Regulation

Frontier AI companies first deploy their most advanced models internally, for weeks or months of safety testing, evaluation, and iteration, before a possible public release. For example, Anthropic recently developed a new class of model with advanced cyberoffense-relevant capabilities, Mythos Preview, which was available internally for at least six weeks before it was publicly announced. This internal use creates risks that external deployment frameworks may fail to address. Legal frameworks, notably California's Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (SB 53), New York's Responsible AI Safety And Education (RAISE) Act, and the EU's General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, all discuss risks from internal AI use. They require frontier developers to make and implement plans for how to manage risks from internal use, and to produce internal use risk reports describing their safeguards and any residual risks. This guide provides a harmonized standard for companies to produce internal use risk reports suitable for all three regulatory frameworks. It is addressed primarily to evaluation and safety teams at frontier AI developers, and secondarily to regulators and auditors seeking to understand what good reporting looks like. Given the pace of AI R&D automation and the limited external visibility into how companies use their most capable models internally, regular and detailed risk reporting may be one of the few mechanisms available to ensure that the risks from internal AI use are identified and managed before they materialize. Whenever a substantially more capable or riskier model is deployed internally, the developer should create a risk report and argue why the model is safe to deploy. We structure the reporting framework around two threat vectors -- autonomous AI misbehavior and insider threats -- and three risk factors for each: means, motive, and opportunity.

Driving in compliance with traffic laws and regulations is a basic requirement for human drivers, yet autonomous vehicles (AVs) can violate these requirements in diverse real-world scenarios. To encode law compliance into AV systems, conventional approaches use formal logic languages to explicitly specify behavioral constraints, but this process is labor-intensive, hard to scale, and costly to maintain. With recent advances in artificial intelligence, it is promising to leverage large language models (LLMs) to derive legal requirements from traffic laws and regulations. However, without explicitly grounding and reasoning in structured traffic scenarios, LLMs often retrieve irrelevant provisions or miss applicable ones, yielding imprecise requirements. To address this, we propose a novel pipeline that grounds LLM reasoning in a traffic scenario taxonomy through node-wise anchors that encode hierarchical semantics. On Chinese traffic laws and OnSite dataset (5,897 scenarios), our method improves law-scenario matching by 29.1% and increases the accuracy of derived mandatory and prohibitive requirements by 36.9% and 38.2%, respectively. We further demonstrate real-world applicability by constructing a law-compliance layer for AV navigation and developing an onboard, real-time compliance monitor for in-field testing, providing a solid foundation for future AV development, deployment, and regulatory oversight.

Financial institutions must track over 60,000 regulatory events annually, overwhelming manual compliance teams; the industry has paid over USD 300 billion in fines and settlements since the 2008 financial crisis. We present ComplianceNLP, an end-to-end system that automatically monitors regulatory changes, extracts structured obligations, and identifies compliance gaps against institutional policies. The system integrates three components: (1) a knowledge-graph-augmented RAG pipeline grounding generations in a regulatory knowledge graph of 12,847 provisions across SEC, MiFID II, and Basel III; (2) multi-task obligation extraction combining NER, deontic classification, and cross-reference resolution over a shared LEGAL-BERT encoder; and (3) compliance gap analysis that maps obligations to internal policies with severity-aware scoring. On our benchmark, ComplianceNLP achieves 87.7 F1 on gap detection, outperforming GPT-4o+RAG by +3.5 F1, with 94.2% grounding accuracy ($r=0.83$ vs. human judgments) and 83.4 F1 under realistic end-to-end error propagation. Ablations show that knowledge-graph re-ranking contributes the largest marginal gain (+4.6 F1), confirming that structural regulatory knowledge is critical for cross-reference-heavy tasks. Domain-specific knowledge distillation (70B $\to$ 8B) combined with Medusa speculative decoding yields $2.8\times$ inference speedup; regulatory text's low entropy ($H=2.31$ bits vs. $3.87$ general text) produces 91.3% draft-token acceptance rates. In four months of parallel-run deployment processing 9,847 updates at a financial institution, the system achieved 96.0% estimated recall and 90.7% precision, with a $3.1\times$ sustained analyst efficiency gain. We report deployment lessons on trust calibration, GRC integration, and distributional shift monitoring for regulated-domain NLP.

AI incident reporting requirements are emerging in regulation and policy, yet no operational criteria exist for determining when a detected AI incident warrants escalation beyond national handling to international coordination. This paper proposes an escalation framework to address this gap, intended as a common reference point across jurisdictions that enables aligned escalation while preserving flexibility in how actors respond within their own legal and policy contexts. We review SB 53, the EU AI Act, the GPAI Code of Practice, and incident frameworks from other industries to derive eight criteria for assessing whether an incident warrants escalation, translated into a sequential flowchart with gated decision points and threshold checks. For each criterion, we map how it interplays with these regulatory frameworks, identifying where their design choices support or undermine effective detection. We test the framework against ten documented AI incidents and structured variants to identify where criteria under-detect or misclassify incidents in practice. We find three design patterns that may lead to systematic under-detection in regimes where model developers are responsible for escalation: a. where escalation requires confirmed harm, events such as model weight exfiltration risk detection only after severe, irreversible harm has propagated; b. where incidents are assessed individually, systemic harms emerging from accumulation risk being under-detected; and c. where thresholds align with legal instruments rather than quantitatively testable terms, criteria risk being impractical to apply under time pressure. We also find that escalation rules are only one component of a broader framework: the underlying definitions against which thresholds are set, and the data available to the responsible actor, create interdependencies that can themselves drive under-detection.

