arXiv:2511. 05613v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Foundation models are increasingly central to high-stakes AI systems, and governance frameworks now depend on evaluations to assess their risks and capabilities.
arXiv:2606. 09809v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI evaluation results are produced at scale but reported inconsistently across leaderboards, model cards, benchmark papers, and company blogs.
arXiv:2607. 15480v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly impact society, ensuring their ethical and trustworthy deployment has become a global priority.
arXiv:2505. 11577v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent application programming interface (API) restrictions on major social media platforms challenge compliance with the EU Digital Services Act [20], which mandates data access for algorithmic transparency.
arXiv:2606. 19899v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This paper addresses a rapidly emerging policy challenge: how to generate and interpret credible evidence about the biological capabilities and risks of AI scientists, or agentic AI systems capable of autonomously or collaboratively performing multi-step scientific tasks.
Claims about AI safety reach audiences well beyond the AI community, yet many rely on opaque evidence or static assessments, when supporting evidence is accessible at all. We present the Systemic Risk...
The paper introduces the Systemic Risk Index, an open pipeline and dashboard that aggregates evidence from 19 public AI benchmarks into four systemic‑risk categories defined by the EU GPAI Code of Practice. It evaluates 18 models using harm‑preserving perturbations and simulated deployment contexts, offering users the ability to switch between average and worst‑case aggregation and to trace each risk rating back to its benchmark evidence. The study finds that worst‑case scores can be 14 to 37 points lower than average scores, and that LLM judges agree with human graders at a level comparable to human‑human agreement.
The paper introduces the AI Assessment Sandbox Configurator, an open‑source framework designed to support technical assessment in AI Regulatory Sandboxes (AIRS) mandated by the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. It outlines 11 architectural and governance requirements for infrastructure that enables large‑scale, structured technical testing, and presents a catalogue of tests, a shared data model, dashboards, and reporting tools that harmonise heterogeneous outputs. An early‑stage pilot demonstrated the framework’s harmonisation and reporting capabilities within a live AIRS engagement, contributing to an official Exit Report.
OpenAI shares guidance on third-party AI evaluations, covering how to assess model capabilities, safeguards, and validity for frontier systems.
arXiv:2609.23421v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Standard data center sustainability metrics, including Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE), Water Usage Effectiveness (WUE), and Carbon Usage Effectivene...
arXiv:2606. 14594v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI-assisted software development has moved from line-level autocomplete to agents that can plan changes, edit files, and submit pull requests with limited human supervision.
arXiv:2608. 11891v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Governments increasingly fund indigenous foundation models to strengthen national AI capability, digital sovereignty, and multilingual computing.
The study evaluates 684 U.S. federal AI governance documents for how they address 14 sectors and 24 AI risks, measuring both breadth and depth of coverage. It finds that risks related to robustness, system security, and governance are more frequently and substantively discussed than socioeconomic, environmental, and emerging risks, and that sectors such as public administration, national security, information, and scientific services receive higher coverage than finance and healthcare. By comparing these coverage patterns with expert vulnerability assessments, the authors identify potential gaps in AI governance that could inform future policy and industry decisions.