Cambridge · Institute of Mathematics Education, University of Cologne +1

AI Risk Management AI Governance Human Oversight of AI AI Safety

May 18, 2026cs.HC

HAAS Studio: A Tool for Simulating, Benchmarking, and Governing Human-AI Work Allocation

We present HAAS Studio, a simulation and decision-support tool for policy-aware adaptive task allocation between humans and AI systems. HAAS Studio turns the HAAS framework into an interactive environment for asking a practical deployment question: before introducing AI into a workflow, how can a team compare allocation strategies, inspect governance tradeoffs, and derive a defensible task-level operating model? The tool combines a five-dimensional cognitive representation of subtasks, a five-mode collaboration spectrum, adaptive allocation with multi-armed bandits (UCB1, Discounted UCB, LinUCB, and Thompson Sampling), oracle counterfactual regret analysis, contract-based governance with four independent guards, and a multi-criteria decision-support layer that separates efficient strategies from deployable options. It also models human-AI coevolution across six layers, monitors deskilling risk through sliding-window exposure metrics and benchmark runners, and supports persistent worker modeling through Live Twin and Planning modules. Three domain packs are included: software engineering, manufacturing, and healthcare. Each provides a task catalog, worker profiles, and KPI vocabulary, while the architecture allows new domains to be added without modifying the simulation core. The release includes 16 company profiles and six governance benchmark suites. This paper focuses on the tool, including its modeling assumptions, layered architecture, interaction workflow, built-in evidence assets, task-oriented recipes, case-study protocols, and a compact reproducible demonstration snapshot. A decision-guidance layer translates benchmark outputs into deployment decisions through structured patterns, heuristics, and a decision matrix.

Vicente Pelechano

Valencian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence (VRAIN) · Universitat Politècnica de València

AI Governance Human-AI Decision Making Human-AI Collaboration AI and Labor

May 18, 2026cs.CY

Generative AI Advertising as a Problem of Trustworthy Commercial Intervention

Major deployed generative AI advertising systems preserve a visible boundary between commercial content and AI-generated responses. Yet empirical research shows that ads woven directly into large language model (LLM) outputs often go undetected by users. We argue that generative AI fundamentally changes advertising: rather than placing products into discrete slots, it enables interventions on the generative process itself, which induce commercial influence through less observable channels. This reframes generative AI advertising as a problem of trustworthy intervention rather than content placement. We introduce a taxonomy organized by influence tier, corresponding to interventions on progressively more latent variables: product mentions, information framing, behavioral redirection, and long-term preference shaping; and show how these tiers instantiate across modalities and system architectures, including retrieval-augmented generation and agentic pipelines where upstream decisions can sharply constrain downstream outcomes. Both major deployed systems and designed mechanisms concentrate on the most observable and easiest-to-govern tier, while the forms of commercial influence most consequential for user autonomy remain poorly understood and lack frameworks for detection, measurement, or disclosure. The central challenge is whether commercial influence in generative systems can be made trustworthy, i.e., attributable, measurable, contestable, and aligned with user welfare.

Jingyi Qiu, Qiaozhu Mei

School of Information University of Michigan

AI Accountability Online Advertising AI Governance Trust in AI

May 18, 2026cs.CY

Position: Generative Engine Optimization Creates Underexamined Risks, Governance Must Target Concentration, Disclosure, and Academic Blind Spots

Large language model (LLM) answer engines are increasingly used for information seeking, shifting visibility from ranked lists to synthesized answers. This enables Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), which targets LLM answer engines' evidence pool and generation. We analyze the search engine optimization (SEO) to GEO transition to identify two risks: (i) concentrated influence from low contestability and system sensitivity, and (ii) undisclosed commercial influence embedded in evidence and reasoning. We then formalize a general GEO pipeline to locate where optimization acts and compare academic and industry practices, revealing a third risk: (iii) academic-industry blind spots driven by visibility and evaluation asymmetries between offline setups and deployed systems. This position argues the need for answer-level governance and measurement: stronger contestability, high-precision disclosure, black-box auditing of material influence, and deployment-aligned metrics for exposure persistence.

