arXiv subjects

Malcolm Murray

Publications and source records attributed to Malcolm Murray.

15 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Open Problems in AI Risk Modeling: Insights from a Workshop on the Technical Foundations of AI Risk Modeling

We investigate the design of robust risk models to assess societal risks posed by advanced AI systems, an emerging area in AI governance. Many regulatory proposals increasingly require systemic risk assessment, but in the absence of rigorous quantitative methods, the question remains what state of the art risk modeling should look like in practice. We identify the key methodological and institutional challenges that currently limit the adoption of risk modeling. We review five research traditions that inform this problem: probabilistic risk assessment, catastrophic AI risk analysis, cybersecurity risk quantification, Bayesian causal inference, and threshold-based governance. We compare two leading proposals, scenario-based risk estimation and Bayesian network-based threshold setting. Drawing on a workshop with 22 experts and subsequent analysis, we identify a structured agenda of open questions concerning model structure, scope, evidence integration, validation, and governance. We close by outlining priorities for progress, arguing that it will depend on integrating quantitative modeling with independent evaluation, transparent and tiered disclosure, and institutions capable of maintaining and updating risk models over time.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

The 2026 Singapore Consensus on Global AI Safety Research Priorities

Frontier AI capabilities and autonomy are advancing rapidly. A growing number of real-world incidents make a trusted AI ecosystem essential to embracing AI with confidence. The 2026 Singapore Consensus is an outcome of the second International Scientific Exchange on AI Safety, bringing together over 100 contributors spanning 13 countries from frontier developers, government safety institutes, academia, and civil society. Building on the 2025 report, it presents a global understanding of technical AI safety research problems of top priority, now with a dedicated focus on societal resilience and on managing the risks of increasingly autonomous AI agents.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Open Problems in Frontier AI Risk Management

Frontier AI both amplifies existing risks and introduces qualitatively novel challenges. Not only is there a notable lack of stable scientific consensus resulting from the rapid pace of technological change, but emerging frontier AI safety practices are often misaligned with, or may undermine, established risk management frameworks. To address these challenges, we systematically surface open problems in frontier AI risk management. Adopting a problem-oriented approach, we examine each stage of the risk management process - risk planning, identification, analysis, evaluation, and mitigation - through a structured review of the literature, identifying unresolved challenges and the actors best positioned to address them. Recognising that different types of open problems call for different responses, we classify open problems according to whether they reflect (a) a lack of scientific or technical consensus, (b) misalignment with, or challenges to, established risk management frameworks, or (c) shortcomings in implementation despite apparent consensus and alignment. By mapping these open problems and identifying the actors best positioned to address them - including developers, deployers, regulators, standards bodies, researchers, and third-party evaluators - this work aims to clarify where progress is needed to enable robust and meaningful consensus on frontier AI risk management.The paper does not propose specific solutions; instead, it provides a problem-oriented, agenda-setting reference document, complemented by a living online repository, intended to support coordination, reduce duplication, and guide future research and governance efforts.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

International AI Safety Report 2026

The International AI Safety Report 2026 synthesises the current scientific evidence on the capabilities, emerging risks, and safety of general-purpose AI systems. The report series was mandated by the nations attending the AI Safety Summit in Bletchley, UK. 29 nations, the UN, the OECD, and the EU each nominated a representative to the report's Expert Advisory Panel. Over 100 AI experts contributed, representing diverse perspectives and disciplines. Led by the Report's Chair, these independent experts collectively had full discretion over the report's content.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

