Large language model (LLM) benchmarks inform LLM use decisions (e.g., "is this LLM safe to deploy for my use case and context?"). However, benchmarks may be rendered unreliable by various failure modes impacting benchmark bias, variance, coverage, or people's capacity to understand benchmark evidence. Using the National Institute of Standards and Technology's risk management process as a foundation, this research iteratively analyzed 26 popular benchmarks, identifying 57 potential failure modes and 196 corresponding mitigation strategies. The mitigations reduce failure likelihood and/or severity, providing a frame for evaluating "benchmark risk," which is scored to provide a metaevaluation benchmark: BenchRisk. Higher scores indicate benchmark users are less likely to reach an incorrect or unsupported conclusion about an LLM. All 26 scored benchmarks present significant risk within one or more of the five scored dimensions (comprehensiveness, intelligibility, consistency, correctness, and longevity), which points to important open research directions for the field of LLM benchmarking. The BenchRisk workflow allows for comparison between benchmarks; as an open-source tool, it also facilitates the identification and sharing of risks and their mitigations.

Benchmarks are pivotal in driving AI progress, and invalid benchmark questions frequently undermine their reliability. Manually identifying and correcting errors among thousands of benchmark questions is not only infeasible but also a critical bottleneck for reliable evaluation. In this work, we introduce a framework for systematic benchmark revision that leverages statistical analysis of response patterns to flag potentially invalid questions for further expert review. Our approach builds on a core assumption commonly used in AI evaluations that the mean score sufficiently summarizes model performance. This implies a unidimensional latent construct underlying the measurement experiment, yielding expected ranges for various statistics for each item. When empirically estimated values for these statistics fall outside the expected range for an item, the item is more likely to be problematic. Across nine widely used benchmarks, our method guides expert review to identify problematic questions with up to 84\% precision. In addition, we introduce an LLM‑judge first pass to review questions, further reducing human effort. Together, these components provide an efficient and scalable framework for systematic benchmark revision.

While our understanding of fairness in machine learning has significantly progressed, our understanding of fairness in reinforcement learning (RL) remains nascent. Most of the attention has been on fairness in one-shot classification tasks; however, real-world, RL-enabled systems (e.g., autonomous vehicles) are much more complicated in that agents operate in dynamic environments over a long period of time. To ensure the responsible development and deployment of these systems, we must better understand fairness in RL. In this paper, we survey the literature to provide the most up-to-date snapshot of the frontiers of fairness in RL. We start by reviewing where fairness considerations can arise in RL, then discuss the various definitions of fairness in RL that have been put forth thus far. We continue to highlight the methodologies researchers used to implement fairness in single- and multi-agent RL systems and showcase the distinct application domains that fair RL has been investigated in. Finally, we critically examine gaps in the literature, such as understanding fairness in the context of RLHF, that still need to be addressed in future work to truly operationalize fair RL in real-world systems.

In light of recent advancements in AI capabilities and the increasingly widespread integration of AI systems into society, governments worldwide are actively seeking to mitigate the potential harms and risks associated with these technologies through regulation and other governance tools. However, there exist significant gaps between governance aspirations and the current state of the technical tooling necessary for their realisation. In this position paper, we survey policy documents published by public-sector institutions in the EU, US, and China to highlight specific areas of disconnect between the technical requirements necessary for enacting proposed policy actions, and the current technical state of the art. Our analysis motivates a call for tighter integration of the AI/ML research community within AI governance in order to i) catalyse technical research aimed at bridging the gap between current and supposed technical underpinnings of regulatory action, as well as ii) increase the level of technical expertise within governing institutions so as to inform and guide effective governance of AI.

AI models are increasingly prevalent in high-stakes environments, necessitating thorough assessment of their capabilities and risks. Benchmarks are popular for measuring these attributes and for comparing model performance, tracking progress, and identifying weaknesses in foundation and non-foundation models. They can inform model selection for downstream tasks and influence policy initiatives. However, not all benchmarks are the same: their quality depends on their design and usability. In this paper, we develop an assessment framework considering 40 best practices across a benchmark's life cycle and evaluate 25 AI benchmarks against it. We find that there exist large quality differences and that commonly used benchmarks suffer from significant issues. We further find that most benchmarks do not report statistical significance of their results nor can results be easily replicated. To support benchmark developers in aligning with best practices, we provide a checklist for minimum quality assurance based on our assessment. We also develop a living repository of benchmark assessments to support benchmark comparability.