Rokas Gipiškis

Alexander K. Saeri, Jess Graham, Michael Noetel et al.

Artificial intelligence poses many risks, ranging from familiar present-day harms to unprecedented and potentially catastrophic ones. Effective risk management requires prioritization: we must understand which risks are most severe, who is most vulnerable, and who is most responsible for addressing them. We report results from a three-round Delphi study conducted late 2025 with 272 international AI experts. Experts rated 24 AI risks on harm probability and severity, sector and actor vulnerability, actor responsibility, and overall concern. Experts estimated the five most severe harms in the next 5 years were likely to come from dangerous capabilities, competitive dynamics, weapons & cyberattacks (including CBRNE), power centralization, and false information. In a business-as-usual scenario, experts judged 18 of 24 risks as having a more than 10% probability of catastrophic outcomes (e.g., more than 1 million deaths or more than USD 100B in financial loss) in the next 5 years (2025-2030). In a scenario where pragmatic mitigations are implemented, experts still judged five risks as having a more than 10% probability of catastrophic outcomes: dangerous capabilities, weapons & cyberattacks, environmental harm, inequality & unemployment, and power centralization. All 24 risks were judged as being more than 5% likely to cause catastrophic outcomes. AI users and the general public were judged the most vulnerable to these risks, but experts assigned the highest responsibility for addressing them to general-purpose AI developers and governance actors (including governments, regulators, and standards bodies). Across most risks, experts identified information, finance, and national security as the most vulnerable sectors. These findings can guide AI risk prioritization and clarify expert expectations about who should bear responsibility for mitigation.

Rokas Gipiškis, Olga Kurasova

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) methods is affected by a lack of standardization. Metrics are inconsistently defined, incompletely reported, and rarely validated against common baselines. In this paper, we identify transparency of evaluation reporting as a central, under-addressed problem. We propose the XAI Evaluation Card, a documentation template analogous to model cards, designed to accompany any study that introduces an XAI evaluation metric. The card covers explicit declaration of target properties, grounding levels, metric assumptions, validation evidence, gaming risks, and known failure cases. We argue that adopting this template as a community norm would reduce evaluation fragmentation, support meta-analysis, and improve accountability in XAI research.

Christopher Kelly, Angelica Chowdhury, Alexandra Campili et al.

This work establishes a foundational framework for standardizing AI evaluation RCTs (sometimes called human uplift studies). Drawing on established experimental practices from disciplines with established RCT traditions, including software engineering, economics, clinical and health sciences, and psychology, we adopt the (Shadish et al., 2002) four-validity framework and extend it with a fifth principle on transparency, repeatability, and verification adapted from the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines (Center for Open Science, 2025). We operationalize all five principles into 33 guidelines adapted for AI evaluation RCT contexts, expressed as requirements with rationales, implementation instructions, and evidence bases. We position the principles and guidelines as serving three key roles for AI evaluation RCTs: a design tool for planning studies, an evaluation rubric for assessing existing work, and a blueprint for standard setting as the field converges on norms. Our framework extends prior work by centering evaluation on human performance rather than model output alone, formalizing causal inference through RCT methodology for AI contexts, integrating heterogeneity analysis and practical significance assessment, implementing a graded transparency and repeatability framework, and addressing AI-specific challenges including model versioning, human-AI interaction dynamics, contamination and spillover effects, and equitable impact assessment.

Rokas Gipiškis, Chun-Wei Tsai, Olga Kurasova

Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has found numerous applications in computer vision. While image classification-based explainability techniques have garnered significant attention, their counterparts in semantic segmentation have been relatively neglected. Given the prevalent use of image segmentation, ranging from medical to industrial deployments, these techniques warrant a systematic look. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive survey on XAI in semantic image segmentation. This work focuses on techniques that were either specifically introduced for dense prediction tasks or were extended for them by modifying existing methods in classification. We analyze and categorize the literature based on application categories and domains, as well as the evaluation metrics and datasets used. We also propose a taxonomy for interpretable semantic segmentation, and discuss potential challenges and future research directions.

Taro Qureshi, Jacob Griffith, Koen Holtman et al.