Automating the detection of regulatory compliance remains a challenging task due to the complexity and variability of legal texts. Models trained on one regulation often fail to generalise to others. This limitation underscores the need for principled methods to improve cross-domain transfer. We study data selection as a strategy to mitigate negative transfer in compliance detection framed as a natural language inference (NLI) task. Specifically, we evaluate four approaches for selecting augmentation data from a larger source domain: random sampling, Moore-Lewis's cross-entropy difference, importance weighting, and embedding-based retrieval. We systematically vary the proportion of selected data to analyse its effect on cross-domain adaptation. Our findings demonstrate that targeted data selection substantially reduces negative transfer, offering a practical path toward scalable and reliable compliance automation across heterogeneous regulations.

Virtual cell modeling predicts molecular state changes under genetic perturbations in silico, which is essential for biological mechanism studies. However, existing approaches suffer from unconstrained reasoning, uninterpretable predictions, and retrieval signals that are weakly aligned with regulatory topology. To address these limitations, we propose AROMA, an Augmented Reasoning Over a Multimodal Architecture for virtual cell genetic perturbation modeling. AROMA integrates textual evidence, graph-topology information, and protein sequence features to model perturbation-target dependencies, and is trained with a two-stage optimization strategy to yield predictions that are both accurate and interpretable. We also construct two knowledge graphs and a perturbation reasoning dataset, PerturbReason, containing more than 498k samples, as reusable resources for the virtual cell domain. Experiments show that AROMA outperforms existing methods across multiple cell lines, and remains robust under zero-shot evaluation on an unseen cell line, as well as in knowledge-sparse, long-tail scenarios. Overall, AROMA demonstrates that combining knowledge-driven multimodal modeling with evidence retrieval provides a promising pathway toward more reliable and interpretable virtual cell perturbation prediction. Model weights are available at https://huggingface.co/blazerye/AROMA. Code is available at https://github.com/blazerye/AROMA.

We introduce IndiaFinBench, to our knowledge the first publicly available evaluation benchmark for assessing large language model (LLM) performance on Indian financial regulatory text. Existing financial NLP benchmarks draw exclusively from Western financial corpora (SEC filings, US earnings reports, English-language financial news), leaving a significant gap in coverage of non-Western regulatory frameworks. IndiaFinBench addresses this gap with 406 expert-annotated question-answer pairs drawn from 192 documents sourced from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), spanning four task types: regulatory interpretation (174 items), numerical reasoning (92 items), contradiction detection (62 items), and temporal reasoning (78 items). Annotation quality is validated through a model-based secondary pass (kappa=0.918 on contradiction detection; 90.7% overall agreement on a 150-item subset) and a 180-item human inter-annotator agreement study across three annotation rounds (kappa=0.645 on contradiction detection; 77.2% overall agreement; 44.3% benchmark coverage). We evaluate twelve models under zero-shot conditions, with accuracy ranging from 70.4% (Gemma 4 E4B) to 89.7% (Gemini 2.5 Flash). All models substantially outperform a non-specialist human baseline of 69.0%. Numerical reasoning is the most discriminative task, with a 35.9 percentage-point spread across models. Bootstrap significance testing (10,000 resamples) reveals three statistically distinct performance tiers. The dataset, evaluation code, and all model outputs are available at https://github.com/rajveerpall/IndiaFinBench

A series of high-profile tragedies involving companion chatbots has triggered an unusually rapid regulatory response. Several jurisdictions, including Australia, California, and New York, have introduced enforceable regulation, while regulators elsewhere have signaled growing concern about risks posed by companion chatbots, particularly to children. In parallel, leading providers, notably OpenAI, appear to have strengthened their self-regulatory approaches. Drawing on legal textual analysis and insights from regulatory theory, psychology, and information systems research, this paper critically examines these recent interventions. We examine what is regulated and who is regulated, identifying regulatory targets, scope, and modalities. We classify interventions by method and priority, showing how emerging regimes combine "locks and blocks", such as access gating and content moderation, with measures addressing toxic relationship features and process-based accountability requirements. We argue that effective regulation of companion chatbots must integrate all three dimensions. More, however, is required. Current regimes tend to focus on discrete harms, narrow conceptions of vulnerability, or highly specified accountability processes, while failing to confront deeper power asymmetries between providers and users. Providers of companion chatbots increasingly control artificial intimacy at scale, creating unprecedented opportunities for control through intimacy. We suggest that a general, open-ended duty of care would be an important first step toward constraining that power and addressing a fundamental source of chatbot risk. The paper contributes to debates on companion chatbot regulation and is relevant to regulators, platform providers, and scholars concerned with digital intimacy, law and technology, and fairness, accountability, and transparency in sociotechnical systems.

