The Foreign Policy AI Evaluation Gap

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.02955v1
• Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2026 04:59:03 GMT
• Title: The Foreign Policy AI Evaluation Gap
• Abstract summary: We argue that AI systems used in conducting foreign policy tasks should be a priority test case for technical AI governance research.<n>In enacting foreign policy, we refer to the formulation and implementation of external objectives by political actors.<n>Statecraft is a high-consequence deployment domain, with extreme downside risks and structural properties that standard evaluation practices handle poorly.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We argue that AI systems used in conducting foreign policy tasks - broadly enacting 'statecraft' - should be a priority test case for technical AI governance research. In enacting foreign policy, we refer to the formulation and implementation of external objectives by political actors. Statecraft is a high-consequence deployment domain, with extreme downside risks and structural properties that standard evaluation practices handle poorly. These features include partial observability, unbounded action spaces, contested ground truth, and multidimensional objectives. This paper advocates for a literature-grounded research agenda. Our contribution is threefold: (i) a claim about the structural conditions of foreign policy that combine catastrophic tail risk with technical evaluation complexities, (ii) an ECOSYSTEM review that highlights the asymmetric focus on ASSESSMENT features over ACCESS, VERIFICATION, SECURITY, and OPERATIONALIZATION, and (iii) a demand-side evaluation framework that decomposes foreign-policy workflows into bounded, evaluable sub-tasks with human recombination. As AI systems are already being deployed in the conduct of war and peace, amid limited public evaluation infrastructure from the technical AI governance community, this agenda is an urgent priority.

Related papers

• PolicyLLM: Towards Excellent Comprehension of Public Policy for Large Language Models [56.37206340175191]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into real-world decision-making.<n>Yet, their ability to comprehend and reason about policy-related content remains underexplored.<n>We present textbftextitPolicyBench, the first large-scale cross-system benchmark (US-China) evaluating policy comprehension.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T17:27:50Z)
• AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controls [153.71048309527225]
  This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field.<n>We identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception.<n>We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T16:56:04Z)
• 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)
• Advancing Science- and Evidence-based AI Policy [163.43609502905707]
  This paper tackles the problem of how to optimize the relationship between evidence and policy to address the opportunities and challenges of AI.<n>An increasing number of efforts address this problem by often either (i) contributing research into the risks of AI and their effective mitigation or (ii) advocating for policy to address these risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-02T23:20:58Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Securing External Deeper-than-black-box GPAI Evaluations [49.1574468325115]
  This paper examines the critical challenges and potential solutions for conducting secure and effective external evaluations of general-purpose AI (GPAI) models.<n>With the exponential growth in size, capability, reach and accompanying risk, ensuring accountability, safety, and public trust requires frameworks that go beyond traditional black-box methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T16:13:45Z)
• Between Innovation and Oversight: A Cross-Regional Study of AI Risk Management Frameworks in the EU, U.S., UK, and China [0.0]
  This paper conducts a comparative analysis of AI risk management strategies across the European Union, United States, United Kingdom (UK), and China.<n>The findings show that the EU implements a structured, risk-based framework that prioritizes transparency and conformity assessments.<n>The U.S. uses a decentralized, sector-specific regulations that promote innovation but may lead to fragmented enforcement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T18:52:17Z)
• The Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA) in the AI Act: Roots, legal obligations and key elements for a model template [55.2480439325792]
  Article aims to fill existing gaps in the theoretical and methodological elaboration of the Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA)<n>This article outlines the main building blocks of a model template for the FRIA.<n>It can serve as a blueprint for other national and international regulatory initiatives to ensure that AI is fully consistent with human rights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T11:55:55Z)
• An International Consortium for Evaluations of Societal-Scale Risks from Advanced AI [10.550015825854837]
  A regulatory gap has permitted AI labs to conduct research, development, and deployment activities with minimal oversight. frontier AI system evaluations have been proposed as a way of assessing risks from the development and deployment of frontier AI systems. This paper proposes a solution in the form of an international consortium for AI risk evaluations, comprising both AI developers and third-party AI risk evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-22T23:37:48Z)

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.