Reva Schwartz

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.

Isaac Slaughter, Craig Greenberg, Reva Schwartz et al. · uw

Previous work has established that a person's demographics and speech style affect how well speech processing models perform for them. But where does this bias come from? In this work, we present the Speech Embedding Association Test (SpEAT), a method for detecting bias in one type of model used for many speech tasks: pre-trained models. The SpEAT is inspired by word embedding association tests in natural language processing, which quantify intrinsic bias in a model's representations of different concepts, such as race or valence (something's pleasantness or unpleasantness) and capture the extent to which a model trained on large-scale socio-cultural data has learned human-like biases. Using the SpEAT, we test for six types of bias in 16 English speech models (including 4 models also trained on multilingual data), which come from the wav2vec 2.0, HuBERT, WavLM, and Whisper model families. We find that 14 or more models reveal positive valence (pleasantness) associations with abled people over disabled people, with European-Americans over African-Americans, with females over males, with U.S. accented speakers over non-U.S. accented speakers, and with younger people over older people. Beyond establishing that pre-trained speech models contain these biases, we also show that they can have real world effects. We compare biases found in pre-trained models to biases in downstream models adapted to the task of Speech Emotion Recognition (SER) and find that in 66 of the 96 tests performed (69%), the group that is more associated with positive valence as indicated by the SpEAT also tends to be predicted as speaking with higher valence by the downstream model. Our work provides evidence that, like text and image-based models, pre-trained speech based-models frequently learn human-like biases. Our work also shows that bias found in pre-trained models can propagate to the downstream task of SER.

Matthew Holmes, Thiago Lacerda, Reva Schwartz

With many organizations struggling to gain value from AI deployments, pressure to evaluate AI in an informed manner has intensified. Status quo AI evaluation approaches often mask the operational realities that ultimately determine deployment success, making it difficult for organizational decision makers to know whether and how AI tools will deliver durable value. We introduce and describe context specification as a process to support and inform this decision making process. Context specification turns diffuse stakeholder perspectives about what matters in a given setting into clear, named constructs: explicit definitions of the properties, behaviors, and outcomes that evaluations aim to capture, so they can be observed and measured in context. The process serves as a foundational roadmap for evaluating what AI systems are likely to do in the deployment contexts that organizations actually manage.

Reva Schwartz, Gabriella Waters

The rapid expansion of AI deployments has put organizational leaders in a decision maker's dilemma: they must govern these technologies without systematic evidence of how systems behave in their own environments. Predominant evaluation methods generate scalable, abstract measures of model capabilities but smooth over the heterogeneity of real world use, while user focused testing reveals rich contextual detail yet remains small in scale and loosely coupled to the mechanisms that shape model behavior. The Forum for Real World AI Measurement and Evaluation (FRAME) addresses this gap by combining large scale trials of AI systems with structured observation of how they are used in context, the outcomes they generate, and how those outcomes arise. By tracing the path from an AI system's output through its practical use and downstream effects, FRAME turns the heterogeneity of AI in use into a measurable signal rather than a trade off for achieving scale. FRAME establishes two core assets to accomplish this: a Testing Sandbox that captures AI use under real workflows at scale and a Metrics Hub that translates those traces into actionable indicators.

Reva Schwartz, Rumman Chowdhury, Akash Kundu et al.

Conventional AI evaluation approaches concentrated within the AI stack exhibit systemic limitations for exploring, navigating and resolving the human and societal factors that play out in real world deployment such as in education, finance, healthcare, and employment sectors. AI capability evaluations can capture detail about first-order effects, such as whether immediate system outputs are accurate, or contain toxic, biased or stereotypical content, but AI's second-order effects, i.e. any long-term outcomes and consequences that may result from AI use in the real world, have become a significant area of interest as the technology becomes embedded in our daily lives. These secondary effects can include shifts in user behavior, societal, cultural and economic ramifications, workforce transformations, and long-term downstream impacts that may result from a broad and growing set of risks. This position paper argues that measuring the indirect and secondary effects of AI will require expansion beyond static, single-turn approaches conducted in silico to include testing paradigms that can capture what actually materializes when people use AI technology in context. Specifically, we describe the need for data and methods that can facilitate contextual awareness and enable downstream interpretation and decision making about AI's secondary effects, and recommend requirements for a new ecosystem.

Wm. Matthew Kennedy, Cigdem Patlak, Jayraj Dave et al.

AI systems have the potential to produce both benefits and harms, but without rigorous and ongoing adversarial evaluation, AI actors will struggle to assess the breadth and magnitude of the AI risk surface. Researchers from the field of systems design have developed several effective sociotechnical AI evaluation and red teaming techniques targeting bias, hate speech, mis/disinformation, and other documented harm classes. However, as increasingly sophisticated AI systems are released into high-stakes sectors (such as education, healthcare, and intelligence-gathering), our current evaluation and monitoring methods are proving less and less capable of delivering effective oversight. In order to actually deliver responsible AI and to ensure AI's harms are fully understood and its security vulnerabilities mitigated, pioneering new approaches to close this "responsibility gap" are now more urgent than ever. In this paper, we propose one such approach, the cooperative public AI red-teaming exercise, and discuss early results of its prior pilot implementations. This approach is intertwined with CAMLIS itself: the first in-person public demonstrator exercise was held in conjunction with CAMLIS 2024. We review the operational design and results of this exercise, the prior National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)'s Assessing the Risks and Impacts of AI (ARIA) pilot exercise, and another similar exercise conducted with the Singapore Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA). Ultimately, we argue that this approach is both capable of delivering meaningful results and is also scalable to many AI developing jurisdictions.

Lydia P. Gleaves, Reva Schwartz, David A. Broniatowski

There is increased interest in assisting non-expert audiences to effectively interact with machine learning (ML) tools and understand the complex output such systems produce. Here, we describe user experiments designed to study how individual skills and personality traits predict interpretability, explainability, and knowledge discovery from ML generated model output. Our work relies on Fuzzy Trace Theory, a leading theory of how humans process numerical stimuli, to examine how different end users will interpret the output they receive while interacting with the ML system. While our sample was small, we found that interpretability -- being able to make sense of system output -- and explainability -- understanding how that output was generated -- were distinct aspects of user experience. Additionally, subjects were more able to interpret model output if they possessed individual traits that promote metacognitive monitoring and editing, associated with more detailed, verbatim, processing of ML output. Finally, subjects who are more familiar with ML systems felt better supported by them and more able to discover new patterns in data; however, this did not necessarily translate to meaningful insights. Our work motivates the design of systems that explicitly take users' mental representations into account during the design process to more effectively support end user requirements.