arXiv subjects

Usman Gohar

Publications and source records attributed to Usman Gohar.

18 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The Eticas AI Risk Taxonomy: Open Infrastructure for Operationalizing AI Audits

The rapid deployment of AI systems across high-stakes domains has created urgent demand for standardized evaluation, yet the field remains fragmented across competing risk taxonomies that catalog risks without showing how an audit is executed. At least 74 AI risk taxonomies exist, and almost all stop at the catalog. The hard part of auditing is not naming a risk but operationalizing it: turning it into a test run against a real system, a measured value, a calibrated severity, and a defensible grade. This paper leads with that bridge. We present the operationalization layer Eticas has built and run, shown end to end on a single risk (PII leakage) against a public benchmark, and then the open taxonomy that makes the method scale. On GPT-4-0314, a disclosure risk that seven external frameworks require be controlled is measured at 0%, 51%, and 84% disclosure as adversarial conditioning increases, mapping through calibrated severity bands to a subcategory grade of E with a SYSTEMIC pattern. Around this example, the Eticas AI Risk Taxonomy v3.0.0 organizes 70 active subcategories across 10 categories and 21 sub-groups, with mappings to 18 external frameworks across compliance, reference, and academic tiers. Its established layer - categories, sub-groups, and the 32 established subcategories - is published under CC BY 4.0 as open semantic infrastructure with stable URIs and SKOS/JSON-LD distributions, and a worked subcategory example shows the operational layer down to its severity thresholds. The contribution is the demonstrated bridge from concept to graded finding, anchored by a clean separation of risks from the mechanisms by which they surface, and framed by an open-core model in which the conceptual scaffold is open and the methodology calibration is the practitioner layer. This is the infrastructure the AI auditing field needs: shared, open, and demonstrably operable.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Every Eval Ever: A Unifying Schema and Community Repository for AI Evaluation Results

AI evaluations are widely used for testing and understanding progress. However, the diverse evaluators bring with them inconsistencies that challenge analysis and comparison. First, results are saved in incompatible formats, scattered across leaderboards, papers, blog posts, evaluation harness logs, and custom repositories. Second, results are created by different evaluation frameworks, which produce divergent scores for nominally identical evaluations and record metadata inconsistently, hindering comparison, cross-community evaluation science, cost reduction, and reuse. We introduce Every Eval Ever, the first shared schema and community-crowdsourced repository for AI evaluation results. The schema standardizes how evaluations are represented in a unified, single JSON document. It is source-agnostic by design, ingesting results from evaluation harnesses and papers alike, and optionally stores per-instance outputs for fine-grained analysis. We contribute: (i) a community-governed metadata schema with a companion instance-level schema, the first standardization effort of its kind; (ii) automatic converters from popular formats, evaluation harnesses, and leaderboards to the unified schema; and (iii) a crowdsourced community database hosted on Hugging Face, currently spanning to date 22,235 models, 2,273 unique benchmarks, and 31 evaluation formats.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Defeater Cards: Characterizing and Managing Safety Assurance Case Defeaters

Safety assurance cases provide structured justifications that safety-critical systems meet their safety requirements. Recently, the notion of defeaters has emerged as a rigorous means of challenging the validity of safety arguments. Examples of defeaters might include overly strict claims, unreliable evidence, or reasoning gaps. However, defeaters remain ad hoc, lack structured support for critical reflection, are inconsistently described, are difficult to review, and lack documentation standards. To address this, we propose Defeater Cards, a new structured documentation artifact for systematically characterizing, reasoning about, and managing defeaters in safety cases. Drawing on a literature survey and thematic analysis, we identify documentation criteria that inform the card's structure, based on the 5W1H framework. Defeater Cards are designed to support informed analysis and evolution, improve traceability and auditability, and enable the reuse of defeater knowledge across systems and product variants. We demonstrate their applicability through two cross-domain case studies, showing how they expose hidden assumptions, surface reasoning gaps, and support ongoing safety assurance case evolution. To support adoption and community reuse, we also release an open-source repository of defeater cards as a baseline upon which researchers and practitioners can build and describe lessons learned.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Evaluation Cards: An Interpretive Layer for AI Evaluation Reporting

