arXiv subjects

Jessica Newman

Publications and source records attributed to Jessica Newman.

14 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Positional Properties in Temporal Logic

We study positional properties in the context of game-based reactive synthesis. Our motivation stems from having a usable specification logic, for which tractable synthesis is guaranteed. We demonstrate that every $\omega$-regular positional property (with respect to state- or edge-labelled game graphs), is expressible in linear-time temporal logic. Additionally, we provide some necessary and sufficient conditions for when an $\omega$-regular property is positional, and identify well-behaved subclasses of $\omega$-regular positional properties. Using varieties of languages, we prove that no class of $\omega$-regular positional properties can simultaneously contain a prefix-independent property and be closed under Boolean operations. We conclude by discussing the implications on alternating-time temporal logic, where we isolate a few different fragments with tractable model checking, and compare the associated expressivity of such fragments.

cs.LO↗

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

Toward Risk Thresholds for AI-Enabled Cyber Threats: Enhancing Decision-Making Under Uncertainty with Bayesian Networks

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being used to augment and automate cyber operations, altering the scale, speed, and accessibility of malicious activity. These shifts raise urgent questions about when AI systems introduce unacceptable or intolerable cyber risk, and how risk thresholds should be identified before harms materialize at scale. In recent years, industry, government, and civil society actors have begun to articulate such thresholds for advanced AI systems, with the goal of signaling when models meaningfully amplify cyber threats, for example, by automating multi-stage intrusions, enabling zero-day discovery, or lowering the expertise required for sophisticated attacks. However, current approaches to determine these thresholds remain fragmented and limited. Many thresholds rely solely on capability benchmarks or narrow threat scenarios, and are weakly connected to empirical evidence. This paper proposes a structured approach to developing and evaluating AI cyber risk thresholds that is probabilistic, evidence-based, and operationalizable. In this paper we make three core contributions that build on our prior work that highlights the limitations of relying solely on capability assessments. First, we analyze existing industry cyber thresholds and identify common threshold elements as well as recurring methodological shortcomings. Second, we propose the use of Bayesian networks as a tool for modeling AI-enabled cyber risk, enabling the integration of heterogeneous evidence, explicit representation of uncertainty, and continuous updating as new information emerges. Third, we illustrate this approach through a focused case study on AI-augmented phishing, demonstrating how qualitative threat insights can be decomposed into measurable variables and recombined into structured risk estimates that better capture how AI changes attacker behavior and outcomes.

cs.CR↗

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

AI Risk-Management Standards Profile for General-Purpose AI (GPAI) and Foundation Models

Increasingly multi-purpose AI models, such as cutting-edge large language models or other 'general-purpose AI' (GPAI) models, 'foundation models,' generative AI models, and 'frontier models' (typically all referred to hereafter with the umbrella term 'GPAI/foundation models' except where greater specificity is needed), can provide many beneficial capabilities but also risks of adverse events with profound consequences. This document provides risk-management practices or controls for identifying, analyzing, and mitigating risks of GPAI/foundation models. We intend this document primarily for developers of large-scale, state-of-the-art GPAI/foundation models; others that can benefit from this guidance include downstream developers of end-use applications that build on a GPAI/foundation model. This document facilitates conformity with or use of leading AI risk management-related standards, adapting and building on the generic voluntary guidance in the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and ISO/IEC 23894, with a focus on the unique issues faced by developers of GPAI/foundation models.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Intolerable Risk Threshold Recommendations for Artificial Intelligence

Frontier AI models -- highly capable foundation models at the cutting edge of AI development -- may pose severe risks to public safety, human rights, economic stability, and societal value in the coming years. These risks could arise from deliberate adversarial misuse, system failures, unintended cascading effects, or simultaneous failures across multiple models. In response to such risks, at the AI Seoul Summit in May 2024, 16 global AI industry organizations signed the Frontier AI Safety Commitments, and 27 nations and the EU issued a declaration on their intent to define these thresholds. To fulfill these commitments, organizations must determine and disclose ``thresholds at which severe risks posed by a model or system, unless adequately mitigated, would be deemed intolerable.'' To assist in setting and operationalizing intolerable risk thresholds, we outline key principles and considerations; for example, to aim for ``good, not perfect'' thresholds in the face of limited data on rapidly advancing AI capabilities and consequently evolving risks. We also propose specific threshold recommendations, including some detailed case studies, for a subset of risks across eight risk categories: (1) Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Weapons, (2) Cyber Attacks, (3) Model Autonomy, (4) Persuasion and Manipulation, (5) Deception, (6) Toxicity, (7) Discrimination, and (8) Socioeconomic Disruption. Our goal is to serve as a starting point or supplementary resource for policymakers and industry leaders, encouraging proactive risk management that prioritizes preventing intolerable risks (ex ante) rather than merely mitigating them after they occur (ex post).

