Never compromise with vulnerabilities: a comprehensive survey on AI governance
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The rapid advancement of AI has expanded its capabilities across domains, yet introduced critical technical vulnerabilities, such as algorithmic bias and adversarial sensitivity, that pose significant societal risks, including misinformation, inequity, security breaches, physical harm, and eroded public trust. These challenges highlight the urgent need for robust AI governance. We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security (system reliability), Derivative Security (real-world harm mitigation), and Social Ethics (value alignment and accountability). Uniquely, our approach unifies technical methods, emerging evaluation benchmarks, and policy insights to promote transparency, accountability, and trust in AI systems. Through a systematic review of over 300 studies, we identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight. These shortcomings stem from treating governance as an afterthought, rather than a foundational design principle, resulting in reactive, siloed efforts that fail to address the interdependence of technical integrity and societal trust. To overcome this, we present an integrated research agenda that bridges technical rigor with social responsibility. Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy. The accompanying repository is available at https://github.com/Tele-EVOL/AI-Governance.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 12 Aug 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 3.
5 papers.
- 2025Aetheria: A multimodal interpretable content safety framework based on multi-agent debate and collaborationcited by 2
- 2026GraphiContact: Pose-aware Human-Scene Robust Contact Perception for Interactive Systemscited by 1
- 2026Editing on the Generative Manifold: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of General Diffusion-Based Image Editing Trade-offscited by 1
- 2025Robust Concept Erasure in Diffusion Models: A Theoretical Perspective on Security and Robustnesscited by 0
- 2026Framing Instability in LLM Ethical Stance: Auditing Negation Sensitivity in Moral Dilemmascited by 0
- 2026Editing on the Generative Manifold: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of General Diffusion-Based Image Editing Trade-offs31 Mar 2026
- 2026GraphiContact: Pose-aware Human-Scene Robust Contact Perception for Interactive Systems19 Mar 2026
- 2026Framing Instability in LLM Ethical Stance: Auditing Negation Sensitivity in Moral Dilemmas29 Jan 2026
- 2025Aetheria: A multimodal interpretable content safety framework based on multi-agent debate and collaboration2 Dec 2025
- 2025Robust Concept Erasure in Diffusion Models: A Theoretical Perspective on Security and Robustness15 Sep 2025