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.
By Avijit Ghosh, Anka Reuel, Jenny Chim, Wm. Matthew Kennedy, Srishti Yadav, Jennifer Mickel, Yanan Long, Andrew Tran, Anastassia Kornilova, Damian Stachura, Kevin Klyman, Felix Friedrich, Jeba Sania, Max Lamparth, Jan Batzner, Anoop Mishra, Eliya Habba, Yixiong Hao, Nathan Heath, Shalaleh Rismani, Usman Gohar, Andrea Loehr, David Manheim, Ruchira Dhar, Sree Harsha Nelaturu, Aarush Sinha, Leshem Choshen, Drishti Sharma, Ishan Khire, Amit Saha, Subramanyam Sahoo, Michael Hardy, Michael Alexander Riegler, Kabir Manghnani, Michelle Lin, Yanan Jiang, Yilin Huang, Asaf Yehudai, Jessica Ji, Aris Hofmann, Mubashara Akhtar, Nuno Moniz, Yacine Jernite, Stella Biderman, Zeerak Talat, Sanmi Koyejo, Mykel Kochenderfer, Irene Solaiman
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
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.
By Jacob T. Emmerson, Phuong-Anh Nguyen-Le, Ronan Romano, Wilber Sean V. Anterola, Yann Billeter, Zhijing Jin