Research / Sources
Research preprints from the scientific community. arxiv.org
Proposes five transparency indicators frontier developers should disclose to preserve chain-of-thought monitorability, and audits Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google DeepMind disclosures against them, finding no developer covers the full set.
Proposes 5G CATS, a 5G-based location certification system that verifies where AI accelerators operate to support export-control enforcement, and reports simulated results against relay attacks.
Proposes double-blind AI safety evals using secure enclaves so evaluators keep prompts secret and model owners keep weights private, piloted on a Gemini model with the AILuminate benchmark.
Introduces ScrapeBench, an agentic benchmark showing AI agents mostly ignore website scraping prohibitions (ToS and robots.txt) while often over-refusing lawful scraping.
Reviews open problems in evaluating general-purpose chatbots for mental-health risks like sycophancy and delusion reinforcement, and argues for real-world data access and evidence-based policy.
Introduces BMMS, a policy-conditioned suite that scores LLM compliance with published rulebooks, with an attribution-based admission test; finds GPT-4o fails 70.7% of its Model Spec hard constraints versus 0% and 9.1% for Claude models.
Proposes the PAAI framework for who controls AI evaluation infrastructure and independence, applying it to African evaluation projects and AI Safety Institute joint testing, finding participation alone doesn't confer authority.
Tests GPT-4o configurations classifying UK PMQs, finding accuracy hides label instability, and analyses UK/EU policy documents to argue public bodies need checks beyond aggregate accuracy.
Proposes a taxonomy-driven two-agent framework that extracts technical gaps from AI Act compliance questionnaires and ranks remediation actions, outperforming baselines on gap-type F1 and remediation P@5.
Reviews twelve agent benchmarks for ethical coverage, then proposes the EEFA framework with five ethical dimensions, a validation protocol, and mappings to the EU AI Act and NIST AI RMF.
Interviews with 37 experts reconstruct how frontier AI evaluations are expected to reduce societal risk, finding key pathways and challenges, including diminishing informativeness and companies' control over outcomes.
Proposes Agentic Process Evidence, a signed, tamper-evident attestation of AI coding agent sessions linked to outcomes, enabling policy-as-code governance and accountability in the software development lifecycle.
Analyzes documented AI harms across the human lifespan and proposes lifespan design principles and a three-tier external evaluation framework for frontier AI safety.
Codes 1331 public child-related AI incidents into a sociotechnical harm taxonomy, finding harms cluster in deployment, governance and misuse failures, so model-level evaluations are insufficient.
Proposes a delegation-contract framework for use-based AI regulation, using scoring penalties, commit-reveal audits, and error budgets to address strategic deployers who game conformance evaluations, tested on synthetic studies.
Presents VERA, an open-source dashboard that scores LLMs against measurable EU AI Act technical requirements via COMPL-AI benchmarks, and finds it cut assessment time versus raw benchmark files.
Presents AIRO and VAIR, ontologies and taxonomies for representing and documenting AI risks to support EU AI Act compliance, integrated into the Data Privacy Vocabulary.
Proposes KNOX, a TEE-based regulatory sandbox for agentic AI that checks each action against an attested policy manifest, catching deviations such as prompt injection, with under 1% overhead.
Proposes detecting large AI training runs from datacentre power draw via Viterbi tracking of iteration cadence, showing it is robust to most operator hiding strategies and useful for compute verification under AI governance agreements.
Systematically assesses 19 empirical studies on whether agentic general-purpose AI shows loss-of-control properties like strategic deception and autonomous replication, finding only weakly plausible evidence with widespread validity gaps.
Applies the Information Flow Methodology to model EU AI Act compliance for a recruitment AI tool, showing how it exposes risk pathways and responsibility gaps beyond checklist assessments.
Proposes comprehension audits, in which responsible humans must demonstrate understanding of AI-written R&D contributions before development continues, and finds code output rising while human review of it falls.
Proposes confining self-evolving LLM agents in credit pipelines to the runtime harness with a hash-chained admission gate, showing in simulation it blocks harmful changes that an unbounded check admits, and maps this to EU AI Act provisions.
Proposes constitution-guided watermarking, where natural-language rules set per-request watermark configurations routed by a monitor to meet EU AI Act-style marking requirements, evaluated with the KGW watermark.”
Derives a bound on how much hidden computation power-draw measurements can exclude for frontier AI compute agreements, finding analogue channels alone weak but useful when combined with re-execution.
Proposes that claims about AI agents must name policy, scope, settling records and recorder to be auditable, with formal impossibility results and a claim-check table tied to NIST, IETF and OWASP drafts.
Shows LLMs cannot reliably tell which regulatory rules a fixed check can settle, and proposes CoVer, a gate that admits only predicates whose synthesized checks survive intervention.
Presents an open-source framework and architecture for technical testing infrastructure in EU AI Act regulatory sandboxes, with a pilot in a live engagement supporting high-risk system assessment.
Presents a Semantic Web knowledge graph consolidating incident and legal evidence to support EU AI Act fundamental rights impact assessments for high-risk employment and public-service AI; LLM classification performed poorly on the employment domain.
Audits how Instagram, TikTok, X and YouTube label AI and deepfake content under EU law, finding that only 33% of expert-identified systemic-risk deepfakes carried a platform label.
Designs and describes a collaborative tool for stakeholders to make sense of AI assessment within AI regulatory sandboxes, without qualitative evaluation yet.
Adapts reliability engineering methods such as FMEA, accelerated testing, and field monitoring to AI systems, with a four-level failure taxonomy covering agentic conduct and governance, and NIST RMF alignment.
Proposes an AI safety framework where worker agents are bound by contracts enforced by monitor agents and judges, with asymmetric resources, and empirically measures statistical safety guarantees.
Introduces Evolutionary Safety, a taxonomy and framework for how safety properties persist or degrade through recursive self-improvement, with risk evaluation and governance principles for controlling and verifying updates.
Presents an open pipeline and dashboard that scores frontier models on EU GPAI systemic-risk categories using 19 benchmarks, finding worst-case scores 14-37 points lower than averages.
Argues frontier AI developers should host embedded third-party assessments with employee-like internal access, covering internal agent monitoring, security controls, and alignment, and examines design questions for them.
Proposes a formal convex-space representation of configurations across populations of AI systems to support governance, identity tracking and monitoring of changes, illustrated with healthcare and recruitment AI deployments.
Argues African fintech AI regulation lacks pre-deployment evaluation requirements, tests six commercial LLMs with a Nigerian-focused kit that finds fraud-script generation under framing and false positives on legitimate bank messages, and proposes a regulatory framework.
Proposes Trustworthiness as a Service, a reference model and evidence envelope for verifying delegated agent actions across organizational boundaries, with an evaluation protocol proposal, without treating producer claims as ground truth.
Legal-governance article arguing AI stop mechanisms are institutional, coding about 1,400 incidents to find most lack a stop, and proposing reforms for agentic AI interruptibility.