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 chan
Lineage graph
Paper → model → repo connections mined from source citations (Tier-1 exact match).
Why these links exist
Every edge carries a method, confidence, and the source snippet that justified it — so bad links are debuggable.
- PossiblePossibly related (embedding) · 62%Managing third-party model risk and AI dependencies - Security Boulevard →
- PossiblePossibly related (embedding) · 62%"Dangerous" AI models are coming no matter what →
- PossiblePossibly related (embedding) · 57%Verisight →
- PossiblePossibly related (embedding) · 55%Nemotron 3.5 Content Safety: Customizable Multimodal Safety for Global Enterprise AI →
- PossiblePossibly related (embedding) · 53%The agent security gap: 54% of enterprises have already had an AI agent incident, and most still let agents share credentials →
- LinkedLinked via arxiv author · 85%Wilber Sean Anterola →
“Harmonizing AI Safety Thresholds”
- LinkedLinked via arxiv author · 85%Matthew Ball →
“Harmonizing AI Safety Thresholds”
- LinkedLinked via arxiv author · 85%Luis F. Lafuerza →
“Harmonizing AI Safety Thresholds”
