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.
By Patricia Paskov, Jeffrey Lee, Kyle Brady, Alyssa Worland
arXiv:2607. 12588v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: According to the recent European legislation, high-risk AI systems will have to adapt in order to comply with requirements related to specific areas, like risk management, data quality and governance, logging and traceability, technical documentation, transparency, human oversight, and accuracy, as outlined in the European Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act.
By Anna Gatzioura, Vrettos Moulos, Nina Baranowska
arXiv:2607. 02197v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The society and emerging risk-based regulatory frameworks for AI underscore the need for rigorous risk assessment to ensure safe and reliable AI systems.
By Javier Irigoyen, Roberto Daza, Aythami Morales, Julian Fierrez, Ruben Tolosana, Ruben Vera-Rodriguez, Francisco Jurado, Alvaro Ortigosa
arXiv:2608. 11251v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Fairness in AI systems has become more important with recent regulatory demands, such as the EU AI Act.
By Ivan Luciano Danesi, Chiara Frigerio, Fabio Maccaferri, Giorgio Alessandro Motta, Pietro Zecca
arXiv:2507. 11548v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The use of publicly available generative AI systems for resume evaluation is often justified by the assumption that these tools reduce bias relative to human judgment.
By Kevin T Webster
arXiv:2601. 09753v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI science evaluation tools aim to assess research credibility.
By Carole J. Lee
Over the past decade, responsible AI (RAI) has produced a substantial body of practice for identifying and mitigating the risks AI poses in high-stakes settings. Yet this work has not produced a market that rewards trustworthiness.
arXiv:2609.14796v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: The threat that AI persuasion poses to human control has been acknowledged in the literature, but not yet systematically studied. Now that persuasion a...
By Joshua Levy, Mick Yang, Kellin Pelrine
arXiv:2603. 11001v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Human uplift studies, or studies that measure the effects of AI access on human performance via randomized controlled trials (RCT) or similar methodologies, increasingly inform frontier AI governance and deployment decisions.
By Patricia Paskov, Kevin Wei, Shen Zhou Hong, Dan Bateyko, Xavier Roberts-Gaal, Carson Ezell, Gailius Praninskas, Valerie Chen, Umang Bhatt, Ella Guest
arXiv:2512. 15783v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This paper proposes a measurement standardisation framework that compresses expert-AI interactions into structured, comparable fields for prospective risk detection in deployed AI systems, without access to model internals.
By Kit Tempest-Walters
arXiv:2607. 15992v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Over the past decade, responsible AI (RAI) has produced a substantial body of practice for identifying and mitigating the risks AI poses in high-stakes settings.
By Trisevgeni Papakonstantinou, Cansu Canca, Farah Nanji, Waheedullah Pardess, Jen Weedon, Jasmijn Remmers, Eliza Krigman, Matthew Ball, Yalda Daryani, Kiran Iqbal, Francielle Vargas, Mar\'ia Llorente S\'anchez, Joe Humphreys, Fendi Tsim, Kelly Fitzpatrick, Jeff Dunn, Catherine Feldman
arXiv:2608. 05656v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safety risks of AI are becoming increasingly evident in human interactions with AI technologies.
By Jessica Y. Bo, Paula Akemi Aoyagui, Shalaleh Rismani, Dipto Das, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Ashton Anderson