AI evaluation results are produced at scale but reported inconsistently across leaderboards, model cards, benchmark papers, and company blogs. The cost is interpretive: readers cannot reliably compare results across sources, identify what a report omits, or trace an aggregate claim to its underlying evidence. Recent efforts address isolated components but leave three gaps: they cover only narrow slices of the evaluation lifecycle and do not compose into a single interpretable record; they specify static representations that do not differentiate the questions different stakeholders bring to the same evidence; and they remain proposals on paper, lacking the extraction infrastructure required for adoption at scale. We present \EvalCards{}, an operational reporting layer that composes benchmark metadata, evaluation run data, and model metadata into a unified record. We (1) derive a reporting schema from a structured review of 52 papers and 10 stakeholder interviews, (2) implement four interpretive signals (reproducibility, documentation completeness, provenance and risk, and score comparability), rendered through reader modes calibrated to research and non-research audiences, and (3) deploy a monitoring tool that applies \EvalCards{} across 5,816 models, 635 benchmarks, and 101,843 results, surfacing systematic gaps in current reporting practice.

cs.AI↗

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

When AI Benchmarks Plateau: A Systematic Study of Benchmark Saturation

Artificial intelligence benchmarks are an important mechanism to measure model progress and guide deployment decisions. However, benchmarks quickly "saturate", making it difficult to differentiate models and diminishing their long-term value. In this study, we define benchmark saturation and analyze it across 60 language model benchmarks using 14 properties that relate to saturation. We find that nearly half of our benchmarks exhibit saturation, with rates increasing with age. Further, we find that resilience to saturation is impacted by expert-curation, not by public test data. Our results suggest that design choices can extend benchmark longevity and inform more durable evaluation approaches.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Who Evaluates AI's Social Impacts? Mapping Coverage and Gaps in First and Third Party Evaluations

Foundation models are increasingly central to high-stakes AI systems, and governance frameworks now depend on evaluations to assess their risks and capabilities. Although general capability evaluations are widespread, social impact assessments covering bias, fairness, privacy, environmental costs, and labor remain uneven. To characterize this landscape, we conduct the first comprehensive analysis of social impact evaluation reporting, examining 186 first-party release reports and 248 third-party evaluation sources, supplemented by developer interviews. We find a stark division of labor: first-party reporting is sparse, often superficial, and declining in areas like environmental impact and bias, while third-party evaluators provide broader, more rigorous coverage of bias, harmful content, and performance disparities. However, only developers can authoritatively report on data provenance, content moderation labor, costs, and infrastructure, yet interviews reveal these disclosures are deprioritized unless tied to product adoption or compliance. Current practices leave major gaps in assessing societal impacts, underscoring the need for policies that mandate developer transparency, strengthen independent evaluation ecosystems, and create shared infrastructure for aggregating third-party evaluations.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

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

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.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

A Family-Based Approach to Safety Cases for Controlled Airspaces in Small Uncrewed Aerial Systems

As small Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (sUAS) increasingly operate in the national airspace, safety concerns arise due to a corresponding rise in reported airspace violations and incidents, highlighting the need for a safe mechanism for sUAS entry control to manage the potential overload. This paper presents work toward our aim of establishing automated, customized safety-claim support for managing on-entry requests from sUAS to enter controlled airspace. We describe our approach, Safety Case Software Product Line Engineering (SafeSPLE), which is a novel method to extend product-family techniques to on-entry safety cases. It begins with a hazard analysis and design of a safety case feature model defining key points in variation, followed by the creation of a parameterized safety case. We use these together to automate the generation of instances for specific sUAS. Finally we use a case study to demonstrate that the SafeSPLE method can be used to facilitate creation of safety cases for specific flights.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

