The science and practice of proportionality in AI risk evaluations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.10017v1
• Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2026 08:53:29 GMT
• Title: The science and practice of proportionality in AI risk evaluations
• Abstract summary: The European Union (EU) Artificial Intelligence Act represents the first regulatory attempt worldwide to navigate this tension in the form of a binding, risk-based framework.<n>The principle of proportionality, a binding requirement under EU law, requires the regulator to calibrate its actions to their intended objectives.<n>The application of proportionality to model evaluations for AI risk opens opportunities to develop scientific methods that operationalize such calibration within concrete evaluation practices.
• Score: 28.343787278068604
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: A global challenge in artificial intelligence (AI) regulation lies in achieving effective risk management without compromising innovation and technical progress. The European Union (EU) Artificial Intelligence Act represents the first regulatory attempt worldwide to navigate this tension in the form of a binding, risk-based framework. In August 2025, obligations for providers of general-purpose AI (GPAI) models under the EU AI Act entered into application. They require providers of the most advanced GPAI models to evaluate possible systemic risks stemming from their models. This raises the regulatory challenge of ensuring that the evaluations provide meaningful risk information without imposing excessive burden on providers. The principle of proportionality, a binding requirement under EU law, requires the regulator to calibrate its actions to their intended objectives. The application of proportionality to model evaluations for AI risk opens opportunities to develop scientific methods that operationalize such calibration within concrete evaluation practices.

Related papers

• From Legal Text to AI-specific Risk Sources: A Systematic Analysis of the EU AI Act's High-Risk Requirements [0.0]
  The EU AI Act introduces mandatory requirements for high-risk AI systems.<n>No clear mapping exists between the risks implicitly addressed by the Act's high-risk requirements and established risk sources.<n>The resulting EU AI Act Risk Source List takes an important step towards bridging the gap between legal obligation and AI risk management practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-11T21:05:33Z)
• Frontier AI Risk Management Framework in Practice: A Risk Analysis Technical Report v1.5 [61.787178868669265]
  This technical report presents an updated and granular assessment of five critical dimensions: cyber offense, persuasion and manipulation, strategic deception, uncontrolled AI R&D, and self-replication.<n>This work reflects our current understanding of AI frontier risks and urges collective action to mitigate these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-16T04:30:06Z)
• International AI Safety Report 2025: Second Key Update: Technical Safeguards and Risk Management [115.92752850425272]
  Second update to the 2025 International AI Safety Report assesses new developments in general-purpose AI risk management over the past year.<n> examines how researchers, public institutions, and AI developers are approaching risk management for general-purpose AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T03:12:56Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• An Overview of the Risk-based Model of AI Governance [0.0]
  The 'Analysis' section proposes several criticisms of the risk based approach to AI governance.<n>It argues that the notion of risk is problematic as its inherent normativity reproduces dominant and harmful narratives about whose interests matter.<n>This paper concludes with the suggestion that existing risk governance scholarship can provide valuable insights toward the improvement of the risk based AI governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-21T06:56:04Z)
• Enhancing Trust Through Standards: A Comparative Risk-Impact Framework for Aligning ISO AI Standards with Global Ethical and Regulatory Contexts [0.0]
  ISO standards aim to foster responsible development by embedding fairness, transparency, and risk management into AI systems.<n>Their effectiveness varies across diverse regulatory landscapes, from the EU's risk-based AI Act to China's stability-focused measures.<n>This paper introduces a novel Comparative Risk-Impact Assessment Framework to evaluate how well ISO standards address ethical risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-22T00:44:20Z)
• HH4AI: A methodological Framework for AI Human Rights impact assessment under the EUAI ACT [1.7754875105502606]
  The paper highlights AIs transformative nature, driven by autonomy, data, and goal-oriented design.<n>A key challenge is defining and assessing "high-risk" AI systems across industries.<n>It proposes a Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA) methodology, a gate-based framework designed to isolate and assess risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-23T19:10:14Z)
• AILuminate: Introducing v1.0 of the AI Risk and Reliability Benchmark from MLCommons [62.374792825813394]
  This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability.<n>The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T05:58:52Z)
• Engineering Trustworthy AI: A Developer Guide for Empirical Risk Minimization [53.80919781981027]
  Key requirements for trustworthy AI can be translated into design choices for the components of empirical risk minimization. We hope to provide actionable guidance for building AI systems that meet emerging standards for trustworthiness of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T07:53:32Z)
• The Dilemma of Uncertainty Estimation for General Purpose AI in the EU AI Act [6.9060054915724]
  The AI act is the European Union-wide regulation of AI systems. We argue that uncertainty estimation should be a required component for deploying models in the real world.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T23:59:51Z)
• The risks of risk-based AI regulation: taking liability seriously [46.90451304069951]
  The development and regulation of AI seems to have reached a critical stage. Some experts are calling for a moratorium on the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4. This paper analyses the most advanced legal proposal, the European Union's AI Act.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T12:51:37Z)
• Quantitative AI Risk Assessments: Opportunities and Challenges [7.35411010153049]
  Best way to reduce risks is to implement comprehensive AI lifecycle governance.<n>Risks can be quantified using metrics from the technical community.<n>This paper explores these issues, focusing on the opportunities, challenges, and potential impacts of such an approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-13T21:47:25Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.