Evaluating Human-AI Safety: A Framework for Measuring Harmful Capability Uplift

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.26676v1
• Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2026 20:29:20 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Human-AI Safety: A Framework for Measuring Harmful Capability Uplift
• Abstract summary: We argue that AI safety research should focus on human-centered evaluations that measure harmful capability uplift.<n>We frame harmful capability uplift as a core AI safety metric, ground it in prior social science research, and provide concrete methodological guidance for systematic measurement.
• Score: 1.8745896714491426
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Current frontier AI safety evaluations emphasize static benchmarks, third-party annotations, and red-teaming. In this position paper, we argue that AI safety research should focus on human-centered evaluations that measure harmful capability uplift: the marginal increase in a user's ability to cause harm with a frontier model beyond what conventional tools already enable. We frame harmful capability uplift as a core AI safety metric, ground it in prior social science research, and provide concrete methodological guidance for systematic measurement. We conclude with actionable steps for developers, researchers, funders, and regulators to make harmful capability uplift evaluation a standard practice.

Related papers

• How should AI Safety Benchmarks Benchmark Safety? [10.00492155071077]
  We present a review of 210 safety benchmarks that maps out common challenges in safety benchmarking.<n>We argue that adhering to established risk management principles can significantly improve the validity and usefulness of AI safety benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T15:58:59Z)
• SafeRBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Safety Assessment in Large Reasoning Models [60.8821834954637]
  We present SafeRBench, the first benchmark that assesses LRM safety end-to-end.<n>We pioneer the incorporation of risk categories and levels into input design.<n>We introduce a micro-thought chunking mechanism to segment long reasoning traces into semantically coherent units.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-19T06:46:33Z)
• Safety by Measurement: A Systematic Literature Review of AI Safety Evaluation Methods [0.0]
  This literature review consolidates the rapidly evolving field of AI safety evaluations.<n>It proposes a systematic taxonomy around three dimensions: what properties we measure, how we measure them, and how these measurements integrate into frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-08T16:55:07Z)
• An Approach to Technical AGI Safety and Security [72.83728459135101]
  We develop an approach to address the risk of harms consequential enough to significantly harm humanity.<n>We focus on technical approaches to misuse and misalignment.<n>We briefly outline how these ingredients could be combined to produce safety cases for AGI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T15:59:31Z)
• What AI evaluations for preventing catastrophic risks can and cannot do [2.07180164747172]
  We argue that evaluations face fundamental limitations that cannot be overcome within the current paradigm.<n>This means that while evaluations are valuable tools, we should not rely on them as our main way of ensuring AI systems are safe.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-26T18:00:36Z)
• Safetywashing: Do AI Safety Benchmarks Actually Measure Safety Progress? [59.96471873997733]
  We propose an empirical foundation for developing more meaningful safety metrics and define AI safety in a machine learning research context.<n>We aim to provide a more rigorous framework for AI safety research, advancing the science of safety evaluations and clarifying the path towards measurable progress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-31T17:59:24Z)
• Towards Safer Generative Language Models: A Survey on Safety Risks, Evaluations, and Improvements [76.80453043969209]
  This survey presents a framework for safety research pertaining to large models. We begin by introducing safety issues of wide concern, then delve into safety evaluation methods for large models. We explore the strategies for enhancing large model safety from training to deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-18T09:32:55Z)
• Evaluating Model-free Reinforcement Learning toward Safety-critical Tasks [70.76757529955577]
  This paper revisits prior work in this scope from the perspective of state-wise safe RL. We propose Unrolling Safety Layer (USL), a joint method that combines safety optimization and safety projection. To facilitate further research in this area, we reproduce related algorithms in a unified pipeline and incorporate them into SafeRL-Kit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-12T06:30:17Z)
• Evaluating the Safety of Deep Reinforcement Learning Models using Semi-Formal Verification [81.32981236437395]
  We present a semi-formal verification approach for decision-making tasks based on interval analysis. Our method obtains comparable results over standard benchmarks with respect to formal verifiers. Our approach allows to efficiently evaluate safety properties for decision-making models in practical applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-19T11:18:06Z)

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.