A Taxonomy of Real-World Defeaters in Safety Assurance Cases

The rise of cyber-physical systems in safety-critical domains calls for robust risk-evaluation frameworks. Assurance cases, often required by regulatory bodies, are a structured approach to demonstrate that a system meets its safety requirements. However, assurance cases are fraught with challenges, such as incomplete evidence and gaps in reasoning, called defeaters, that can call into question the credibility and robustness of assurance cases. Identifying these defeaters increases confidence in the assurance case and can prevent catastrophic failures. The search for defeaters in an assurance case, however, is not structured, and there is a need to standardize defeater analysis. The software engineering community thus could benefit from having a reusable classification of real-world defeaters in software assurance cases. In this paper, we conducted a systematic study of literature from the past 20 years. Using open coding, we derived a taxonomy with seven broad categories, laying the groundwork for standardizing the analysis and management of defeaters in safety-critical systems. We provide our artifacts as open source for the community to use and build upon, thus establishing a common framework for understanding defeaters.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Different Horses for Different Courses: Comparing Bias Mitigation Algorithms in ML

With fairness concerns gaining significant attention in Machine Learning (ML), several bias mitigation techniques have been proposed, often compared against each other to find the best method. These benchmarking efforts tend to use a common setup for evaluation under the assumption that providing a uniform environment ensures a fair comparison. However, bias mitigation techniques are sensitive to hyperparameter choices, random seeds, feature selection, etc., meaning that comparison on just one setting can unfairly favour certain algorithms. In this work, we show significant variance in fairness achieved by several algorithms and the influence of the learning pipeline on fairness scores. We highlight that most bias mitigation techniques can achieve comparable performance, given the freedom to perform hyperparameter optimization, suggesting that the choice of the evaluation parameters-rather than the mitigation technique itself-can sometimes create the perceived superiority of one method over another. We hope our work encourages future research on how various choices in the lifecycle of developing an algorithm impact fairness, and trends that guide the selection of appropriate algorithms.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

CoDefeater: Using LLMs To Find Defeaters in Assurance Cases

Constructing assurance cases is a widely used, and sometimes required, process toward demonstrating that safety-critical systems will operate safely in their planned environment. To mitigate the risk of errors and missing edge cases, the concept of defeaters - arguments or evidence that challenge claims in an assurance case - has been introduced. Defeaters can provide timely detection of weaknesses in the arguments, prompting further investigation and timely mitigations. However, capturing defeaters relies on expert judgment, experience, and creativity and must be done iteratively due to evolving requirements and regulations. This paper proposes CoDefeater, an automated process to leverage large language models (LLMs) for finding defeaters. Initial results on two systems show that LLMs can efficiently find known and unforeseen feasible defeaters to support safety analysts in enhancing the completeness and confidence of assurance cases.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Long-Term Fairness Inquiries and Pursuits in Machine Learning: A Survey of Notions, Methods, and Challenges

The widespread integration of Machine Learning systems in daily life, particularly in high-stakes domains, has raised concerns about the fairness implications. While prior works have investigated static fairness measures, recent studies reveal that automated decision-making has long-term implications and that off-the-shelf fairness approaches may not serve the purpose of achieving long-term fairness. Additionally, the existence of feedback loops and the interaction between models and the environment introduces additional complexities that may deviate from the initial fairness goals. In this survey, we review existing literature on long-term fairness from different perspectives and present a taxonomy for long-term fairness studies. We highlight key challenges and consider future research directions, analyzing both current issues and potential further explorations.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Introducing v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark from MLCommons