Due to ambiguity in the wording of the EU AI Act, we examine the question of to what extent frontier biological foundation models such as ESM3 are subject to obligations for general-purpose AI models with systemic risk under the EU AI Act. In this paper, we map ESM3 to the biorisk chain, and conclude that it would be desirable if the providers of ESM3 and similar biological models were subject to these obligations, which would require them to assess and mitigate dual-use risks from their models. We then perform an analysis, comparing the attributes of ESM3 to the classification criteria in the AI Act and the supporting material. We conclude that at this time, ESM3 does not appear to be meaningfully regulated by the Act. We then propose remedies to correct the situation.

Marta Ziosi, Miro Plueckebaum, Stephen Casper et al.

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.

Rokas Gipiškis, Ayrton San Joaquin, Ze Shen Chin et al.

There is an urgent need to identify both short and long-term risks from newly emerging types of Artificial Intelligence (AI), as well as available risk management measures. In response, and to support global efforts in regulating AI and writing safety standards, we compile an extensive catalog of risk sources and risk management measures for general-purpose AI (GPAI) systems, complete with descriptions and supporting examples where relevant. This work involves identifying technical, operational, and societal risks across model development, training, and deployment stages, as well as surveying established and experimental methods for managing these risks. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first of its kind to provide extensive documentation of both GPAI risk sources and risk management measures that are descriptive, self-contained and neutral with respect to any existing regulatory framework. This work intends to help AI providers, standards experts, researchers, policymakers, and regulators in identifying and mitigating systemic risks from GPAI systems. For this reason, the catalog is released under a public domain license for ease of direct use by stakeholders in AI governance and standards.

Yu Lun Hsu, Yun-Rung Chou, Chiao-Ju Chang et al.

Advance Care Planning (ACP) allows individuals to specify their preferred end-of-life life-sustaining treatments before they become incapacitated by injury or terminal illness (e.g., coma, cancer, dementia). While online ACP offers high accessibility, it lacks key benefits of clinical consultations, including personalized value exploration, immediate clarification of decision consequences. To bridge this gap, we conducted two formative studies: 1) shadowed and interviewed 3 ACP teams consisting of physicians, nurses, and social workers (18 patients total), and 2) interviewed 14 users of ACP websites. Building on these insights, we designed PreCare in collaboration with 6 ACP professionals. PreCare is a website with 3 AI-driven assistants designed to guide users through exploring personal values, gaining ACP knowledge, and supporting informed decision-making. A usability study (n=12) showed that PreCare achieved a System Usability Scale (SUS) rating of excellent. A comparative evaluation (n=12) showed that PreCare's AI assistants significantly improved exploration of personal values, knowledge, and decisional confidence, and was preferred by 92% of participants.

Ayrton San Joaquin, Rokas Gipiškis, Leon Staufer et al.

As frontier artificial intelligence (AI) models rapidly advance, benchmarks are integral to comparing different models and measuring their progress in different task-specific domains. However, there is a lack of guidance on when and how benchmarks should be deprecated once they cease to effectively perform their purpose. This risks benchmark scores over-valuing model capabilities, or worse, obscuring capabilities and safety-washing. Based on a review of benchmarking practices, we propose criteria to decide when to fully or partially deprecate benchmarks, and a framework for deprecating benchmarks. Our work aims to advance the state of benchmarking towards rigorous and quality evaluations, especially for frontier models, and our recommendations are aimed to benefit benchmark developers, benchmark users, AI governance actors (across governments, academia, and industry panels), and policy makers.

Lily Stelling, Mick Yang, Rokas Gipiškis et al.

This report provides a detailed comparison between the Safety and Security measures proposed in the EU AI Act's General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice (Third Draft) and the current commitments and practices voluntarily adopted by leading AI companies. As the EU moves toward enforcing binding obligations for GPAI model providers, the Code of Practice will be key for bridging legal requirements with concrete technical commitments. Our analysis focuses on the draft's Safety and Security section (Commitments II.1-II.16), documenting excerpts from current public-facing documents that are relevant to each individual measure. We systematically reviewed different document types, such as companies' frontier safety frameworks and model cards, from over a dozen companies, including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, and others. This report is not meant to be an indication of legal compliance, nor does it take any prescriptive viewpoint about the Code of Practice or companies' policies. Instead, it aims to inform the ongoing dialogue between regulators and General-Purpose AI model providers by surfacing evidence of industry precedent for various measures. Nonetheless, we were able to find relevant quotes from at least 5 companies' documents for the majority of the measures in Commitments II.1-II.16.