Academic

Defining AI Models and AI Systems: A Framework to Resolve the Boundary Problem

arXiv:2603.10023v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Emerging AI regulations assign distinct obligations to different actors along the AI value chain (e.g., the EU AI Act distinguishes providers and deployers for both AI models and AI systems), yet the foundational terms "AI model" and "AI system" lack clear, consistent definitions. Through a systematic review of 896 academic papers and a manual review of over 80 regulatory, standards, and technical or policy documents, we analyze existing definitions from multiple conceptual perspectives. We then trace definitional lineages and paradigm shifts over time, finding that most standards and regulatory definitions derive from the OECD's frameworks, which evolved in ways that compounded rather than resolved conceptual ambiguities. The ambiguity of the boundary between an AI model and an AI system creates practical difficulties in determining obligations for different actors, and raises questions on whether certain modifications performed are s

arXiv:2603.10023v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Emerging AI regulations assign distinct obligations to different actors along the AI value chain (e.g., the EU AI Act distinguishes providers and deployers for both AI models and AI systems), yet the foundational terms "AI model" and "AI system" lack clear, consistent definitions. Through a systematic review of 896 academic papers and a manual review of over 80 regulatory, standards, and technical or policy documents, we analyze existing definitions from multiple conceptual perspectives. We then trace definitional lineages and paradigm shifts over time, finding that most standards and regulatory definitions derive from the OECD's frameworks, which evolved in ways that compounded rather than resolved conceptual ambiguities. The ambiguity of the boundary between an AI model and an AI system creates practical difficulties in determining obligations for different actors, and raises questions on whether certain modifications performed are specific to the model as opposed to the non-model system components. We propose conceptual definitions grounded in the nature of models and systems and the relationship between them, then develop operational definitions for contemporary neural network-based machine-learning AI: models consist of trained parameters and architecture, while systems consist of the model plus additional components including an interface for processing inputs and outputs. Finally, we discuss implications for regulatory implementation and examine how our definitions contribute to resolving ambiguities in allocating responsibilities across the AI value chain, in both theoretical scenarios and case studies involving real-world incidents.

Executive Summary

The article addresses a critical gap in AI governance by identifying the persistent ambiguity between 'AI model' and 'AI system'—a gap that undermines consistent allocation of regulatory obligations under evolving frameworks like the EU AI Act. Through a systematic review of 896 academic papers and over 80 regulatory documents, the authors uncover that definitions across standards and policies stem from the OECD’s evolving framework, which has inadvertently compounded rather than resolved conceptual ambiguities. The authors propose a novel conceptual distinction: models as trained parameters and architecture, systems as models plus interface components for input/output processing. These definitions, grounded in the ontological relationship between models and systems, offer a pragmatic resolution to allocation challenges in both theoretical and real-world contexts. This work fills a significant void in AI legal scholarship and supports more precise regulatory implementation.

Key Points

  • Ambiguity between 'model' and 'system' hampers regulatory compliance
  • Existing definitions stem from OECD frameworks that compounded ambiguities
  • Authors propose ontological definitions: models as parameters/architecture; systems as models + interface

Merits

Conceptual Clarity

The authors provide a clear, ontological distinction between models and systems that aligns with both technical and legal logic, offering a foundational tool for regulatory drafting.

Empirical Foundation

The study is built on a rigorous, large-scale review of academic literature and regulatory documents, lending credibility and depth to the proposed definitions.

Demerits

Limited Scope

The definitions are tailored to contemporary neural network-based machine learning; applicability to other AI paradigms (e.g., symbolic AI, hybrid models) remains unaddressed.

Implementation Gap

While definitions are proposed, the article does not provide concrete templates or guidance for regulatory bodies to operationalize them in existing frameworks.

Expert Commentary

This article represents a pivotal contribution to AI law and governance. The authors recognize that regulatory ambiguity is not merely a semantic issue—it has tangible legal consequences: determining liability, compliance, and accountability hinges on precise definitions. Their choice to anchor definitions in ontological distinctions—models as the brain, systems as the body—is both elegant and empirically justified. Moreover, by tracing the lineage of definitions through the OECD’s evolution, they expose a systemic flaw in policy development: the tendency to replicate frameworks without critical scrutiny. The operational definitions offered are not merely academic; they have direct utility in legal drafting and compliance auditing. This work should be cited in every subsequent regulatory consultation on AI definitions. It bridges the gap between legal abstraction and technical reality, and its influence will extend beyond academia into the drafting rooms of global regulators.

Recommendations

  • Regulatory agencies should incorporate the conceptual definitions into draft AI acts and provide explanatory annexes for legal practitioners.
  • Academic journals and policy forums should adopt the authors’ framework as a baseline reference for future discussions on AI definitions.

Sources