arXiv:2601.06153v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This policy report draws on country studies from China, South Korea, Singapore, and the United Kingdom to identify effective tools and key barriers to interoperability in AI safety governance. It offers practical recommendations to support a globally informed yet locally grounded governance ecosystem. Interoperability is a central goal of AI governance, vital for reducing risks, fostering innovation, enhancing competitiveness, promoting standardization, and building public trust. However, structural gaps such as fragmented regulations and lack of global coordination, and conceptual gaps, including limited Global South engagement, continue to hinder progress. Focusing on three high-stakes domains - autonomous vehicles, education, and cross-border data flows - the report compares ethical, legal, and technical frameworks across the four countries. It identifies areas of convergence, divergence, and potential alignment, offering policy recommendations that support the development of interoperability mechanisms aligned with the Global Digital Compact and relevant UN resolutions. The analysis covers seven components: objectives, regulators, ethics, binding measures, targeted frameworks, technical standards, and key risks.

arXiv:2505.19562v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are approaching expert-level performance in medical question answering (QA), demonstrating strong potential to improve public healthcare. However, underlying biases related to sensitive attributes such as sex and race pose life-critical risks. The extent to which such sensitive attributes affect diagnosis remains an open question and requires comprehensive empirical investigation. Additionally, even the latest Counterfactual Patient Variations (CPV) benchmark can hardly distinguish the bias levels of different LLMs. To further explore these dynamics, we propose a new benchmark, FairMedQA, and benchmark 12 representative LLMs. FairMedQA contains 4,806 counterfactual question pairs constructed from 801 clinical vignettes. Our results reveal substantial accuracy disparity ranging from 3 to 19 percentage points across sensitive demographic groups. Notably, FairMedQA exposes biases that are at least 12 percentage points larger than those identified by the latest CPV benchmark, presenting superior benchmarking sensitivity. Our results underscore an urgent need for targeted debiasing techniques and more rigorous, identity-aware validation protocols before LLMs can be safely integrated into practical clinical decision-support systems.