Yizhu Wen, Nan Zhang, Haohan Yuan +3

School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, USA · The Media School, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, USA · School of Data Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, USA +1

Generative Engine Optimization LLM Auditing AI Governance

May 16, 2026cs.CY

Algorithmic Constitutionalism

The increasing encroachment of artificial intelligence (AI) on social life raises significant risks for society, particularly within the infospheres created and controlled by companies such as Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon. This article examines these risks through an in-depth analysis of Facebook's content moderation regime, which is already partially governed by algorithms. We argue that the idea of ethical engineering, often proposed in the literature as a solution to the governance challenges posed by AI, is inadequate for several reasons. In response, we develop an alternative framework, which we term "algorithmic constitutionalism." Our approach rests on three pillars: (a) a layered architecture consisting of two levels of code: (i) an operative or object level and (ii) a meta level designed to protect the system's core principles from algorithmically initiated change; (b) algorithmic meta-reasoning, which enables the system to operate simultaneously at both levels so that it can monitor, verify, and potentially correct in real time operations at the object level that depart from principles protected at the meta-code level; and (c) correction through deliberation. The article elaborates the concept of algorithmic constitutionalism and demonstrates how it may be applied to Facebook's content moderation regime. As part of this analysis, we examine the tension between societal constitutionalism and algorithmic constitutionalism. Paradoxically, attempts to subject AI systems to external deliberative control may also enable AI agents to intervene in that process, potentially undermining its purpose. The article concludes by considering the implications of this argument for the European Digital Services Act, which entered into force in October 2022.

Oren Perez, Nurit Wimer

Content Moderation AI Governance Algorithmic Reasoning

May 16, 2026cs.AI

Voices in the Loop: Mapping Participatory AI

Participatory approaches to artificial intelligence are increasingly documented across public, civic, and humanitarian settings, but evidence about how participation is organized remains fragmented. This paper reports on the construction of an open repository and interactive atlas of participatory AI initiatives, using records harmonized from Maga~na and Shilton's Trustworthy AI corpus, and additional audited cases from research and practice. We contribute three elements. First, we specify a reproducible protocol for discovery, vetting, harmonization, geocoding, provenance tracking, and release-based publication of participatory AI records. Second, we report corpus-level patterns in geography, participation tiers, lifecycle loci, organizational form, verification status, and remaining documentation gaps. Documented initiatives remain concentrated in a small number of countries, while participation is most often coded at problem formulation, evaluation, and governance rather than model development or training. Third, we show how the atlas operationalizes a design and governance framework for participatory-by-default AI infrastructures through versioned releases, record-linked issue and annotation channels, schema feedback workflows, and redaction or restricted-disclosure requests. The atlas is intended to support comparative research, policy learning, and community scrutiny through a living inventory that can be updated, contested, and reused.

Rashid Mushkani

Right to AI · Mila – Québec AI Institute, Canada

Human-Centered AI AI Governance

May 15, 2026cs.AI

Formal Methods Meet LLMs: Auditing, Monitoring, and Intervention for Compliance of Advanced AI Systems

We examine one particular dimension of AI governance: how to monitor and audit AI-enabled products and services throughout the AI development lifecycle, from pre-deployment testing to post-deployment auditing. Combining principles from formal methods with SoTA machine learning, we propose techniques that enable AI-enabled product and service developers, as well as third party AI developers and evaluators, to perform offline auditing and online (runtime) monitoring of product-specific (temporally extended) behavioral constraints such as safety constraints, norms, rules and regulations with respect to black-box advanced AI systems, notably LLMs. We further provide practical techniques for predictive monitoring, such as sampling-based methods, and we introduce intervening monitors that act at runtime to preempt and potentially mitigate predicted violations. Experimental results show that by exploiting the formal syntax and semantics of Linear Temporal Logic (LTL), our proposed auditing and monitoring techniques are superior to LLM baseline methods in detecting violations of temporally extended behavioral constraints; with our approach, even small-model labelers match or exceed frontier LLM judges. Our predictive and intervening monitors significantly reduce the violation rates of LLM-based agents while largely preserving task performance. We further show through controlled experiments that LLMs' temporal reasoning shows a pronounced degradation in accuracy with increasing event distance, number of constraints, and number of propositions.