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

International AI Safety Report

The first International AI Safety Report comprehensively synthesizes the current evidence on the capabilities, risks, and safety of advanced AI systems. The report was mandated by the nations attending the AI Safety Summit in Bletchley, UK. Thirty nations, the UN, the OECD, and the EU each nominated a representative to the report's Expert Advisory Panel. A total of 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↗

arXiv2025

Guardrails versus Gatekeepers: Understanding Product Managers' Ethical Decision-Making in Generative AI

What is the role of product managers in the responsible use of generative AI (genAI) in products and everyday work -- and what enables or constrains their ability to take action? Past literature has examined the ways in which organizational policies can become decoupled from practices when incentives for responsible action are misaligned or impeded by profit motives. While the role of engineers and professional ethicists in the context of AI has been examined in detail, the role of product managers -- who are frequently portrayed as "gatekeepers" or critical decision-makers in product teams -- remains unclear. In this paper, we examine what organizational conditions promote responsible use of genAI by product managers by drawing on twenty-five interviews and a global survey of over three hundred respondents in product management-related roles. We find that uncertainty around responsible AI and a sense of diffused responsibility constrain ethical action, while leadership commitment and organizational principles enable ethical action -- making some responsible practices up to fourteen times more likely. Further, we find two sets of actions product managers take to "recouple" ethical commitments and practices. The first includes low-resource, individual actions product managers can implement without explicit organizational incentives. The second includes high-resource, collective actions that require organizational incentives. Our research suggests recoupling ethical policies and practices at the level of product teams requires institutional buy-in and higher level leadership commitment. Nevertheless, we show that individual actors are able to exhibit agency through some meaningful, low resource actions, even in the absence of organizational incentives, though this alone is insufficient to operationalize responsible AI at scale.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Open Problems in Technical AI Governance

AI progress is creating a growing range of risks and opportunities, but it is often unclear how they should be navigated. In many cases, the barriers and uncertainties faced are at least partly technical. Technical AI governance, referring to technical analysis and tools for supporting the effective governance of AI, seeks to address such challenges. It can help to (a) identify areas where intervention is needed, (b) identify and assess the efficacy of potential governance actions, and (c) enhance governance options by designing mechanisms for enforcement, incentivization, or compliance. In this paper, we explain what technical AI governance is, why it is important, and present a taxonomy and incomplete catalog of its open problems. This paper is intended as a resource for technical researchers or research funders looking to contribute to AI governance.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Securing the Future of GenAI: Policy and Technology

The rise of Generative AI (GenAI) brings about transformative potential across sectors, but its dual-use nature also amplifies risks. Governments globally are grappling with the challenge of regulating GenAI, balancing innovation against safety. China, the United States (US), and the European Union (EU) are at the forefront with initiatives like the Management of Algorithmic Recommendations, the Executive Order, and the AI Act, respectively. However, the rapid evolution of GenAI capabilities often outpaces the development of comprehensive safety measures, creating a gap between regulatory needs and technical advancements. A workshop co-organized by Google, University of Wisconsin, Madison (UW-Madison), and Stanford University aimed to bridge this gap between GenAI policy and technology. The diverse stakeholders of the GenAI space -- from the public and governments to academia and industry -- make any safety measures under consideration more complex, as both technical feasibility and regulatory guidance must be realized. This paper summarizes the discussions during the workshop which addressed questions, such as: How regulation can be designed without hindering technological progress? How technology can evolve to meet regulatory standards? The interplay between legislation and technology is a very vast topic, and we don't claim that this paper is a comprehensive treatment on this topic. This paper is meant to capture findings based on the workshop, and hopefully, can guide discussion on this topic.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Benchmark Early and Red Team Often: A Framework for Assessing and Managing Dual-Use Hazards of AI Foundation Models

