analiza aiqbench
This paper systematically maps the EU AI Act's high-risk requirements against established risk taxonomies, revealing that most obligations focus on organizational processes rather than direct AI-specific risks. By deriving a consolidated list of distinct AI risk sources from these regulations, the study provides practitioners with a structured framework to align legal compliance with technical risk management practices. This work bridges the gap between legislative mandates and operational AI safety strategies, offering a critical reference for comparing existing taxonomies with implicit regulatory expectations.
From Legal Text to AI-specific Risk Sources: A Systematic Analysis of the EU AI Act's High-Risk Requirements
arXiv:2609.13535v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The EU AI Act introduces mandatory requirements for high-risk AI systems with the explicit goal of ensuring the development and operation of trustworthy AI. At the same time, AI risk management practices rely on structured risk taxonomies to systematically identify and treat AI-specific risk sources. As both the AI Act and established risk taxonomies aim to address AI-induced risks, a natural question is whether they align in the risk sources they cover. However, no clear mapping exists between the risks implicitly addressed by the Act's high-risk requirements and established taxonomies, leaving practitioners without a structured basis for aligning regulatory obligations with AI risk management practice. This paper presents a systematic classification of the requirements extracted from the EU AI Act Section 2 (Requirements for high-risk AI systems), revealing that only a minority directly address AI-specific risk sources, while the majority impose organizational process and documentation obligations. From the AI risk-related requirements, a consolidated list of distinct AI-specific risk sources is derived. The resulting EU AI Act Risk Source List takes an important step towards bridging the gap between legal obligation and AI risk management practice, providing a structured reference for explicit comparison between existing AI risk taxonomies and the risk sources implicitly addressed by the EU AI Act. Important Note: This is the authors' preprint. The paper was presented at the 4th International Conference on Frontiers of Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Multidisciplinary Applications. A link to the conference's official proceedings will be provided upon publication.
Abstract:The EU AI Act introduces mandatory requirements for high-risk AI systems with the explicit goal of ensuring the development and operation of trustworthy AI. At the same time, AI risk management practices rely on structured risk taxonomies to systematically identify and treat AI-specific risk sources. As both the AI Act and established risk taxonomies aim to address AI-induced risks, a natural question is whether they align in the risk sources they cover. However, no clear mapping exists between the risks implicitly addressed by the Act's high-risk requirements and established taxonomies, leaving practitioners without a structured basis for aligning regulatory obligations with AI risk management practice. This paper presents a systematic classification of the requirements extracted from the EU AI Act Section 2 (Requirements for high-risk AI systems), revealing that only a minority directly address AI-specific risk sources, while the majority impose organizational process and documentation obligations. From the AI risk-related requirements, a consolidated list of distinct AI-specific risk sources is derived. The resulting EU AI Act Risk Source List takes an important step towards bridging the gap between legal obligation and AI risk management practice, providing a structured reference for explicit comparison between existing AI risk taxonomies and the risk sources implicitly addressed by the EU AI Act. Important Note: This is the authors' preprint. The paper was presented at the 4th International Conference on Frontiers of Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Multidisciplinary Applications. A link to the conference's official proceedings will be provided upon publication.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.13535 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.13535v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.13535 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 339 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

AgentOps: Operationalize agentic AI at scale with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · 1 iun. 2026
Coverage-driven alignment - What ‘Teaching Claude Why’ can borrow from AV verification
LessWrong · 8 iun. 2026

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · 13 oct. 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · 31 iul. 2026