# Navigating Global AI Regulation: A Multi-Jurisdictional Retrieval-Augmented Generation System

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.25448 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.25448/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Legal and financial RAG, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation.
- Builds on 9 of its 41 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- Retrieval-augmented generation / [Legal and financial RAG](https://mlsanity.com/rag/legal-and-financial-rag/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.04359/) (2021)
- [LegalBench-RAG: A Benchmark for Retrieval-Augmented Generation in the Legal Domain](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.10343/) (2024)
- [HyPA-RAG: A Hybrid Parameter Adaptive Retrieval-Augmented Generation System for AI Legal and Policy Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.09046/) (2024)
- [LexRAG: Benchmarking Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Multi-Turn Legal Consultation Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.20640/) (2025)
- [Towards Reliable Retrieval in RAG Systems for Large Legal Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.06999/) (2025)
- [Comparing Apples to Oranges: A Taxonomy for Navigating the Global Landscape of AI Regulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.13673/) (2025)
- [All for law and law for all: Adaptive RAG Pipeline for Legal Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.13107/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Navigating AI regulation across jurisdictions is increasingly difficult for policymakers, legal professionals, and researchers. To address this, we present a multi-jurisdictional Retrieval-Augmented Generation system for global AI regulation. Our corpus includes 242 documents across 68 jurisdictions, ranging from formal legislation like the EU AI Act to unstructured policy documents such as national AI strategies. The system makes three technical contributions: type-specific chunking that preserve legal structure across heterogenous documents; conditional retrieval routing with entity detection and metadata for legal citations; and priority-based re-ranking to boost enacted legislation over policy and secondary sources. Evaluation of 50 queries reveals strong performance across both single-entity and multi-jurisdictional questions, achieving 0.87 average faithfulness and 0.84 average answer relevancy. Single-entity queries achieve 0.86 average faithfulness and 0.92 average answer relevancy, while multi-jurisdictional comparison queries achieve 0.88 average faithfulness and 0.75 average answer relevancy. These findings highlight the effectiveness of domain-specific retrieval strategies for navigating complex, heterogenous regulatory corpora.