arXiv:2607. 02201v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid deployment of AI systems across high-stakes domains has created urgent demand for standardized evaluation, yet the field remains fragmented across competing risk taxonomies that catalog risks without showing how an audit is executed.
By Gemma Galdon Clavell, Pablo Accuosto, Usman Gohar
The paper introduces a deterministic AI security risk assessment framework that transforms diverse engineering artefacts into a standardized Control ID taxonomy scored on a four‑level ordinal scale. It compiles technique‑level predicates from a fixed MITRE ATLAS snapshot, linking each control to mitigation and producing traceable feasibility and impact outputs. The framework is formally verified for boundedness, totality, consistency, and monotonicity, and is evaluated on five open‑source AI projects, showing that strengthened controls lower feasibility scores while residual risks persist when core controls are missing.
By Yixuan Huang (University of Southampton, Southampton, UK), Basel Halak (University of Southampton, Southampton, UK), Boojoong Kang (University of Southampton, Southampton, UK)
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.
By Alessio Buscemi, German Castignani, Daniele Pagani, Maxime Cordy, Jordi Cabot
arXiv:2607. 23365v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, autonomous driving, finance, and education.
By Muhammad Tukur, Hayatullahi B. Adeyemo, Tao Chen, Nour Ali, Anis Zarrad, Rick Kazman, Marco Agus, Rami Bahsoon
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.
By Jassem Manita, Aziz Amari
The paper "Operationalising AI Regulatory Sandboxes: Activities, Requirements, and Technical Assessment under the EU AI Act" outlines a detailed framework for implementing AI Regulatory Sandboxes (AIRS) under the EU AI Act. It maps the sandbox lifecycle into 29 activities, distinguishes between a Core AIRS and an Extended AIRS that includes an AI Technical Sandbox (AITS), and derives 15 infrastructural and governance requirements linked to these activities and provider obligations. The authors also introduce the Sandbox Configurator, an open‑source tool to instantiate AITS environments, aiming to provide structured workflows for regulators, robust evaluation methods for experts, and a transparent compliance pathway for AI providers.
By Alessio Buscemi, Thibault Simonetto, Daniele Pagani, German Castignani, Maxime Cordy, Jordi Cabot
The study investigates how software developers, architects, and AI practitioners select and integrate Large Language Models (LLMs) into modern software systems. Interviews with 22 professionals reveal that functional criteria—such as performance, accuracy, cost, and specific features—dominate model choice, while security concerns are rarely considered. The research highlights a pervasive neglect of established software supply‑chain security lessons, leading to vulnerabilities like malicious components, data leakage, and unintended behavior, and offers actionable recommendations for a proactive, security‑by‑design approach.
By Mahzabin Tamanna, Elizabeth Lin, Sparsha Gowda, Laurie Williams, Dominik Wermke
The paper discusses the trustworthiness of agentic AI systems built on large language models, highlighting new security and operational risks such as indirect prompt injection, memory contamination, and cross‑session data leakage. It categorizes failure modes, reviews mitigation strategies—including instruction hierarchies, context isolation, and constrained tool use—and introduces the Trustworthy Agent Development Lifecycle (TADL), a six‑phase framework for specification, design, training, evaluation, deployment, and monitoring. The authors note that TADL has not yet been empirically validated but offers a structured foundation for developing more secure and accountable agentic systems, and they call for improved benchmarks and future research priorities.
By Fayeq Jeelani Syed, Rehan Ahmad, Ali Al Bataineh, Aakriti Adhikari
arXiv:2607. 16660v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The increasing adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) as AI components in modern software systems introduces distinct security risks to the software supply chain.
By Mahzabin Tamanna, Elizabeth Lin, Sparsha Gowda, Laurie Williams, Dominik Wermke
arXiv:2608. 04921v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI systems become increasingly integrated into diverse interfaces and applications, model-centric audits are insufficient to address risks arising from interactions among system components and deployment environments.
By Leah Davis, Dominic Martin, AJung Moon
arXiv:2608. 05201v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Autonomous AI agent platforms differ substantially in architecture, security, tool integration, execution, autonomy, and deployment, yet the field lacks a common classification scheme for comparing these design choices.
By Siyuan Li, Peng Shu, Churan Yu, Peilong Wang, Ruidong Zhang, Bowen Guo, Xinliang Li, Ruiyu Yan, Arif Hassan Zidan, Yi Pan, Wei Ruan, Lifeng Chen, Junhao Chen, Zhaojun Ding, Yiwei Li, Zhengliang Liu, Haixing Dai, Lin Zhao, Yu Bao, Xiang Li, Wei Zhang, Tianming Liu
The paper systematically classifies the EU AI Act’s high‑risk requirements, finding that only a minority directly address AI‑specific risk sources while most impose organizational and documentation obligations. From these risk‑related requirements, the authors derive a consolidated list of distinct AI‑specific risk sources, creating an EU AI Act Risk Source List. This list aims to bridge the gap between legal obligations and AI risk‑management practice by providing a structured reference for comparing the Act’s implicit risk coverage with existing AI risk taxonomies.
By Ronald Schnitzer, Mike Auer, Rumpa Choudhury, Andreas Hapfelmeier, Maximilian Hoeving, Isabelle Painter, Josiane Xavier Parreira, Sonja Zillner