A concern about cutting-edge or "frontier" AI foundation models is that an adversary may use the models for preparing chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, (CBRN), cyber, or other attacks. At least two methods can identify foundation models with potential dual-use capability; each has advantages and disadvantages: A. Open benchmarks (based on openly available questions and answers), which are low-cost but accuracy-limited by the need to omit security-sensitive details; and B. Closed red team evaluations (based on private evaluation by CBRN and cyber experts), which are higher-cost but can achieve higher accuracy by incorporating sensitive details. We propose a research and risk-management approach using a combination of methods including both open benchmarks and closed red team evaluations, in a way that leverages advantages of both methods. We recommend that one or more groups of researchers with sufficient resources and access to a range of near-frontier and frontier foundation models run a set of foundation models through dual-use capability evaluation benchmarks and red team evaluations, then analyze the resulting sets of models' scores on benchmark and red team evaluations to see how correlated those are. If, as we expect, there is substantial correlation between the dual-use potential benchmark scores and the red team evaluation scores, then implications include the following: The open benchmarks should be used frequently during foundation model development as a quick, low-cost measure of a model's dual-use potential; and if a particular model gets a high score on the dual-use potential benchmark, then more in-depth red team assessments of that model's dual-use capability should be performed. We also discuss limitations and mitigations for our approach, e.g., if model developers try to game benchmarks by including a version of benchmark test data in a model's training data.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2023

Evaluating the Social Impact of Generative AI Systems in Systems and Society

Generative AI systems across modalities, ranging from text (including code), image, audio, and video, have broad social impacts, but there is no official standard for means of evaluating those impacts or for which impacts should be evaluated. In this paper, we present a guide that moves toward a standard approach in evaluating a base generative AI system for any modality in two overarching categories: what can be evaluated in a base system independent of context and what can be evaluated in a societal context. Importantly, this refers to base systems that have no predetermined application or deployment context, including a model itself, as well as system components, such as training data. Our framework for a base system defines seven categories of social impact: bias, stereotypes, and representational harms; cultural values and sensitive content; disparate performance; privacy and data protection; financial costs; environmental costs; and data and content moderation labor costs. Suggested methods for evaluation apply to listed generative modalities and analyses of the limitations of existing evaluations serve as a starting point for necessary investment in future evaluations. We offer five overarching categories for what can be evaluated in a broader societal context, each with its own subcategories: trustworthiness and autonomy; inequality, marginalization, and violence; concentration of authority; labor and creativity; and ecosystem and environment. Each subcategory includes recommendations for mitigating harm.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2022

Actionable Guidance for High-Consequence AI Risk Management: Towards Standards Addressing AI Catastrophic Risks

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can provide many beneficial capabilities but also risks of adverse events. Some AI systems could present risks of events with very high or catastrophic consequences at societal scale. The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has been developing the NIST Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) as voluntary guidance on AI risk assessment and management for AI developers and others. For addressing risks of events with catastrophic consequences, NIST indicated a need to translate from high level principles to actionable risk management guidance. In this document, we provide detailed actionable-guidance recommendations focused on identifying and managing risks of events with very high or catastrophic consequences, intended as a risk management practices resource for NIST for AI RMF version 1.0 (released in January 2023), or for AI RMF users, or for other AI risk management guidance and standards as appropriate. We also provide our methodology for our recommendations. We provide actionable-guidance recommendations for AI RMF 1.0 on: identifying risks from potential unintended uses and misuses of AI systems; including catastrophic-risk factors within the scope of risk assessments and impact assessments; identifying and mitigating human rights harms; and reporting information on AI risk factors including catastrophic-risk factors. In addition, we provide recommendations on additional issues for a roadmap for later versions of the AI RMF or supplementary publications. These include: providing an AI RMF Profile with supplementary guidance for cutting-edge increasingly multi-purpose or general-purpose AI. We aim for this work to be a concrete risk-management practices contribution, and to stimulate constructive dialogue on how to address catastrophic risks and associated issues in AI standards.

cs.CY↗