Parand A. Alamdari, Toryn Q. Klassen, Sheila A. McIlraith

University of Toronto, Vector Institute, Canada

LLM Auditing Formal Verification AI Agent Monitoring AI Governance AI Safety Linear Temporal Logic+1

May 14, 2026cs.LG

Position: Behavioural Assurance Cannot Verify the Safety Claims Governance Now Demands

This position paper argues that behavioural assurance, even when carefully designed, is being asked to carry safety claims it cannot verify. AI governance frameworks enacted between 2019 and early 2026 require reviewable evidence of properties such as the absence of hidden objectives, resistance to loss-of-control precursors, and bounded catastrophic capability; current assurance methodologies (primarily behavioural evaluations and red-teaming) are epistemically limited to observable model outputs and cannot verify the latent representations or long-horizon agentic behaviours these frameworks presume to regulate. We formalize this structural mismatch as the audit gap, the divergence between required and achievable verification access, and introduce the concept of fragile assurance to describe cases where the evidential structure does not support the asserted safety claim. Through an analysis of a 21-instrument inventory, we identify an incentive gradient where geopolitical and industrial pressures systematically reward surface-level behavioral proxies over deep structural verification. Finally, we propose a technical pivot: bounding the weight of behavioral evidence in legal text and extending voluntary pre-deployment access with mechanistic-evidence classes, specifically linear probes, activation patching, and before/after-training comparisons.

Pratinav Seth, Vinay Kumar Sankarapu

Lexsi Labs

AI Assurance AI Governance Black-Box Model Auditing

May 14, 2026cs.AI

From Sycophantic Consensus to Pluralistic Repair: Why AI Alignment Must Surface Disagreement

Pluralistic alignment is typically operationalised as preference aggregation: producing responses that span (Overton), steer toward (Steerable), or proportionally represent (Distributional) diverse human values. We argue that aggregation alone is an incomplete primitive for deployed pluralistic alignment. Under genuine value pluralism, the failure mode of contemporary RLHF-trained assistants is not insufficient coverage but sycophantic consensus: a learned tendency to agree with, validate, and minimise friction with the immediate interlocutor. Because deployed AI systems now mediate consequential deliberation across health, civic life, labour, and governance, the collapse of disagreement at the interaction layer is not a narrow technical concern but a structural failure with distributive consequences. We reframe pluralistic alignment around three conversational mechanisms drawn from Grice's maxims: scoping (acknowledging the limits of one's perspective), signalling (surfacing value-conflict rather than smoothing it over), and repair (revising one's position on principled grounds, not on user pressure). We formalise a metric, the Pluralistic Repair Score (PRS), distinguishing principled revision from capitulation, and present a small-scale empirical illustration on two frontier RLHF-trained models (Claude Sonnet 4.5, N=198; GPT-4o, N=100) showing that, for both, agreement-following coexists with low repair-quality on contested-value prompts. PRS measures an interactional precondition for pluralism (visible disagreement; principled revision) rather than pluralism in full; we discuss the difference, take seriously the reflexive question of whose "principled" counts, and argue that pluralism is most decisively made or unmade at the deployment-governance layer: interfaces, preference-data pipelines, and audit infrastructure.

Varad Vishwarupe, Nigel Shadbolt, Marina Jirotka

Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford · Institute for Ethics in AI, University of Oxford · Responsible Technology Institute, University of Oxford

LLM Sycophancy LLM Alignment AI Governance Conversational Agents Pluralistic Alignment

May 14, 2026cs.CL

Mechanical Enforcement for LLM Governance:Evidence of Governance-Task Decoupling in Financial Decision Systems

Large language models in regulated financial workflows are governed by natural-language policies that the same model interprets, creating a principal--agent failure: outputs can appear compliant without being compliant. Existing evaluation measures task accuracy but not whether governance constrains behaviour at the decision rationale level -- where regulated decisions must be auditable. We introduce five governance metrics that quantify policy compliance at the rationale level and apply them in a synthetic banking domain to compare text-only governance against mechanical enforcement: four primitives operating outside the model's interpretive loop. Under text-only governance, 27% of deferrals carry no decision-relevant information. Mechanical enforcement reduces this rate by 73%, more than doubles deferral information content, and raises task accuracy from MCC~

0.43

to

0.88

. The improvement is driven by architectural separation: LLM-generated rationales under mechanical enforcement show comparable CDL to text-only governance -- the gain comes from removing clear-cut decisions from the model's control. A causal ablation confirms that each primitive is individually necessary. Our central finding is a governance-task decoupling: under structural stress, text-only governance degrades on both dimensions simultaneously, whereas mechanical enforcement preserves governance quality even as task performance drops. This implies that governance and task evaluation are distinct axes: accuracy is not a sufficient proxy for governance in regulated AI systems.

José Manuel de la Chica Rodríguez, Carlos Martí-González

1Santander AI Lab, Grupo Santander

LLM Auditing LLM Safety LLM Decision-Making AI Governance Financial Decision-Making