Related papers: Mapping U.S. Federal AI Governance Against Sector Vulnerability

Mapping U.S. Federal AI Governance Against Sector Vulnerability

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.16260v1
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 19:23:46 GMT
Title: Mapping U.S. Federal AI Governance Against Sector Vulnerability
Abstract summary: We assess 684 federal AI governance documents for their coverage of 14 sectors and 24 AI risks.<n>We compare sector coverage patterns for each of the 24 risks with vulnerability assessments from a Delphi study of 272 experts.
Score: 33.757821744179346
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) poses different levels of risk across sectors, but are these differences reflected in U.S. federal AI governance? To help answer this question, we assess 684 federal AI governance documents for their coverage of 14 sectors and 24 AI risks. We measure coverage as breadth (i.e., how frequently the risk or sector is addressed across documents) and depth (i.e., how substantively the risk or sector is discussed). We then compare sector coverage patterns for each of the 24 risks with vulnerability assessments from a Delphi study of 272 experts. Our analysis finds substantial variation in coverage: AI risks related to robustness, system security, and governance receive more attention than socioeconomic, environmental, and emerging risks, including multi-agent risks. Public administration, national security, information, and scientific services receive comparatively high levels of coverage relative to other sectors, such as finance and healthcare, which experts rate as highly vulnerable to AI risks. By mapping current coverage and identifying where it differs from expert assessments of vulnerability, we surface potential AI governance gaps which may help inform AI risk-related decisions across government and industry.

Related papers

Prioritization of Risks from Artificial Intelligence: A Delphi Study of 272 International Experts [115.34779081791287]
We report results from a three-round Delphi study conducted late 2025 with 272 international AI experts.<n>Experts rated 24 AI risks on harm probability and severity, sector and actor vulnerability, actor responsibility, and overall concern.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-06-03T06:14:41Z)
Frontier AI Auditing: Toward Rigorous Third-Party Assessment of Safety and Security Practices at Leading AI Companies [57.521647436515785]
We define frontier AI auditing as rigorous third-party verification of frontier AI developers' safety and security claims.<n>We introduce AI Assurance Levels (AAL-1 to AAL-4), ranging from time-bounded system audits to continuous, deception-resilient verification.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-01-16T18:44:09Z)
Informing AI Risk Assessment with News Media: Analyzing National and Political Variation in the Coverage of AI Risks [3.2566808526538873]
This work presents a comparative analysis of a cross-national sample of news media spanning 6 countries.<n>Our findings show that AI risks are prioritized differently across nations and shed light on how left vs. right leaning U.S. based outlets differ in the prioritization of AI risks in their coverage.<n>These findings can inform risk assessors and policy-makers about the nuances they should account for when considering news media as a supplementary source for risk-based governance approaches.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-07-31T16:52:21Z)
Fully Autonomous AI Agents Should Not be Developed [50.61667544399082]
This paper argues that fully autonomous AI agents should not be developed.<n>In support of this position, we build from prior scientific literature and current product marketing to delineate different AI agent levels.<n>Our analysis reveals that risks to people increase with the autonomy of a system.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-04T19:00:06Z)
Perception Gaps in Risk, Benefit, and Value Between Experts and Public Challenge Socially Accepted AI [0.0]
This study examines how the general public and academic AI experts perceive AI's capabilities and impact.<n>The scenarios span domains such as sustainability, healthcare, job performance, societal inequality, art, and warfare.<n>Experts consistently anticipate higher probabilities, perceive lower risks, report greater benefits, and express more positive sentiment toward AI compared to the non-experts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-12-02T12:51:45Z)
AIR-Bench 2024: A Safety Benchmark Based on Risk Categories from Regulations and Policies [80.90138009539004]
AIR-Bench 2024 is the first AI safety benchmark aligned with emerging government regulations and company policies. It decomposes 8 government regulations and 16 company policies into a four-tiered safety taxonomy with granular risk categories in the lowest tier. We evaluate leading language models on AIR-Bench 2024, uncovering insights into their alignment with specified safety concerns.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-11T21:16:48Z)
AI Risk Categorization Decoded (AIR 2024): From Government Regulations to Corporate Policies [88.32153122712478]
We identify 314 unique risk categories organized into a four-tiered taxonomy. At the highest level, this taxonomy encompasses System & Operational Risks, Content Safety Risks, Societal Risks, and Legal & Rights Risks. We aim to advance AI safety through information sharing across sectors and the promotion of best practices in risk mitigation for generative AI models and systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-25T18:13:05Z)
Implications for Governance in Public Perceptions of Societal-scale AI Risks [0.29022435221103454]
Voters perceive AI risks as both more likely and more impactful than experts, and also advocate for slower AI development. Policy interventions may best assuage collective concerns if they attempt to more carefully balance mitigation efforts across all classes of societal-scale risks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-10T11:52:25Z)

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