arXiv:2408. 02379v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Developing and certifying safe - or so-called trustworthy - AI has become an increasingly salient issue, especially in light of upcoming regulation such as the EU AI Act.
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.
arXiv:2502. 16184v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) establishes different legal principles for different types of AI systems.
We’ve contributed to a multi-stakeholder report by 58 co-authors at 30 organizations, including the Centre for the Future of Intelligence, Mila, Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, and Center for Security and Emerging Technologies. This report describes 10 mechanisms to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems.
The article discusses the necessity of building trust in AI for railway applications, highlighting that AI is currently limited to non‑safety critical uses due to stringent industry standards. It proposes focusing on three key areas—robustness, Operational Design Domain (ODD), and explainability—to meet compliance and safety requirements. By integrating these domains within a safe MLOps environment, the authors argue that regulatory acceptance and public confidence can be achieved, enabling broader AI adoption in mission‑critical railway systems.
arXiv:2410. 22526v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: To effectively address potential harms from Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, it is essential to identify and mitigate system-level hazards.
arXiv:2607. 14315v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In this paper, we present a comprehensive framework for assessing the explainability of various XAI methods, such as LIME and SHAP, across multiple datasets and machine learning models, with the ultimate goal of creating a unified multidimensional explainability score.
arXiv:2607. 09586v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The proliferation of agentic AI systems across enterprise and public-sector contexts has outpaced the capacity of general-purpose AI risk frameworks to classify and govern them.
arXiv:2608. 10766v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) seeks to explain how an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system arrived at a particular decision.
The paper proposes rethinking bias in AI as a diagnostic tool rather than merely a flaw to be minimized. It introduces a multidimensional framework that examines bias across origin, lifecycle emergence, technical causes, and validation methods, covering 30 bias types, 16 verification methods, and 20 countermeasures for both traditional and generative AI. The authors present a hierarchical evidence framework distinguishing internal and external validity, and advocate for Ethics by Design principles to embed bias verification throughout the AI development lifecycle.
OpenAI works with independent experts to evaluate frontier AI systems. Third-party testing strengthens safety, validates safeguards, and increases transparency in how we assess model capabilities and risks.
arXiv:2606. 09414v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This report examines practical challenges in operationalising JSP 936 Part 1 for AI assurance in UK Defence.
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.