arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.19194

Qualified Cross-References as a Verification Method: The Normative Environment of the EU AI Act

Nicola Fabiano
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Legal cross-references are commonly represented as links between instruments or provisions. In a curated legal knowledge base, a link must also identify the legal character of the interaction, its supporting provisions and conditions, and remain consistent from either instrument. This paper presents a provision-level model and a protocol for qualified cross-references, developed through a bilingual corpus of fourteen instruments surrounding Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (the AI Act). The model distinguishes direct textual reference, bounded presumption of conformity, substantive interaction without textual reference, mediated intersection, and institutional analogy; applicative interaction and definitional overlap are independent dimensions. Its methodological contribution is bidirectional inversion: a relationship documented from act A towards act B is reconstructed from B's perspective against both instruments. This verification tests provisions, qualification, direction, and conditions before deciding how to render the relationship from either side. Applied during construction, the protocol surfaced six incorrect article references, three inaccurate legal qualifications, and one divergence between two published descriptions of the same interaction. A reference to Regulation (EU) 2019/881 illustrates why qualification matters: the AI Act's bounded cybersecurity presumption differs from other product legislation's uses of the same certification framework. The contribution is a map of one regulatory environment and an explicitly specified method for making curated cross-reference knowledge bases inspectable and internally testable. A later, separately scoped corpus audit is discussed among the limitations, without pooling its findings with the original measurements; limited access to historical inputs constrains independent reproduction.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYcs.DL

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Nicola Fabiano. 2026-09-01. Qualified Cross-References as a Verification Method: The Normative Environment of the EU AI Act. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.19194

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.CY subjectcs.DL subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Filling holes in science draws collective attention, but most higher-order holes remain unexplored

Much scientific discovery involves filling holes between ideas and arguments that unleash techno-scientific advance. Representing knowledge as high-dimensional concept embeddings, we use persistent homology to detect holes of increasing order, from gaps between disconnected ideas to higher-order cavities, and identify the research works that fill them. We find two empirical asymmetries. Researchers who fill anticipated holes are poised to draw collective attention by staging outsized novelty and foresight, indicating that bridging holes anticipates where science will converge, most strongly in empirical fields and least in formal and design fields. Yet as knowledge grows, higher-order holes explode while the fraction science fills collapses, leaving most higher-order combinations unexplored. These results call for a richer science of holes, and mark a frontier where contemporary AI might help fill the high-dimensional gaps human science opens.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

MultiGhostBench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Long-Form LLM-Generated Text Attribution under Distribution Shifts

While existing work on LLM authorship attribution (AA) has made progress, available benchmarks remain limited, often focusing on English, controlled settings, or relatively outdated models, with the few multilingual studies considering only relatively short texts. We introduce MultiGhostBench, a multilingual benchmark comprising 928 books generated by five recent LLMs across six languages and three scripts, with an average length of approximately 59K words per book. The benchmark supports evaluation under domain, author, and language shifts. Evaluation of representative AA methods shows that no single method consistently performs best across settings, and performance generally degrades under distribution shifts. Transformer-based detectors can retain generator-related information across languages, although transfer effectiveness varies by language pair, whereas statistical and fingerprint-based detectors are more language-dependent. We envision MultiGhostBench as a valuable resource for the development and evaluation of robust AA methods. The dataset and code can be found at https://github.com/GrecoMT/MultiGhostBench.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Advisor career stage and PhD advisee outcomes

PhD advisors are central to doctoral training, but their influence may vary across career stages. Early-, mid-, and late-career advisors may differ in research activity, mentoring capacity, professional networks and access to resources. However, little is known about how PhD advisor career stage is associated with PhD student development outcomes. Drawing on multiple large-scale datasets comprising 250,838 advisor-advisee pairs from 312 U.S. PhD-granting institutions, we examine the relationship between advisor career stage and PhD advisee outcomes in knowledge production, collaboration networks and academic career placement. We find that early-career PhD advisors are associated with advisees' higher research productivity and citation performance, more opportunities to engage in direct and intensive research collaboration, and greater likelihood of securing a faculty position. Mid- and late-career faculty, by contrast, appear to have advantages in providing network capital which students can inherit after graduation, training PhD advisees to produce disruptive research, and supporting them in securing faculty positions at top institutions. This study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the reproduction of scientific talent by revealing the role of advisor career stage in shaping this process. These findings have implications for doctoral applicants' decision-making and for institutional policymaking on PhD training, faculty support and faculty evaluation.

cs.CY↗