PreprintCited by 5Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Who is Responsible? The Data, Models, Users or Regulations? A Comprehensive Survey on Responsible Generative AI for a Sustainable Future

Open access
Raza, Shaina, Qureshi, Rizwan, Zahid, Anam, Muneer, Amgad, Zafar, Anas, Kamawal, Safiullah, Sadak, Ferhat, Fioresi, Joseph, Saeed, Muhammaed, Sapkota, Ranjan, Jain, Aditya, Hassan, Muneeb Ul, Zafar, Aizan, Maqbool, Hasan, Vayani, Ashmal, Wu, Jia, Shoman, Maged·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Generative AI is rapidly moving from research to deployment, elevating the need for responsible development, evaluation, and governance. We conduct a PRISMA guided review of 232 studies (November 2022 - December 2025), spanning large language models, vision language models, diffusion models, and agentic pipelines. We make four contributions: (1) the first survey bridging governance principles, technical evaluation, and domain deployment across all four system types; (2) a ten-criterion rubric (C1-C10) scoring major AI safety benchmarks on risk-surface coverage, paired with a policy crosswalk mapping benchmarks to regulatory requirements; (3) twelve lifecycle KPIs, explainability guidance for foundation models, and a testbed catalogue; and (4) domain-specific analysis across healthcare, finance, education, arts, agriculture, and defense. Three findings emerge: benchmark coverage is dense for bias and toxicity but sparse for privacy, provenance, deepfakes, and system-level failures in agentic settings; evaluations remain largely static and task local, limiting audit portability; and inconsistent documentation complicates cross-release comparison. We outline a research agenda prioritizing adaptive multimodal evaluation, privacy and provenance testing, deepfake risk assessment, calibration reporting, versioned artifacts, and continuous monitoring. This survey offers a structured path to align generative AI evaluation with governance needs for safe and accountable deployment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2502.08650

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The stochasticity and lack of transparency in LLM-based agents exacerbate system instability, as their internal decision logic is not easily interpretable or verifiable.

    “The stochasticity and lack of transparency in LLM-based agents further exacerbate this issue, as their internal decision logic is not easily interpretable or verifiable [210,211].”

    From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [211]

    Section 3.2 (pp. 8–10) describes LLMs as black boxes and says agentic pipelines amplify failure modes through multi-step dependencies. The discussion of the explanation–reliability gap (p. 26) also says explanations may not reflect internal computations. These passages support concerns about transparency and agent reliability, but do not establish the claimed role of stochasticity in system instability. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [1][1] Alok Abhishek, Lisa Erickson, and Tushar Bandopadhyay. 2025. Beats: Bias evaluation and assessment test suite for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.24310 (2025). · arXiv
  2. [2][2] P. Adams, C. Mayer, et al. 2022. Algorithmic Valuation and the Fair-Housing Act: Evidence from Zillow's Zestimate. Technical Report 30612. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w30612 · DOI
  3. [4][4] National Information Technology Development Agency. 2023. Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA), 2023. https://nitda.gov.ng/nigeria-data- protection-act-2023/. Accessed: 2025-02-21. https://doi.org/10.3386/w30612 https://au.int/en/documents/20220728/au-data-policy-framework https://nitda.gov.ng/nigeria-data-protection-act-2023/ https://nitda.gov.ng/nigeria-data-protection-act-2023/ · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Raza, S., Qureshi, R., Zahid, A., Muneer, A., Zafar, A., Kamawal, S., Sadak, F., Fioresi, J., Saeed, M., Sapkota, R., Jain, A., Hassan, M. U., Zafar, A., Maqbool, H., Vayani, A., Wu, J., & Shoman, M.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4407570772
Cited by
5
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
Keywords
AI governance, large language models, vision-language models, diffusion models, agentic AI, AI regulation, provenance, deepfake detection, explainability, testbed, continuous monitoring

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