The rapid proliferation of AI applications has intensified debate on effective regulation of these black-box services. Effective regulation must balance two competing goals: (1) deterring non-compliant providers from entering the market, while (2) retaining compliant ones. We call this ideal the perfect market outcome (PMO). Regulators face two compounding obstacles that make PMO difficult to achieve: providers hold private information and can act strategically to evade compliance, while any evidence drawn or derived from a finite sample carries statistical uncertainty in proving non-compliance. As this information asymmetry and statistical uncertainty is inherent to any effective regulation, we formalise them through a mechanism design framework that explicitly accounts for such statistical uncertainty. This yields a sharp characterisation: a mechanism achieves PMO if and only if the set of non-compliant evidence distributions forms a closed, convex set of probability measures, known in imprecise probability as a credal set. This result serves as a diagnostic tool to determine whether PMO is achievable under a given regulation. We further show that PMO-achieving mechanisms can be constructed from a collection of hypothesis tests, and validate our theoretical contributions through experiments on spurious-feature and fairness-based regulations.

Motivation: Interpretability is not optional in biology: understanding gene regulation requires models whose learned structure can be directly interrogated, not merely accurate predictors whose internals resist mapping onto regulatory relationships. We ask whether an architecture mirroring the central dogma yields attention and gradient maps that recover known regulatory elements and networks in inspectable form. Results: Central Dogma Transformer II (CDT-II) mirrors the central dogma in its architecture -- DNA self-attention, RNA self-attention, and DNA-to-RNA cross-attention -- requiring only genomic embeddings and raw per-cell expression. On K562 CRISPR interference (CRISPRi) data with five genes held out entirely, CDT-II predicts perturbation effects (per-gene mean r = 0.84), recovers the GFI1B regulatory network (6.6-fold enrichment, P = 3.5 x 10^-17), and concentrates cross-attention on ENCODE regulatory elements including CTCF sites (mean 7.67x across 28 target genes, P < 0.001). Gradient attribution predicts consequences of perturbing therapeutic targets (mean r = 0.82). For TFRC, target of the anti-TfR1 antibody PPMX-T003, it identifies erythrocyte-structure, iron-dependent DNA-synthesis and oxidative-stress genes, matching anemia and ferroptosis reported clinically and preclinically -- without clinical data as input. CDT-II acts as an AI microscope, surfacing clinically relevant regulatory structure from perturbation experiments alone. Availability: Source code is available at https://github.com/nobusama/CDT2. Pre-computed embeddings, training data, and model weights are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/nobusama17/CDT2-data.

Extracting structured procedural knowledge from unstructured business documents is a critical yet unresolved bottleneck in process automation. While prior work has focused on extracting linear action flows from instructional texts, such as recipes, it has insufficiently addressed the complex logical structures, including conditional branching and parallel execution, that are pervasive in real-world regulatory and administrative documents. Furthermore, existing benchmarks are limited by simplistic schemas and shallow logical dependencies, restricting progress toward logic-aware large language models.To bridge this Logic Gap, we introduce BREX, a carefully curated benchmark comprising 409 real-world business documents and 2,855 expert-annotated rules. Unlike prior datasets centered on narrow service scenarios, BREX spans over 30 vertical domains, covering scientific, industrial, administrative, and financial regulations. We further propose ExIde, a structure-aware reasoning framework that investigates five distinct prompting strategies, ranging from implicit semantic alignment to executable grounding via pseudo-code generation. This enables explicit modeling of rule dependencies and provides an out-of-the-box framework for different business customers without finetuning their own large language models. We benchmark ExIde using 13 state-of-the-art large language models. Our extensive evaluation reveals that executable grounding serves as a superior inductive bias, significantly outperforming standard prompts in rule extraction. In addition, reasoning-optimized models demonstrate a distinct advantage in tracing long-range and non-linear rule dependencies compared to standard instruction-tuned models.

Clinical trials bridge basic research and clinical application, serving as essential steps in drug development. This review examines clinical trial phases (Phase I [safety assessment], Phase II [efficacy evaluation], Phase III [large-scale validation], and Phase IV [post-marketing surveillance]), highlighting the distinct characteristics and interconnections. Major challenges are identified, including ethical compliance, participant recruitment, and ensuring diversity and representativeness in trial populations, while proposing evidence-based mitigation strategies. To address these challenges, innovative technologies, such as artificial intelligence, big data analytics, and digital health tools, are transforming trial design and implementation, enhancing efficiency and data quality. Looking forward, the review explores how emerging therapies, including gene therapy and immunotherapy, are reshaping trial design requirements and emphasizes the growing importance of regulatory harmonization and global collaboration. Clinical trials remain central to advancing innovative drug development and improving patient outcomes.