PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Expert Systems· 2026Q2

Ethics and Governance in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Lifecycle Engineering Perspective

Lorenzo Ricciardi Celsi, Junxin Chen

Short summary

Trustworthy Generative AI requires engineering a lifecycle governance capability, not just improving models, integrating technical, organizational, human-centered, and regulatory layers across all stages from data acquisition to post-deployment use.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Trustworthy GenAI is framed as a lifecycle governance capability, not just a model property.
  • A framework integrates technical, organizational, human-centered, and regulatory governance layers.
  • Ethical principles are translated into stage-specific controls, responsibilities, evidence, metrics, and review triggers.
  • Operationalization is illustrated through measurable indicators, responsible actors, and capability boundaries.
  • The approach addresses specific GenAI risks like hallucination, prompt injection, and privacy leakage.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Trustworthy Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is often treated as a model property addressed through better training data, alignment, evaluation or guardrails. We argue instead that trustworthiness is a lifecycle governance capability that must be engineered, evidenced, monitored and adapted across data acquisition, training and alignment, safe inference, public deployment and post‐deployment use. We develop a lifecycle engineering framework integrating four governance layers – technical, organizational, human‐centred and regulatory – and translate ethical principles and major governance instruments into stage‐specific controls, responsibilities, evidence artefacts, metrics and review triggers. The framework is constructed through a structured conceptual synthesis of peer‐reviewed literature, NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, ISO/IEC 23894, ISO/IEC 42005, ALTAI, the EU AI Act and complementary security and agentic‐governance guidance. A source register, seven‐field extraction schema, explicit mapping rules, worked extraction example and weighting sensitivity analysis make the construction logic inspectable. A public‐facing retrieval‐augmented generation case and a contrastive agentic‐system stress test illustrate operationalization through measurable indicators, responsible actors, review triggers and capability boundaries without being presented as independent empirical validation. We further address hallucination, prompt injection, privacy leakage, overreliance, unsafe tool use, memory, planners and multi‐agent workflows. The perspective positions trustworthy GenAI as an evidence‐driven, adaptive socio‐technical capability rather than a one‐time model or compliance claim.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Expert Systems, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Safety Research

Safety ResearchSocial Sciences