Research / Sources
Research preprints from the scientific community. arxiv.org
A 2026 report from China's WIC AI committee reviewing frontier AI risks, global governance practices, readiness gaps, and proposing coordinated governance mechanisms.
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.
Argues that frontier AI makes recursive self-improvement plausible, that no clear frameworks predict its outcomes, and offers a game-theoretic analysis of whether to start RSI when rivals might too.
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.
Uses Project Glasswing's restricted release of a vulnerability-finding model to show access helped firms find and fix more flaws, without evident attacker gains, but created cross-country asymmetry.
Codes public documents from 200 large companies against the MIT AI Risk Repository, finding most do not acknowledge AI risks, especially severe ones like power centralization, to inform disclosure rules.
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.
A book proposing a unified data governance framework for LLM, RAG and agentic AI systems, covering law, economics, security and AI regulation across jurisdictions, anchored in Indian law.
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.
Argues that LLM safety governance for anthropomorphic interaction should target vulnerability situations rather than vulnerable groups, proposing a five-part typology and seven principles for response calibration.
Applies contextual integrity to analyze whether major U.S. AI companies' policies on proactively referring dangerous user conversations to law enforcement are justified and transparent, finding key thresholds undisclosed.
A game-theoretic model of LLM supply chains finds downstream competition can over-invest in safety while upstream providers underinvest, and analyses how regulation changes safety levels.
Proposes a multi-tier access framework for frontier AI that ties who can obtain capabilities to risk, arguing open-weight release forfeits safety levers and safety fine-tuning can be stripped cheaply.
Argues that full value alignment of autonomous robots is theoretically and practically impossible, and proposes shifting from maximising alignment to defining conditions under which residual misalignment is acceptable, with normative requirements and a framework.
Proposes a computational reflective equilibrium scaffold for LLM agents that encodes principles, governance, and provenance, with a prompt-injection quarantine theorem and two case studies.
Argues that human control over frontier AI is lost through organisational delegation and proposes checkable measures: named accountable persons, supervisors with stop authority, and published build-versus-check clocks.
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 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.”
This paper empirically assesses 12 automated EU AI Act compliance checkers, finding they vary widely in legal coverage and actionability and may foster a false sense of compliance.
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.
Proposes ARIA, a reference architecture and research agenda for governing populations of agents in regulated finance, showing that locally compliant agents can produce discriminatory collective outcomes, with simulations and a validation agenda.
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 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.
Proposes an ex-ante governance framework (SAGE-X) for frontier AI with deterministic tripwires and a Moral Check Index, grounded in a PRISMA review of 130 empirical studies on evaluator confidence and guardrail decay.
A review of trustworthiness risks in LLM agents, covering prompt injection, memory contamination and goal misgeneralisation, plus a proposed six-phase lifecycle framework for building secure agentic systems.
Proposes a graded, three-axis independence framework for auditing agentic AI, with a protocol, formal common-cause failure model, and Monte Carlo evidence that conventional internal audits miss many faults.
Shows that LLM health answers differ across access modes such as chatbot interfaces and APIs, so API-based evaluations may not validly audit consumer experiences.
A review of AI-enabled biosecurity threats, evidence of uplift, limits of alignment transfer to biological models, interpretability for auditing removed capabilities, and defense-in-depth governance.
Analyzes how AI persuasion could undermine human control over AI development, oversight and containment, develops five scenarios, a risk-assessment blueprint, and a small expert survey showing divided opinions.
Vision paper proposing AI Deployment Accountability Engineering, a subdiscipline for continuously measuring and attributing risk in deployed AI systems in safety-critical socio-technical settings, including agentic AI.
Systematically maps the EU AI Act's high-risk requirements to AI-specific risk sources, finding only a minority address AI risks directly and derives a consolidated Risk Source List.
Proposes AGIL, a conceptual five-layer architecture for real-time enterprise AI governance, including shadow AI detection, inline policy enforcement and tamper-evident audit trails, without empirical validation.
Presents NovaFabric, a system that records autonomous agent runs into tamper-evident, replayable evidence bundles for third-party audit, reporting mixed results on replay, redaction and throughput.
Proposes a safety-by-design assurance architecture layering model-level supervision (Scientist AI), system-level controls, independent verification, monitoring, evidence infrastructure, and governance for accountability.
Argues that vendor claims about SynthID-Text watermarks under the EU AI Act cannot currently be verified, tests the open-source implementation on two models, and maps each gap to a governance requirement.
Measures how often frontier AI developers silently change their safety frameworks without disclosing material changes, finding 67% of material changes undisclosed and arguing for mandatory enumeration of revisions.