arXiv subjects

Omer Nevo

Publications and source records attributed to Omer Nevo.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

AI Security Priorities: A Field-Wide Agenda

As AI systems are rapidly integrated into critical economic, governmental, and national security functions, the gap between AI adoption and AI security readiness continues to widen. This paper presents a prioritized agenda for advancing AI security, informed by structured interviews with leaders across industry, government, and civil society, and refined through a multi-sector expert workshop. Participants identified and ranked the highest-importance and most cost-effective areas where progress could strengthen AI security - from protecting frontier AI systems and their underlying infrastructure to improving cybersecurity practices as AI reshapes the threat landscape. The resulting priorities are organized across four themes: establishing strategic foundations and policy frameworks; advancing public-private coordination and institutional infrastructure; advancing technical security engineering and assurance; and governing agentic AI under adversarial pressure. For each priority area, expert authors provide detailed analyses that define the problem, assess the current landscape, and identify actionable projects that stakeholders across sectors can pursue. The paper aims to serve as an initial practical foundation for coordinated investment and action across the AI security field. It is designed to serve both current practitioners and individuals and organizations looking to enter the field by identifying concrete, high-impact contributions suited to a range of strengths and capacities.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

A Content-Based Framework for Cybersecurity Refusal Decisions in Large Language Models

Large language models and LLM-based agents are increasingly used for cybersecurity tasks that are inherently dual-use. Existing approaches to refusal, spanning academic policy frameworks and commercially deployed systems, often rely on broad topic-based bans or offensive-focused taxonomies. As a result, they can yield inconsistent decisions, over-restrict legitimate defenders, and behave brittlely under obfuscation or request segmentation. We argue that effective refusal requires explicitly modeling the trade-off between offensive risk and defensive benefit, rather than relying solely on intent or offensive classification. In this paper, we introduce a content-based framework for designing and auditing cyber refusal policies that makes offense-defense tradeoffs explicit. The framework characterizes requests along five dimensions: Offensive Action Contribution, Offensive Risk, Technical Complexity, Defensive Benefit, and Expected Frequency for Legitimate Users, grounded in the technical substance of the request rather than stated intent. We demonstrate that this content-grounded approach resolves inconsistencies in current frontier model behavior and allows organizations to construct tunable, risk-aware refusal policies.

cs.CL↗

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

Leveraging LLM Inconsistency to Boost Pass@k Performance

Large language models (LLMs) achieve impressive abilities in numerous domains, but exhibit inconsistent performance in response to minor input changes. Rather than view this as a drawback, in this paper we introduce a novel method for leveraging models' inconsistency to boost Pass@k performance. Specifically, we present a "Variator" agent that generates k variants of a given task and submits one candidate solution for each one. Our variant generation approach is applicable to a wide range of domains as it is task agnostic and compatible with free-form inputs. We demonstrate the efficacy of our agent theoretically using a probabilistic model of the inconsistency effect, and show empirically that it outperforms the baseline on the APPS dataset. Furthermore, we establish that inconsistency persists even in frontier reasoning models across coding and cybersecurity domains, suggesting our method is likely to remain relevant for future model generations.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

What Makes an Evaluation Useful? Common Pitfalls and Best Practices

Following the rapid increase in Artificial Intelligence (AI) capabilities in recent years, the AI community has voiced concerns regarding possible safety risks. To support decision-making on the safe use and development of AI systems, there is a growing need for high-quality evaluations of dangerous model capabilities. While several attempts to provide such evaluations have been made, a clear definition of what constitutes a "good evaluation" has yet to be agreed upon. In this practitioners' perspective paper, we present a set of best practices for safety evaluations, drawing on prior work in model evaluation and illustrated through cybersecurity examples. We first discuss the steps of the initial thought process, which connects threat modeling to evaluation design. Then, we provide the characteristics and parameters that make an evaluation useful. Finally, we address additional considerations as we move from building specific evaluations to building a full and comprehensive evaluation suite.

cs.LG↗