The science and practice of proportionality in AI risk evaluations

A global challenge in artificial intelligence (AI) regulation lies in achieving effective risk management without compromising innovation and technical progress. The European Union (EU) Artificial Intelligence Act represents the first regulatory attempt worldwide to navigate this tension in the form of a binding, risk-based framework. In August 2025, obligations for providers of general-purpose AI (GPAI) models under the EU AI Act entered into application. They require providers of the most advanced GPAI models to evaluate possible systemic risks stemming from their models. This raises the regulatory challenge of ensuring that the evaluations provide meaningful risk information without imposing excessive burden on providers. The principle of proportionality, a binding requirement under EU law, requires the regulator to calibrate its actions to their intended objectives. The application of proportionality to model evaluations for AI risk opens opportunities to develop scientific methods that operationalize such calibration within concrete evaluation practices.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Frontier AI Auditing: Toward Rigorous Third-Party Assessment of Safety and Security Practices at Leading AI Companies

We outline a vision for frontier AI auditing, which we define as rigorous third-party verification of frontier AI developers' safety and security claims, and evaluation of their systems and practices against relevant standards, based on deep, secure access to non-public information. Frontier AI audits should not be limited to a company's publicly deployed products, but should instead consider the full range of organization-level safety and security risks, including internal deployment of AI systems, information security practices, and safety decision-making processes. We describe four AI Assurance Levels (AALs), the higher levels of which provide greater confidence in audit findings. We recommend AAL-1 as a baseline for frontier AI generally, and AAL-2 as a near-term goal for the most advanced subset of frontier AI developers. Achieving the vision we outline will require (1) ensuring high quality standards for frontier AI auditing, so it does not devolve into a checkbox exercise or lag behind changes in the industry; (2) growing the ecosystem of audit providers at a rapid pace without compromising quality; (3) accelerating adoption of frontier AI auditing by clarifying and strengthening incentives; and (4) achieving technical readiness for high AI Assurance Levels so they can be applied when needed.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

The Role of Risk Modeling in Advanced AI Risk Management

Rapidly advancing artificial intelligence (AI) systems introduce novel, uncertain, and potentially catastrophic risks. Managing these risks requires a mature risk-management infrastructure whose cornerstone is rigorous risk modeling. We conceptualize AI risk modeling as the tight integration of (i) scenario building$-$causal mapping from hazards to harms$-$and (ii) risk estimation$-$quantifying the likelihood and severity of each pathway. We review classical techniques such as Fault and Event Tree Analyses, FMEA/FMECA, STPA and Bayesian networks, and show how they can be adapted to advanced AI. A survey of emerging academic and industry efforts reveals fragmentation: capability benchmarks, safety cases, and partial quantitative studies are valuable but insufficient when divorced from comprehensive causal scenarios. Comparing the nuclear, aviation, cybersecurity, financial, and submarine domains, we observe that every sector combines deterministic guarantees for unacceptable events with probabilistic assessments of the broader risk landscape. We argue that advanced-AI governance should adopt a similar dual approach and that verifiable, provably-safe AI architectures are urgently needed to supply deterministic evidence where current models are the result of opaque end-to-end optimization procedures rather than specified by hand. In one potential governance-ready framework, developers conduct iterative risk modeling and regulators compare the results with predefined societal risk tolerance thresholds. The paper provides both a methodological blueprint and opens a discussion on the best way to embed sound risk modeling at the heart of advanced-AI risk management.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

A Methodology for Quantitative AI Risk Modeling

Although general-purpose AI systems offer transformational opportunities in science and industry, they simultaneously raise critical concerns about safety, misuse, and potential loss of control. Despite these risks, methods for assessing and managing them remain underdeveloped. Effective risk management requires systematic modeling to characterize potential harms, as emphasized in frameworks such as the EU General-Purpose AI Code of Practice. This paper advances the risk modeling component of AI risk management by introducing a methodology that integrates scenario building with quantitative risk estimation, drawing on established approaches from other high-risk industries. Our methodology models risks through a six-step process: (1) defining risk scenarios, (2) decomposing them into quantifiable parameters, (3) quantifying baseline risk without AI models, (4) identifying key risk indicators such as benchmarks, (5) mapping these indicators to model parameters to estimate LLM uplift, and (6) aggregating individual parameters into risk estimates that enable concrete claims (e.g., X% probability of >\$Y in annual cyber damages). We examine the choices that underlie our methodology throughout the article, with discussions of strengths, limitations, and implications for future research. Our methodology is designed to be applicable to key systemic AI risks, including cyber offense, biological weapon development, harmful manipulation, and loss-of-control, and is validated through extensive application in LLM-enabled cyber offense. Detailed empirical results and cyber-specific insights are presented in a companion paper.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Toward Quantitative Modeling of Cybersecurity Risks Due to AI Misuse

