Cited by 14Digitalization, Law, and RegulationEthics and Social Impacts of AIRegulation and Compliance Studies

Towards experimental standardization for AI governance in the EU

Open access
Prifti, Kostina, Fosch-Villaronga, Eduard·2024·Computer Law & Security Review

Abstract

The EU has adopted a hybrid governance approach to address the challenges posed by Artificial Intelligence (AI), emphasizing the role of harmonized European standards (HES). Despite advantages in expertise and flexibility, HES processes face legitimacy problems and struggle with epistemic gaps in the context of AI. This article addresses the problems that characterize HES processes by outlining the conceptual need, theoretical basis, and practical application of experimental standardization, which is defined as an ex-ante evaluation method that can be used to test standards for their effects and effectiveness. Experimental standardization is based on theoretical and practical developments in experimental governance, legislation, and innovation. Aligned with ideas and frameworks like Science for Policy and evidence-based policymaking, it enables co-creation between science and policymaking. We apply the proposed concept in the context of HES processes, where we submit that experimental standardization contributes to increasing throughput and output legitimacy, addressing epistemic gaps, and generating new regulatory knowledge.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105959

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most current governance measures remain focused on behavioral norm declarations, the enhancement of detection tools, and case-based corrective actions, which are essentially 'peripheral patchwork' responses.

    “Most current governance measures remain focused on behavioral norm declarations (Prifti & Fosch-Villaronga, 2024), the enhancement of detection tools (Perkins et al., 2023), and case-based corrective actions (Pudasaini et al., 2024), which are essentially 'peripheral patchwork' responses.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 78 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prifti, K., & Fosch-Villaronga, E.
Affiliations
Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Prifti, Kostina
Venue
Computer Law & Security Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-04
Volume
52
Pages
105959
ISSN
2212-473X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392935083
Cited by
12
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1
FWCI
30.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computer law & security review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • European Research Council
  • Nederland Ministerie van Onderwijs Cultuur en Wetenschap
  • European Commission
  • Ministerul Educației, Culturii și Cercetării
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Regulation and Compliance Studies
Keywords
experimental standardization, AI governance, experimental governance, epistemic gap, evidence-based policy, science for policy, AI regulation, EU AI policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review