arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv · 2611.04271

From Guidelines to Practice: Defining Requirements for AI Red-Teaming Tools

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has seen significant developments and increased usage in recent years. AI benefits various tasks, automates decision-making, and enhances efficiency. However, AI also introduces additional attack surfaces for threat actors to perform attacks like prompt injection and jailbreaking, making security a great concern. AI security testing aims to imitate adversarial attacks or malicious inputs via manual testing or with the assistance of tools. Thus, it is critical that organizations are aware of the capabilities and limitations of the tools before using them. Existing studies provide insights on the overall architecture of AI security testing tools and raise concerns on their reliability, but their analysis is limited to attack performance. Selection of a tool for AI risk assessments should also depend on their alignment with the recommendations of industry standards, but to our knowledge, previous studies have not utilized such guidelines. To bridge this gap, we analyze several industry standards and guidelines to identify the requirements of AI testing tools. We discuss and highlight desirable features across various AI security testing tools for a variety of different AI systems. We evaluated six tools across six Large Language Models, reported on our insights, and identified gaps that should be considered by future tools.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gia Phong Tran, Thai Duong Huynh, Randolph Loh, Balachandar Gowrisankar, Zihao Wang, Moe Thu Kyaw, Jun Sun, Adams Wai-Kin Kong, Vrizlynn L. L. Thing. 2026-11-03. From Guidelines to Practice: Defining Requirements for AI Red-Teaming Tools. https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.04271

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AI Ethics by Design: Implementing Customizable Guardrails for Responsible AI Development

This paper explores the development of an ethical guardrail framework for AI systems, emphasizing the importance of customizable guardrails that align with diverse user values and underlying ethics. We address the challenges of AI ethics by proposing a structure that integrates rules, policies, and AI assistants to ensure responsible AI behavior, while comparing the proposed framework to the existing state-of-the-art guardrails. By focusing on practical mechanisms for implementing ethical standards, we aim to enhance transparency, user autonomy, and continuous improvement in AI systems. Our approach accommodates ethical pluralism, offering a flexible and adaptable solution for the evolving landscape of AI governance. The paper concludes with strategies for resolving conflicts between ethical directives, underscoring the present and future need for robust, nuanced and context-aware AI systems.

cs.CY↗

Matching with Choice: Menu Design for Patient--Provider Assignment

High-quality matches between patients and primary care providers improve downstream health outcomes, yet provider turnover breaks these matches and forces patients to be reassigned. Health systems facing this problem must decide not only which providers to recommend, but how much choice to offer. Direct assignment avoids competition for scarce provider capacity but relies on noisy estimates of patient preferences; broader choice allows patients to correct these estimates using private information but can create costly coordination failures. We study this tradeoff through the design of fixed, personalized menus from which patients choose providers. We show that constructing the optimal menu is NP-hard and establish an information-theoretic lower bound. We find that offering each patient a single provider matches this bound up to a constant factor, while unrestricted choice can perform arbitrarily poorly. However, we show that additional choice improves on single-provider assignment when the system cannot reliably distinguish among a patient's alternatives. We formalize this tradeoff through two forms of loss: menu loss, which arises when menus offer too few options, and coordination loss, which arises when scarce capacity is exposed to too much choice. Motivated by this decomposition, we develop the Scenario-Averaged Marginals (SAM) algorithm, which tailors menus based on provider shadow prices so choice is offered only when utility exceeds the capacity cost. We identify sufficient conditions which SAM's regret matches the lower bound, namely when patients have valuable alternatives and offered menus don't create competition for scarce capacity. In a semi-synthetic environment calibrated to a provider network using Medicare data, SAM improves total utility by up to 19% over single-provider assignment as preference uncertainty grows, while improving utility for the least-served ZIP codes.

cs.CY↗

Exploring Student Perception on Gen AI Adoption in Higher Education: A Descriptive Study

The rapid proliferation of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is reshaping pedagogical practices and assessment models in higher education. While institutional and educator perspectives on GenAI integration are increasingly documented, the student perspective remains comparatively underexplored. This study examines how students perceive, use, and evaluate GenAI within their academic practices, focusing on usage patterns, perceived benefits, and expectations for institutional support. Data were collected through a questionnaire administered to 436 postgraduate Computer Science students at the University of Hertfordshire and analysed using descriptive methods. The findings reveal a Confidence-Competence Paradox: although more than 60% of students report high familiarity with tools such as ChatGPT, daily academic use remains limited and confidence in effective application is only moderate. Students primarily employ GenAI for cognitive scaffolding tasks, including concept clarification and brainstorming, rather than fully automated content generation. At the same time, respondents express concerns regarding data privacy, reliability of AI-generated information, and the potential erosion of critical thinking skills. The results also indicate strong student support for integrating AI literacy into curricula and programme Knowledge, Skills, and Behaviours (KSBs). Overall, the study suggests that universities should move beyond a policing approach to GenAI and adopt a pedagogical framework that emphasises AI literacy, ethical guidance, and equitable access to AI tools.

cs.CY↗