发表机构
University of Illinois Chicago; Vellore Institute of Technology; University of Michigan Law School（伊利诺伊大学芝加哥分校; 韦洛尔理工学院; 密歇根大学法学院）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本文构建了国家人工智能监管评估框架，评估多国及欧盟的AI政策工具组合，明确其管控风险、实施能力等维度，仅评估纸面政策内容，不涉及执行成效。
AI 中文摘要
政府通过法律、机构、资助计划及非约束性指导方针来规范人工智能的开发与应用，而比较各国此类监管方式存在难度：具有约束力的规则与详尽的自愿性框架虽能解决相同问题，但会产生不同的义务，且各司法管辖区落实所需资源也存在差异。本文构建了一个针对各国人工智能政策的设计与实施准备情况的评估框架，评估对象涵盖中国、印度、日本、新加坡、韩国、英国、美国，同时将欧盟作为超国家比较主体纳入。该框架评估的是一组官方工具的版本化组合，而非某一项突出的法律或战略；其评估标准包括：该组合是否管控人工智能的重大风险、相关责任机构能否落实其承诺，还考察人工智能全生命周期的覆盖范围、受人工智能系统影响者可获得的保护措施，公共利益与负责任创新则是评估的独立部分。每个子标准通过有序锚点打分，并与支撑该判断的条款关联；该评估方案还会记录来源检索情况、缺失证据、纳入的工具及截止日期，最终形成可追溯的政策内容比较，清晰呈现类别差异，仅评估政策组合的纸面内容，不估算执行成效或政策结果。
英文摘要
Governments use laws, institutions, funding programs and nonbinding guidance to shape how AI is developed and used. Comparing these national approaches is difficult. A binding rule and a detailed voluntary framework can address the same problem but create different duties. The resources needed to carry them out also differ by jurisdiction. This paper develops an evaluation framework for the documented design and implementation readiness of national AI policy. The comparison covers China, India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Union is included as a supranational comparator. The framework evaluates a versioned portfolio of official instruments rather than one prominent law or strategy. Its criteria ask whether the portfolio governs serious AI risks and whether responsible institutions can implement its commitments. They examine coverage across the AI lifecycle and the protections available to people affected by AI systems. Public benefit and responsible innovation remain a separate part of the assessment. Each sub-criterion is scored through ordered anchors and tied to the provision that supports the judgment. The protocol also records the source search, missing evidence, included instruments and cutoff date. The result is a traceable comparison of policy content that keeps category differences visible. It evaluates what a portfolio provides on paper. It does not estimate enforcement success or policy outcomes.