This paper introduces v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark, which has been created by the MLCommons AI Safety Working Group. The AI Safety Benchmark has been designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned language models. We introduce a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which for v0.5 covers only a single use case (an adult chatting to a general-purpose assistant in English), and a limited set of personas (i.e., typical users, malicious users, and vulnerable users). We created a new taxonomy of 13 hazard categories, of which 7 have tests in the v0.5 benchmark. We plan to release version 1.0 of the AI Safety Benchmark by the end of 2024. The v1.0 benchmark will provide meaningful insights into the safety of AI systems. However, the v0.5 benchmark should not be used to assess the safety of AI systems. We have sought to fully document the limitations, flaws, and challenges of v0.5. This release of v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark includes (1) a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which comprises use cases, types of systems under test (SUTs), language and context, personas, tests, and test items; (2) a taxonomy of 13 hazard categories with definitions and subcategories; (3) tests for seven of the hazard categories, each comprising a unique set of test items, i.e., prompts. There are 43,090 test items in total, which we created with templates; (4) a grading system for AI systems against the benchmark; (5) an openly available platform, and downloadable tool, called ModelBench that can be used to evaluate the safety of AI systems on the benchmark; (6) an example evaluation report which benchmarks the performance of over a dozen openly available chat-tuned language models; (7) a test specification for the benchmark.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Towards Engineering Fair and Equitable Software Systems for Managing Low-Altitude Airspace Authorizations

Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) have gained widespread adoption across a diverse range of applications. This has introduced operational complexities within shared airspaces and an increase in reported incidents, raising safety concerns. In response, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is developing a UAS Traffic Management (UTM) system to control access to airspace based on an sUAS's predicted ability to safely complete its mission. However, a fully automated system capable of swiftly approving or denying flight requests can be prone to bias and must consider safety, transparency, and fairness to diverse stakeholders. In this paper, we present an initial study that explores stakeholders' perspectives on factors that should be considered in an automated system. Results indicate flight characteristics and environmental conditions were perceived as most important but pilot and drone capabilities should also be considered. Further, several respondents indicated an aversion to any AI-supported automation, highlighting the need for full transparency in automated decision-making. Results provide a societal perspective on the challenges of automating UTM flight authorization decisions and help frame the ongoing design of a solution acceptable to the broader sUAS community.

cs.SE↗

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↗

arXiv2023

A Survey on Intersectional Fairness in Machine Learning: Notions, Mitigation, and Challenges

The widespread adoption of Machine Learning systems, especially in more decision-critical applications such as criminal sentencing and bank loans, has led to increased concerns about fairness implications. Algorithms and metrics have been developed to mitigate and measure these discriminations. More recently, works have identified a more challenging form of bias called intersectional bias, which encompasses multiple sensitive attributes, such as race and gender, together. In this survey, we review the state-of-the-art in intersectional fairness. We present a taxonomy for intersectional notions of fairness and mitigation. Finally, we identify the key challenges and provide researchers with guidelines for future directions.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Towards Understanding Fairness and its Composition in Ensemble Machine Learning

Machine Learning (ML) software has been widely adopted in modern society, with reported fairness implications for minority groups based on race, sex, age, etc. Many recent works have proposed methods to measure and mitigate algorithmic bias in ML models. The existing approaches focus on single classifier-based ML models. However, real-world ML models are often composed of multiple independent or dependent learners in an ensemble (e.g., Random Forest), where the fairness composes in a non-trivial way. How does fairness compose in ensembles? What are the fairness impacts of the learners on the ultimate fairness of the ensemble? Can fair learners result in an unfair ensemble? Furthermore, studies have shown that hyperparameters influence the fairness of ML models. Ensemble hyperparameters are more complex since they affect how learners are combined in different categories of ensembles. Understanding the impact of ensemble hyperparameters on fairness will help programmers design fair ensembles. Today, we do not understand these fully for different ensemble algorithms. In this paper, we comprehensively study popular real-world ensembles: bagging, boosting, stacking and voting. We have developed a benchmark of 168 ensemble models collected from Kaggle on four popular fairness datasets. We use existing fairness metrics to understand the composition of fairness. Our results show that ensembles can be designed to be fairer without using mitigation techniques. We also identify the interplay between fairness composition and data characteristics to guide fair ensemble design. Finally, our benchmark can be leveraged for further research on fair ensembles. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first and largest studies on fairness composition in ensembles yet presented in the literature.

cs.LG↗