Understanding the Role of Algorithm Registers in AI Governance Through Comparative Analysis of China and the UK

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00035v1
• Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2026 09:57:02 GMT
• Title: Understanding the Role of Algorithm Registers in AI Governance Through Comparative Analysis of China and the UK
• Abstract summary: This paper asks how do algorithm registers differ across jurisdictions, and what do these differences reveal about their roles in AI governance?<n>We compare China's Beian system and the UK's Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS)<n>Our analysis shows that an algorithm register, depending on its design and implementation, can serve functions beyond transparency.
• Score: 9.40272719135206
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Algorithm registers are increasingly being both considered and deployed as instruments in AI governance. They are often expected to deliver transparency; however, in practice their design, scope, and implementation vary substantially. Currently, we lack a holistic understanding of the potential roles that registers might play in AI governance, and how different design choices both shape and reflect those roles. This paper therefore asks how do algorithm registers differ across jurisdictions, and what do these differences reveal about their roles in AI governance? Towards this, we conduct a comparative analysis of two influential but contrasting algorithm registration mechanisms, China's Beian system and the UK's Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS), drawing on publicly available regulatory documents, registration guidelines, and registry data. Crucially, our analysis shows that an algorithm register, depending on its design and implementation, can serve functions beyond transparency, including pre-market approval, enabling ecosystem-level understanding, and acting as a broader regulatory infrastructure. As algorithm registries proliferate globally, we stress the importance of researchers and policymakers considering and examining the concrete governance functions that algorithm registries can perform as a result of their design and institutional context, rather than approaching them primarily through a transparency lens.

Related papers

• Co-constructing sociotechnical AI governance: participatory system mapping using algorithm registers [0.6999740786886536]
  Algorithm registers have been championed as a means of providing transparency on the use of algorithms in public services.<n>Yet potential publics differ in their expectations of what should be made transparent and how.<n>It remains unclear how these instruments can represent the sociotechnical systems in which these algorithms are embedded.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T15:27:45Z)
• "Is This Not Enough?": Asymmetries in Institutional Accountability and Collective Sensemaking in the Case of Canada's Algorithmic Visa Triage System [28.163187835238478]
  This paper examines how algorithmic accountability in Canada's visa system is articulated institutionally and experienced by applicants across borders.<n>We show that while institutional artifacts emphasize transparency, procedural safeguards, and bounded impacts, applicants engage in collective sensemaking to interpret opaque decisions.<n>We identify three asymmetries between how institutional accountability is structured and how people perceive the process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T08:55:28Z)
• Are Algorithm Registers Transparent? Perspectives from Germany [4.001780301402232]
  Algorithm registers are public-facing databases that display basic information about algorithms employed in public administration.<n>In Germany, the landscape is notably fragmented: no federal-level register exists, yet at least five state- and federal-level initiatives publish information about AI systems.<n>A conceptual proposal by Alina Lorenz (2025) outlines technical and governance requirements for a national AI transparency register in Germany.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T14:57:27Z)
• Bureaucratic Silences: What the Canadian AI Register Reveals, Omits, and Obscures [28.163187835238478]
  In November 2025, the Government of Canada operationalized its commitment to transparency by releasing its first Federal AI Register.<n>We argue that such registers are not neutral mirrors of government activity, but active instruments of ontological design that configure the boundaries of accountability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-16T20:48:35Z)
• Inspectable AI for Science: A Research Object Approach to Generative AI Governance [35.790980610679384]
  This paper introduces AI as a Research Object (AI-RO)<n>Instead of debating whether AI is an author or merely a tool, we propose treating AI interactions as structured, inspectable components of the research process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T10:13:20Z)
• Artificial Intelligence in Government: Why People Feel They Lose Control [44.99833362998488]
  The use of Artificial Intelligence in public administration is expanding rapidly.<n>While AI promises greater efficiency and responsiveness, its integration into government functions raises concerns about fairness, transparency, and accountability.<n>This article applies principal-agent theory to AI adoption as a special case of delegation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T07:46:41Z)
• Media and responsible AI governance: a game-theoretic and LLM analysis [61.132523071109354]
  This paper investigates the interplay between AI developers, regulators, users, and the media in fostering trustworthy AI systems.<n>Using evolutionary game theory and large language models (LLMs), we model the strategic interactions among these actors under different regulatory regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T21:39:38Z)
• AI and the Transformation of Accountability and Discretion in Urban Governance [1.9152655229960793]
  The study synthesizes insights to propose guiding principles for responsible AI integration in decision-making processes.<n>The analysis argues that AI does not simply restrict or enhance discretion but redistributes it across institutional levels.<n>It may simultaneously strengthen managerial oversight, enhance decision-making consistency, and improve operational efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T18:11:39Z)
• Towards a Responsible AI Metrics Catalogue: A Collection of Metrics for AI Accountability [28.67753149592534]
  This study bridges the accountability gap by introducing our effort towards a comprehensive metrics catalogue. Our catalogue delineates process metrics that underpin procedural integrity, resource metrics that provide necessary tools and frameworks, and product metrics that reflect the outputs of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-22T04:43:16Z)
• Bridging the Transparency Gap: What Can Explainable AI Learn From the AI Act? [0.8287206589886881]
  European Union has introduced detailed requirements of transparency for AI systems. There is a fundamental difference between XAI and the Act regarding what transparency is. By comparing the disparate views of XAI and regulation, we arrive at four axes where practical work could bridge the transparency gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-21T16:06:48Z)
• Think About the Stakeholders First! Towards an Algorithmic Transparency Playbook for Regulatory Compliance [14.043062659347427]
  Laws are being proposed and passed by governments around the world to regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems implemented into the public and private sectors. Many of these regulations address the transparency of AI systems, and related citizen-aware issues like allowing individuals to have the right to an explanation about how an AI system makes a decision that impacts them. We propose a novel stakeholder-first approach that assists technologists in designing transparent, regulatory compliant systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-10T09:39:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.