Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2503.05731

AILuminate: Introducing v1.0 of the AI Risk and Reliability Benchmark from MLCommons

Shaona Ghosh·Heather Frase·Adina Williams·Sarah Luger·Paul Röttger·Fazl Barez·Sean McGregor·Kenneth Fricklas·Mala Kumar·Quentin Feuillade--Montixi·Kurt Bollacker·Felix Friedrich·Ryan Tsang·Bertie Vidgen·Alicia Parrish·Chris Knotz·Eleonora Presani·Jonathan Bennion·Marisa Ferrara Boston·Mike Kuniavsky·Wiebke Hutiri·James Ezick·Malek Ben Salem·Rajat Sahay·Sujata Goswami·Usman Gohar·Ben Huang·Supheakmungkol Sarin·Elie Alhajjar·Canyu Chen·Roman Eng·Kashyap Ramanandula Manjusha·Virendra Mehta·Eileen Long·Murali Emani·Natan Vidra·Benjamin Rukundo·Abolfazl Shahbazi·Kongtao Chen·Rajat Ghosh·Vithursan Thangarasa·Pierre Peigné·Abhinav Singh·Max Bartolo·Satyapriya Krishna·Mubashara Akhtar·Rafael Gold·Cody Coleman·Luis Oala·Vassil Tashev·Joseph Marvin Imperial·Amy Russ·Sasidhar Kunapuli·Nicolas Miailhe·Julien Delaunay·Bhaktipriya Radharapu·Rajat Shinde·Tuesday·Debojyoti Dutta·Declan Grabb·Ananya Gangavarapu·Saurav Sahay·Agasthya Gangavarapu·Patrick Schramowski·Stephen Singam·Tom David·Xudong Han·Priyanka Mary Mammen·Tarunima Prabhakar·Venelin Kovatchev·Rebecca Weiss·Ahmed Ahmed·Kelvin N. Manyeki·Sandeep Madireddy·Foutse Khomh·Fedor Zhdanov·Joachim Baumann·Nina Vasan·Xianjun Yang·Carlos Mougn·Jibin Rajan Varghese·Hussain Chinoy·Seshakrishna Jitendar·Manil Maskey·Claire V. Hardgrove·Tianhao Li·Aakash Gupta·Emil Joswin·Yifan Mai·Shachi H Kumar·Cigdem Patlak·Kevin Lu·Vincent Alessi·Sree Bhargavi Balija·Chenhe Gu·Robert Sullivan·James Gealy·Matt Lavrisa·James Goel·Peter Mattson
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The rapid advancement and deployment of AI systems have created an urgent need for standard safety-evaluation frameworks. This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability. Its development employed an open process that included participants from multiple fields. The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories, including violent crimes, nonviolent crimes, sex-related crimes, child sexual exploitation, indiscriminate weapons, suicide and self-harm, intellectual property, privacy, defamation, hate, sexual content, and specialized advice (election, financial, health, legal). Our method incorporates a complete assessment standard, extensive prompt datasets, a novel evaluation framework, a grading and reporting system, and the technical as well as organizational infrastructure for long-term support and evolution. In particular, the benchmark employs an understandable five-tier grading scale (Poor to Excellent) and incorporates an innovative entropy-based system-response evaluation. In addition to unveiling the benchmark, this report also identifies limitations of our method and of building safety benchmarks generally, including evaluator uncertainty and the constraints of single-turn interactions. This work represents a crucial step toward establishing global standards for AI risk and reliability evaluation while acknowledging the need for continued development in areas such as multiturn interactions, multimodal understanding, coverage of additional languages, and emerging hazard categories. Our findings provide valuable insights for model developers, system integrators, and policymakers working to promote safer AI deployment.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYcs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Shaona Ghosh, Heather Frase, Adina Williams, Sarah Luger, Paul Röttger, Fazl Barez, Sean McGregor, Kenneth Fricklas, Mala Kumar, Quentin Feuillade--Montixi, Kurt Bollacker, Felix Friedrich, Ryan Tsang, Bertie Vidgen, Alicia Parrish, Chris Knotz, Eleonora Presani, Jonathan Bennion, Marisa Ferrara Boston, Mike Kuniavsky, Wiebke Hutiri, James Ezick, Malek Ben Salem, Rajat Sahay, Sujata Goswami, Usman Gohar, Ben Huang, Supheakmungkol Sarin, Elie Alhajjar, Canyu Chen, Roman Eng, Kashyap Ramanandula Manjusha, Virendra Mehta, Eileen Long, Murali Emani, Natan Vidra, Benjamin Rukundo, Abolfazl Shahbazi, Kongtao Chen, Rajat Ghosh, Vithursan Thangarasa, Pierre Peigné, Abhinav Singh, Max Bartolo, Satyapriya Krishna, Mubashara Akhtar, Rafael Gold, Cody Coleman, Luis Oala, Vassil Tashev, Joseph Marvin Imperial, Amy Russ, Sasidhar Kunapuli, Nicolas Miailhe, Julien Delaunay, Bhaktipriya Radharapu, Rajat Shinde, Tuesday, Debojyoti Dutta, Declan Grabb, Ananya Gangavarapu, Saurav Sahay, Agasthya Gangavarapu, Patrick Schramowski, Stephen Singam, Tom David, Xudong Han, Priyanka Mary Mammen, Tarunima Prabhakar, Venelin Kovatchev, Rebecca Weiss, Ahmed Ahmed, Kelvin N. Manyeki, Sandeep Madireddy, Foutse Khomh, Fedor Zhdanov, Joachim Baumann, Nina Vasan, Xianjun Yang, Carlos Mougn, Jibin Rajan Varghese, Hussain Chinoy, Seshakrishna Jitendar, Manil Maskey, Claire V. Hardgrove, Tianhao Li, Aakash Gupta, Emil Joswin, Yifan Mai, Shachi H Kumar, Cigdem Patlak, Kevin Lu, Vincent Alessi, Sree Bhargavi Balija, Chenhe Gu, Robert Sullivan, James Gealy, Matt Lavrisa, James Goel, Peter Mattson. 2025-02-19. AILuminate: Introducing v1.0 of the AI Risk and Reliability Benchmark from MLCommons. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05731