Advanced AI systems offer substantial benefits but also introduce risks. In 2025, AI-enabled cyber offense has emerged as a concrete example. This technical report applies a quantitative risk modeling methodology (described in full in a companion paper) to this domain. We develop nine detailed cyber risk models that allow analyzing AI uplift as a function of AI benchmark performance. Each model decomposes attacks into steps using the MITRE ATT&CK framework and estimates how AI affects the number of attackers, attack frequency, probability of success, and resulting harm to determine different types of uplift. To produce these estimates with associated uncertainty, we employ both human experts, via a Delphi study, as well as LLM-based simulated experts, both mapping benchmark scores (from Cybench and BountyBench) to risk model factors. Individual estimates are aggregated through Monte Carlo simulation. The results indicate systematic uplift in attack efficacy, speed, and target reach, with different mechanisms of uplift across risk models. We aim for our quantitative risk modeling to fulfill several aims: to help cybersecurity teams prioritize mitigations, AI evaluators design benchmarks, AI developers make more informed deployment decisions, and policymakers obtain information to set risk thresholds. Similar goals drove the shift from qualitative to quantitative assessment over time in other high-risk industries, such as nuclear power. We propose this methodology and initial application attempt as a step in that direction for AI risk management. While our estimates carry significant uncertainty, publishing detailed quantified results can enable experts to pinpoint exactly where they disagree. This helps to collectively refine estimates, something that cannot be done with qualitative assessments alone.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Evaluating AI Providers' Frontier Safety Frameworks

Following the AI Seoul Summit in 2024, twelve AI companies published frontier AI safety frameworks (Frameworks) outlining their approaches to managing catastrophic risks from advanced AI systems. Emerging legislation increasingly treats these Frameworks as external accountability mechanisms, incorporating them into reporting requirements. But what do the Frameworks actually commit each company to do? This study assesses 12 Frameworks, using 65 weighted criteria, across four dimensions: risk identification, risk analysis \& evaluation, risk treatment, and risk governance. Our criteria adapt established risk management principles from other high-risk industries (e.g. aviation, nuclear power) to the frontier AI context, following Campos et al. (2025). Overall scores range from 34% (Anthropic) to 8% (Cohere), with a median of 18%. Many aspects are missing or under-specified. These low scores may be natural given the nascency of AI risk management compared to industries with decades of practice. Nonetheless, current Frameworks are limited as accountability functions, with vague commitments that make it difficult to predict company decisions, assess whether planned responses are adequate, or determine whether commitments have been kept. Still, higher scores appear feasible within current constraints: a company adopting all leading practices currently adopted across their peers would score 54%, which is triple the current median.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

International AI Safety Report 2025: Second Key Update: Technical Safeguards and Risk Management

This second update to the 2025 International AI Safety Report assesses new developments in general-purpose AI risk management over the past year. It examines how researchers, public institutions, and AI developers are approaching risk management for general-purpose AI. In recent months, for example, three leading AI developers applied enhanced safeguards to their new models, as their internal pre-deployment testing could not rule out the possibility that these models could be misused to help create biological weapons. Beyond specific precautionary measures, there have been a range of other advances in techniques for making AI models and systems more reliable and resistant to misuse. These include new approaches in adversarial training, data curation, and monitoring systems. In parallel, institutional frameworks that operationalise and formalise these technical capabilities are starting to emerge: the number of companies publishing Frontier AI Safety Frameworks more than doubled in 2025, and governments and international organisations have established a small number of governance frameworks for general-purpose AI, focusing largely on transparency and risk assessment.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

