Harmonizing AI Safety Thresholds

Frontier AI companies have published capability thresholds that differ substantially, making it difficult for third parties to verify whether a threshold has been crossed or to compare requirements across companies. Moreover, without common minimum thresholds, risk mitigation may be inconsistent, creating a potential race to the bottom in safety standards. We develop a methodology for deriving harmonized thresholds across three risk domains. For misuse risks (cyber and biological), we take expected harm as the key primitive and use an explicit risk-modeling approach that accounts for risk channels and model release conditions. For automated AI R&D, we base our proposed threshold on the observed rate of AI progress rather than expected harm. Our analysis expands upon prior work and highlights existing empirical gaps and limitations.

Safety by Measurement: A Systematic Literature Review of AI Safety Evaluation Methods

As frontier AI systems advance toward transformative capabilities, we need a parallel transformation in how we measure and evaluate these systems to ensure safety and inform governance. While benchmarks have been the primary method for estimating model capabilities, they often fail to establish true upper bounds or predict deployment behavior. This literature review consolidates the rapidly evolving field of AI safety evaluations, proposing a systematic taxonomy around three dimensions: what properties we measure, how we measure them, and how these measurements integrate into frameworks. We show how evaluations go beyond benchmarks by measuring what models can do when pushed to the limit (capabilities), the behavioral tendencies exhibited by default (propensities), and whether our safety measures remain effective even when faced with subversive adversarial AI (control). These properties are measured through behavioral techniques like scaffolding, red teaming and supervised fine-tuning, alongside internal techniques such as representation analysis and mechanistic interpretability. We provide deeper explanations of some safety-critical capabilities like cybersecurity exploitation, deception, autonomous replication, and situational awareness, alongside concerning propensities like power-seeking and scheming. The review explores how these evaluation methods integrate into governance frameworks to translate results into concrete development decisions. We also highlight challenges to safety evaluations - proving absence of capabilities, potential model sandbagging, and incentives for "safetywashing" - while identifying promising research directions. By synthesizing scattered resources, this literature review aims to provide a central reference point for understanding AI safety evaluations.