Quantifying detection rates for dangerous capabilities: a theoretical model of dangerous capability evaluations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We present a quantitative model for tracking dangerous AI capabilities over time. Our goal is to help the policy and research community visualise how dangerous capability testing can give us an early warning about approaching AI risks. We first use the model to provide a novel introduction to dangerous capability testing and how this testing can directly inform policy. Decision makers in AI labs and government often set policy that is sensitive to the estimated danger of AI systems, and may wish to set policies that condition on the crossing of a set threshold for danger. The model helps us to reason about these policy choices. We then run simulations to illustrate how we might fail to test for dangerous capabilities. To summarise, failures in dangerous capability testing may manifest in two ways: higher bias in our estimates of AI danger, or larger lags in threshold monitoring. We highlight two drivers of these failure modes: uncertainty around dynamics in AI capabilities and competition between frontier AI labs. Effective AI policy demands that we address these failure modes and their drivers. Even if the optimal targeting of resources is challenging, we show how delays in testing can harm AI policy. We offer preliminary recommendations for building an effective testing ecosystem for dangerous capabilities and advise on a research agenda.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Dec 2024.
Builds on
21 of 37 references.
References · 21
- 2021Unsolved Problems in ML Safetycited by 291
- 2023An Overview of Catastrophic AI Riskscited by 214
- 2023AI Deception: A Survey of Examples, Risks, and Potential Solutionscited by 185
- 2023Model evaluation for extreme riskscited by 167
- 2024Evaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous Capabilitiescited by 121
- 2023Evaluating Language-Model Agents on Realistic Autonomous Taskscited by 94
- 2024Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systemscited by 94
- 2024Safetywashing: Do AI Safety Benchmarks Actually Measure Safety Progress?cited by 56
- 2024Open Problems in Technical AI Governancecited by 45
- 2024Sabotage Evaluations for Frontier Modelscited by 45
- 2019The Role of Cooperation in Responsible AI Developmentcited by 21
- 2024Safety case template for frontier AI: A cyber inability argumentcited by 19
9 more
- 2024Safety cases for frontier AIcited by 17
- 2021Why and How Governments Should Monitor AI Developmentcited by 13
- 2023Coordinated pausing: An evaluation-based coordination scheme for frontier AI developerscited by 13
- 2021Voluntary safety commitments provide an escape from over-regulation in AI developmentcited by 10
- 2024Risk thresholds for frontier AIcited by 8
- 2022Social Diversity Reduces the Complexity and Cost of Fostering Fairnesscited by 6
- 2023An International Consortium for Evaluations of Societal-Scale Risks from Advanced AIcited by 5
- 2023Who is leading in AI? An analysis of industry AI researchcited by 4
- 2024Analyzing Probabilistic Methods for Evaluating Agent Capabilitiescited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.
- 2025Distributional AGI Safetycited by 8
- 2025Distributional AGI Safety18 Dec 2025