Papers for

corporate compliance teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Blockchain glossary improves understanding with clear key terms

DLT Terms 100: a learner's glossary based on ISO 22739:2024

Abstract: We propose ``DLT Terms 100'' aimed at improving literacy regarding blockchain (distributed ledger technology: DLT). The pace of DLT's social implementation has been slower than initially expected, partly due to a shortage of engineers and literate individuals. In particular, the discrepancy between business and technical terminology, and the confusion caused by the repurposing of existing financial terms, are barriers to understanding the concepts and technologies. Our proposed glossary is based on ISO 22739:2024, and categorizes and labels terms based on their frequency of appearance in representative domestic and international literature and their difficulty level.

Thu 22 OctComputers and SocietyCryptography and Security
The gist
Blockchain technology is complicated partly because words are used differently in business and tech, and some financial terms get confusing. The authors created a special glossary called DLT Terms 100 that lists important blockchain words clearly and rates how often and how hard they are. This helps more people learn blockchain basics by using a standards-based, easy-to-understand list. The glossary aims to bridge the gap between specialists and general users.
Open → 2610.30596v1

Enterprise agent safety risks hidden by workflow context revealed

LatentRiskBench: Measuring State-Dependent Risks in Enterprise Agents

Abstract: Enterprise agents face safety risks that cannot be determined from individual actions alone. Existing safety benchmarks largely evaluate action-local risks, overlooking failures whose safety depends on workflow state. In such state-dependent risks, the same action may be safe in one context but violate policy in another. Hence, we introduce LatentRiskBench for evaluating such state-dependent risks in enterprise settings. It pairs risky trajectories with benign counterparts that share the same terminal action but differ in latent policy-relevant states, requiring models to reconstruct workflow context rather than rely on action-level cues. We also introduce new metrics for state-dependent risk evaluation, including a suite of residual risk (RR) measures. Experiments on the benchmark show that action-level evaluation detects only 0.09 of state-dependent violations, whereas state-level evaluation reaches 0.96. Existing guardrail methods largely overlook such risks unless they are explicitly applied to workflow states. Case studies on a commercial deployed scenario further show that the safety metrics embedded in the benchmark provide a more realistic measure of safety for enterprise agents. Our dataset and code are available at https://github.com/JingyueCong/LatentRiskBench.

Tue 13 OctComputation and LanguageArtificial IntelligenceMachine Learning
The gist
Some safety problems in enterprise software don't show up when looking at single actions alone. The same action can be safe in one situation but unsafe in another because of the overall work process context. The authors created a new test, LatentRiskBench, that checks if systems can spot these hidden risks by considering the larger workflow state. They showed that usual methods miss most of these risks, but their approach finds nearly all of them.
Open → 2610.17685v1

Global AI governance struggles with power and fragmented control

Architecture Without an Architect? Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence in a Divided World

Abstract: Artificial intelligence presents an unusually difficult problem for global governance. The technology develops rapidly, crosses borders easily, and is shaped by actors whose resources and capabilities may rival those of states. Yet international responses remain fragmented, unevenly representative, and overwhelmingly non-binding. The challenge is therefore not simply to identify appropriate rules or institutions, but to understand who has the capacity and incentive to create, enforce, and adapt them. This review essay examines these questions through Matthijs Maas's Architectures of Global AI Governance. Maas offers an ambitious framework for thinking about AI governance through the lenses of sociotechnical change, governance disruption, and regime complexity. His account usefully resists both technological determinism and the search for a single institutional blueprint, emphasizing instead the possibilities of a fragmented and evolving governance architecture. The essay argues, however, that institutional design cannot be separated from the distribution of power. Maas frequently invokes what "we" should do about AI, but that collective subject obscures important differences among states, international institutions, and technology companies. States retain formidable powers over markets, infrastructure, strategic inputs, and firms themselves. At the same time, many consequential decisions about frontier AI - what is built, how quickly, with what safeguards, and when it is released - are concentrated within a small number of private companies. The central problem of global AI governance may therefore be less architecture without an architect than an emerging architecture shaped by multiple actors possessing different forms of power, divergent incentives, and no common set of plans.

Thu 1 OctComputers and SocietyArtificial Intelligence
The gist
It is hard to create worldwide rules for artificial intelligence because the technology develops quickly and is controlled by both countries and powerful companies. The paper Maas wrote looks at this problem and shows that instead of one simple solution, AI governance is made up of many players, each with different goals and abilities. The authors of this review say that understanding who holds power and how it is used is key to making effective rules. The challenge is not just designing rules but managing a complex system with no single leader or plan.
Open → 2610.01716v1

Open source language models vary in accuracy for ESG report analysis

Empirical Evaluation of Open-Source Large Language Models for Retrieval-Augmented Generation in ESG Domain

Abstract: Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting is critical for corporate accountability, with Large Language Models (LLMs) and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) offering strong potential to automate KPI extraction. However, open-source LLM performance in domain-specific ESG tasks remains insufficiently understood. This paper evaluates open-source LLMs in ESG contexts using a structured framework and evaluation resource based on 498 real-world ESG reports from EU-listed companies (2010-2024). We evaluate seven open-source models (2B to 30B parameters) -- glm-4.7-flash, nemotron-3-nano:4b, qwen3:4b-instruct, gemma3:4b, gemma4:e4b, gemma4:e2b, and ministral-3:8b -- using 100 persona-based synthetic QA pairs covering ESG information needs. System performance is assessed via RAGAS metrics, including contextual recall, precision, relevance, faithfulness, answer relevancy, and factual correctness. Results show notable performance variations across architectures. Retrieval performance is strong across models (context recall around 0.58-0.61, context precision around 0.78-0.81, context relevance 0.965-0.985). Generation diverges most on faithfulness (0.607-0.822) and least on answer relevancy (0.760-0.881): glm-4.7-flash leads in faithfulness (0.822), qwen3 in factual correctness (0.449), and ministral-3 in answer relevancy (0.881). Low overall factual correctness (0.387-0.449) highlights the need for domain-specific fine-tuning. This work provides data-driven guidance for deploying open-source models in ESG reporting.

Mon 14 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
ESG reports help track how companies manage environmental and social responsibility, but reading many reports is time-consuming. The authors tested several open-source large language models to see how well they can find and generate key ESG information from real company reports using a retrieval method. They found that while these models are good at finding relevant info, their ability to produce accurate and faithful answers differs a lot. The results suggest these models need more fine-tuning for ESG topics to be reliable in this important area.
Open → 2609.15242v1