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Work, Wellbeing, and Choice: Empirical Lessons for AI Futures

Advances in AI-driven automation have raised questions about how humans might find wellbeing in a world where paid employment is less necessary or less available than before. Paid work has been variously characterized as both a contributor and an impediment to human wellbeing. What is already known about the relationship between paid work and wellbeing? What factors influence wellbeing among people who do not work---or who do not need to work? And how might these factors bear upon prospective AI-induced economic transformations? To help provide empirical grounding for these questions, we survey the psychological, sociological, and economic literature that investigates the relationship between wellbeing and work. We draw on evidence from multiple populations, including the unemployed, retirees, lottery winners, and financially dependent spouses. This comparative review draws from studies across OECD countries, China, India, and Gulf states. We identify three key factors that mediate the relationship between work status and wellbeing: (1) agency and choice---whether the exit from work is voluntary or involuntary, as well as long-term agency; (2) the availability of alternative sources of work's latent benefits---such as volunteering, hobbies, or state-provisioned employment; and (3) social and systemic context---including cultural norms around work and the robustness of social safety nets. We draw on these three factors to derive specific implications for different AI automation scenarios, connecting the empirical evidence to concrete policy considerations.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

From Digital Accountability to Accountable Digitality Through Needs-Aware Information Systems: The Case of Auditable Child-Welfare Judgments

Digital accountability research asks how digital systems can, among other aims, be made transparent, explainable, auditable, contestable, and supportive of ongoing learning and improvement. This paper reverses the question: how can digital transformation make established human institutions more accountable? It theorizes this reversal as accountable digitality and specifies needs-aware information systems as the mediating mechanism. The hard and paradigmatic case is child-welfare judgment, where best-interest procedures must protect children, preserve confidentiality, and respect judicial independence while enabling aggregate learning about needs, reasons, exceptions, and disparities. The case is used diagnostically and illustratively to derive and examine the design logic, not as empirical evidence or validation. Conceptual design-oriented analysis decomposes and recombines digital and legal accountability under child-rights constraints, deriving a canonical theory-to-design chain, contingent mechanisms, implications, and safeguards. It advances IS responsibility and ethics research by showing how privacy-preserving, co-created, needs-aware information systems can support institutional self-knowledge and auditable justice.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

(Whose defaults?) Is artificial intelligence reorienting archaeological methods?

Generative AI and the practice of "vibe coding" are changing how archaeologists carry out computational research, but their effects on the discipline's range of methods is still understudied. In this paper, we evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) are narrowing the variety of methods archaeologists use. We first analysed approximately 119,000 archaeology abstracts from Scopus, covering publications from 2010 to 2025. Using a locally run LLM, we identified the computational methods reported in each abstract and organised them into 25 broad categories (L2) and 241 finer clusters (L3). A Bayesian Dirichlet-multinomial model of method composition within sub-disciplines found a small but credible shift in method use after 2023. However, this shift was smaller than the variation already present across the full study period. No individual technique showed a significant change, and overall methodological diversity increased rather than declined. We then ran a controlled experiment to see whether LLMs recommend a narrower set of methods than archaeologists have used in practice. Two different open-weight models were asked to suggest methods for 28 archaeological research problems, with prompts providing three levels of methodological guidance: novice, intermediate, and expert. Recommendation diversity was much lower than in the published literature, particularly without methodological guidance. The models also tended to favour methods that were widely used before 2023, and their recommendations more closely resembled the post-2023 literature. Taken together, these results are consistent with LLMs pushing methodological choice towards convergence, although our study cannot establish a causal effect. They raise a broader question: how can archaeology retain methodological diversity as LLMs become more involved in research?

cs.CY↗