International AI Safety Report 2025: First Key Update: Capabilities and Risk Implications

Since the publication of the first International AI Safety Report, AI capabilities have continued to improve across key domains. New training techniques that teach AI systems to reason step-by-step and inference-time enhancements have primarily driven these advances, rather than simply training larger models. As a result, general-purpose AI systems can solve more complex problems in a range of domains, from scientific research to software development. Their performance on benchmarks that measure performance in coding, mathematics, and answering expert-level science questions has continued to improve, though reliability challenges persist, with systems excelling on some tasks while failing completely on others. These capability improvements also have implications for multiple risks, including risks from biological weapons and cyber attacks. Finally, they pose new challenges for monitoring and controllability. This update examines how AI capabilities have improved since the first Report, then focuses on key risk areas where substantial new evidence warrants updated assessments.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Third-party compliance reviews for frontier AI safety frameworks

Safety frameworks have emerged as a best practice for managing risks from frontier artificial intelligence (AI) systems. However, it may be difficult for stakeholders to know if companies are adhering to their frameworks. This paper explores a potential solution: third-party compliance reviews. During a third-party compliance review, an independent external party assesses whether a frontier AI company is complying with its safety framework. First, we discuss the main benefits and challenges of such reviews. On the one hand, they can increase compliance with safety frameworks and provide assurance to internal and external stakeholders. On the other hand, they can create information security risks, impose additional cost burdens, and cause reputational damage, but these challenges can be partially mitigated by drawing on best practices from other industries. Next, we answer practical questions about third-party compliance reviews, namely: (1) Who could conduct the review? (2) What information sources could the reviewer consider? (3) How could compliance with the safety framework be assessed? (4) What information about the review could be disclosed externally? (5) How could the findings guide development and deployment actions? (6) When could the reviews be conducted? For each question, we evaluate a set of plausible options. Finally, we suggest "minimalist", "more ambitious", and "comprehensive" approaches for each question that a frontier AI company could adopt.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Mapping AI Benchmark Data to Quantitative Risk Estimates Through Expert Elicitation

The literature and multiple experts point to many potential risks from large language models (LLMs), but there are still very few direct measurements of the actual harms posed. AI risk assessment has so far focused on measuring the models' capabilities, but the capabilities of models are only indicators of risk, not measures of risk. Better modeling and quantification of AI risk scenarios can help bridge this disconnect and link the capabilities of LLMs to tangible real-world harm. This paper makes an early contribution to this field by demonstrating how existing AI benchmarks can be used to facilitate the creation of risk estimates. We describe the results of a pilot study in which experts use information from Cybench, an AI benchmark, to generate probability estimates. We show that the methodology seems promising for this purpose, while noting improvements that can be made to further strengthen its application in quantitative AI risk assessment.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

A Frontier AI Risk Management Framework: Bridging the Gap Between Current AI Practices and Established Risk Management

The recent development of powerful AI systems has highlighted the need for robust risk management frameworks in the AI industry. Although companies have begun to implement safety frameworks, current approaches often lack the systematic rigor found in other high-risk industries. This paper presents a comprehensive risk management framework for the development of frontier AI that bridges this gap by integrating established risk management principles with emerging AI-specific practices. The framework consists of four key components: (1) risk identification (through literature review, open-ended red-teaming, and risk modeling), (2) risk analysis and evaluation using quantitative metrics and clearly defined thresholds, (3) risk treatment through mitigation measures such as containment, deployment controls, and assurance processes, and (4) risk governance establishing clear organizational structures and accountability. Drawing from best practices in mature industries such as aviation or nuclear power, while accounting for AI's unique challenges, this framework provides AI developers with actionable guidelines for implementing robust risk management. The paper details how each component should be implemented throughout the life-cycle of the AI system - from planning through deployment - and emphasizes the importance and feasibility of conducting risk management work prior to the final training run to minimize the burden associated with it.

cs.AI↗