Chunxiao Li

h-index27
2papers
2,628citations

2 Papers

14.7AIJul 22, 2025
Frontier AI Risk Management Framework in Practice: A Risk Analysis Technical Report

Shanghai AI Lab, Xiaoyang Chen, Yunhao Chen et al.

To understand and identify the unprecedented risks posed by rapidly advancing artificial intelligence (AI) models, this report presents a comprehensive assessment of their frontier risks. Drawing on the E-T-C analysis (deployment environment, threat source, enabling capability) from the Frontier AI Risk Management Framework (v1.0) (SafeWork-F1-Framework), we identify critical risks in seven areas: cyber offense, biological and chemical risks, persuasion and manipulation, uncontrolled autonomous AI R\&D, strategic deception and scheming, self-replication, and collusion. Guided by the "AI-$45^\circ$ Law," we evaluate these risks using "red lines" (intolerable thresholds) and "yellow lines" (early warning indicators) to define risk zones: green (manageable risk for routine deployment and continuous monitoring), yellow (requiring strengthened mitigations and controlled deployment), and red (necessitating suspension of development and/or deployment). Experimental results show that all recent frontier AI models reside in green and yellow zones, without crossing red lines. Specifically, no evaluated models cross the yellow line for cyber offense or uncontrolled AI R\&D risks. For self-replication, and strategic deception and scheming, most models remain in the green zone, except for certain reasoning models in the yellow zone. In persuasion and manipulation, most models are in the yellow zone due to their effective influence on humans. For biological and chemical risks, we are unable to rule out the possibility of most models residing in the yellow zone, although detailed threat modeling and in-depth assessment are required to make further claims. This work reflects our current understanding of AI frontier risks and urges collective action to mitigate these challenges.

3.3LOApr 4, 2024
A Reinforcement Learning based Reset Policy for CDCL SAT Solvers

Chunxiao Li, Charlie Liu, Jonathan Chung et al.

Restart policy is an important technique used in modern Conflict-Driven Clause Learning (CDCL) solvers, wherein some parts of the solver state are erased at certain intervals during the run of the solver. In most solvers, variable activities are preserved across restart boundaries, resulting in solvers continuing to search parts of the assignment tree that are not far from the one immediately prior to a restart. To enable the solver to search possibly "distant" parts of the assignment tree, we study the effect of resets, a variant of restarts which not only erases the assignment trail, but also randomizes the activity scores of the variables of the input formula after reset, thus potentially enabling a better global exploration of the search space. In this paper, we model the problem of whether to trigger reset as a multi-armed bandit (MAB) problem, and propose two reinforcement learning (RL) based adaptive reset policies using the Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) and Thompson sampling algorithms. These two algorithms balance the exploration-exploitation tradeoff by adaptively choosing arms (reset vs. no reset) based on their estimated rewards during the solver's run. We implement our reset policies in four baseline SOTA CDCL solvers and compare the baselines against the reset versions on Satcoin benchmarks and SAT Competition instances. Our results show that RL-based reset versions outperform the corresponding baseline solvers on both Satcoin and the SAT competition instances, suggesting that our RL policy helps to dynamically and profitably adapt the reset frequency for any given input instance. We also introduce the concept of a partial reset, where at least a constant number of variable activities are retained across reset boundaries. Building on previous results, we show that there is an exponential separation between O(1) vs. $Ω(n)$-length partial resets.