arXiv subjects

Milan Gandhi

Publications and source records attributed to Milan Gandhi.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Comprehensive AI governance requires addressing non-model gains

Frontier AI governance often centres on the model-level governance paradigm, which assumes that a model's capability profile is primarily a function of the compute and data used during training. This position paper argues that model-level governance becomes less effective when capability progress is increasingly driven by "non-model gains"--improvements that are independent from advances in the base model. We formalise the concept of non-model gains and provide a taxonomy of three distinct vectors of capability gain: inference gain (scaling compute at test-time), systems gain (post-training enhancements such as scaffolds), and asset gain (enhancing a model with restricted assets). We demonstrate how these vectors--alongside potential future impacts from embodiment, continual learning, and AI diffusion--may undermine risk management strategies that hinge mostly on pre-deployment evaluation and mitigation. We provide an overview of governance approaches that go beyond the model level: system, entity, agent, and cloud governance. Finally, we emphasise the importance of societal resilience as a complement to these governance layers.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Societal Capacity Assessment Framework: Measuring Resilience to Inform Advanced AI Risk Management

Risk assessments for advanced AI systems require evaluating both the models themselves and their deployment contexts. We introduce the Societal Capacity Assessment Framework (SCAF), an indicators-based approach to measuring a society's vulnerability, coping capacity, and adaptive capacity in response to AI-related risks. SCAF adapts established resilience analysis methodologies to AI, enabling organisations to ground risk management in insights about country-level deployment conditions. It can also support stakeholders in identifying opportunities to strengthen societal preparedness for emerging AI capabilities. By bridging disparate literatures and the "context gap" in AI evaluation, SCAF promotes more holistic risk assessment and governance as advanced AI systems proliferate globally.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Who Should Run Advanced AI Evaluations -- AISIs?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Safety Institutes and governments worldwide are deciding whether they evaluate advanced AI themselves, support a private evaluation ecosystem or do both. Evaluation regimes have been established in a wide range of industry contexts to monitor and evaluate firms' compliance with regulation. Evaluation is a necessary governance tool to understand and manage the risks of a technology. This paper draws from nine such regimes to inform (i) who should evaluate which parts of advanced AI; and (ii) how much capacity public bodies may need to evaluate advanced AI effectively. First, the effective responsibility distribution between public and private evaluators depends heavily on specific industry and evaluation conditions. On the basis of advanced AI's risk profile, the sensitivity of information involved in the evaluation process, and the high costs of verifying safety and benefit claims of AI Labs, we recommend that public bodies become directly involved in safety critical, especially gray- and white-box, AI model evaluations. Governance and security audits, which are well-established in other industry contexts, as well as black-box model evaluations, may be more efficiently provided by a private market of evaluators and auditors under public oversight. Secondly, to effectively fulfil their role in advanced AI audits, public bodies need extensive access to models and facilities. AISI's capacity should scale with the industry's risk level, size and market concentration, potentially requiring 100s of employees for evaluations in large jurisdictions like the EU or US, like in nuclear safety and life sciences.

cs.CY↗