The BIG Argument for AI Safety Cases
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We present our Balanced, Integrated and Grounded (BIG) argument for assuring the safety of AI systems. The BIG argument adopts a whole-system approach to constructing a safety case for AI systems of varying capability, autonomy and criticality. Firstly, it is balanced by addressing safety alongside other critical ethical issues such as privacy and equity, acknowledging complexities and trade-offs in the broader societal impact of AI. Secondly, it is integrated by bringing together the social, ethical and technical aspects of safety assurance in a way that is traceable and accountable. Thirdly, it is grounded in long-established safety norms and practices, such as being sensitive to context and maintaining risk proportionality. Whether the AI capability is narrow and constrained or general-purpose and powered by a frontier or foundational model, the BIG argument insists on a systematic treatment of safety. Further, it places a particular focus on the novel hazardous behaviours emerging from the advanced capabilities of frontier AI models and the open contexts in which they are rapidly being deployed. These complex issues are considered within a wider AI safety case, approaching assurance from both technical and sociotechnical perspectives. Examples illustrating the use of the BIG argument are provided throughout the paper.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 12 Mar 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 8.
12 papers.
- 2025Metrics that matter: Evaluating image quality metrics for medical image generationcited by 12
- 2025Justified Evidence Collection for Argument-based AI Fairness Assurancecited by 2
- 2025Out-of-Distribution Detection for Safety Assurance of AI and Autonomous Systemscited by 2
- 2026A framework for assuring the accuracy and fidelity of an AI-enabled Digital Twin of en route UK airspacecited by 2
- 2025EvoXplain: When Machine Learning Models Agree on Predictions but Disagree on Why -- Measuring Mechanistic Multiplicity Across Training Runscited by 1
- 2026Clear, Compelling Arguments: Rethinking the Foundations of Frontier AI Safety Casescited by 1
- 2026What Types of Human-AI Teams Exist?cited by 1
- 2026Safety Case Patterns for VLA-based driving systems: Insights from SimLingocited by 0
- 2026AI Assurance in UK Defence: Challenges in Operationalising JSP 936cited by 0
- 2026I'm Sorry Driver, I'm Afraid I Can't Do That: Appraising the Safety of LLMs within Automotive Contextscited by 0
- 2026The safety failures we are not instrumenting: a perspective on hidden safety-critical challenges in modern AI systemscited by 0
- 2026The Wisdom of Artificial Deliberative Crowdscited by 0
- 2026The Wisdom of Artificial Deliberative Crowds18 Sep 2026
- 2026The safety failures we are not instrumenting: a perspective on hidden safety-critical challenges in modern AI systems21 Jul 2026
- 2026What Types of Human-AI Teams Exist?2 Jul 2026
- 2026I'm Sorry Driver, I'm Afraid I Can't Do That: Appraising the Safety of LLMs within Automotive Contexts12 Jun 2026
- 2026AI Assurance in UK Defence: Challenges in Operationalising JSP 9368 Jun 2026
- 2026Safety Case Patterns for VLA-based driving systems: Insights from SimLingo16 Mar 2026
- 2026Clear, Compelling Arguments: Rethinking the Foundations of Frontier AI Safety Cases8 Mar 2026
- 2026A framework for assuring the accuracy and fidelity of an AI-enabled Digital Twin of en route UK airspace6 Jan 2026
- 2025EvoXplain: When Machine Learning Models Agree on Predictions but Disagree on Why -- Measuring Mechanistic Multiplicity Across Training Runs23 Dec 2025
- 2025Out-of-Distribution Detection for Safety Assurance of AI and Autonomous Systems24 Oct 2025
- 2025Justified Evidence Collection for Argument-based AI Fairness Assurance12 May 2025
- 2025Metrics that matter: Evaluating image quality metrics for medical image generation12 May 2025