arXiv AI
Scalable Delphi: Large Language Models for Structured Risk Estimation
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 21
SciHazard: A Benchmark for Measuring Scientific Safety Risks with Decomposed Harm Scoring
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly support science, but they can also convert hazardous scientific knowledge into actionable misuse guidance. Existing benchmarks often rely on templated queries disconnected from real-world hazards, and employ LLM-as-a-Judge paradigms without domain grounding.
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 5
Towards AI epidemiology: a measurement standardisation framework for prospective risk detection
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.
arXiv AI
Jul 22
SciHazard: A Benchmark for Measuring Scientific Safety Risks with Decomposed Harm Scoring
arXiv:2607. 18665v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly support science, but they can also convert hazardous scientific knowledge into actionable misuse guidance.
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 23
An Open Pipeline and Dashboard for Systemic-Risk Evidence under the EU AI Act's Code of Practice
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...
arXiv AI
Sep 24
An Open Pipeline and Dashboard for Systemic-Risk Evidence under the EU AI Act's Code of Practice
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.
arXiv AI
Jul 22
The safety failures we are not instrumenting: a perspective on hidden safety-critical challenges in modern AI systems
arXiv:2607. 19292v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current AI safety discourse still focuses disproportionately on visible failures, including obvious harms, dramatic misuse, and hypothetical catastrophic scenarios.