Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2504.00091

A First-Principles Based Risk Assessment Framework and the IEEE P3396 Standard

Richard J. Tong·Marina Cortês·Jeanine A. DeFalco·Mark Underwood·Janusz Zalewski
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) is enabling unprecedented automation in content creation and decision support, but it also raises novel risks. This paper presents a first-principles risk assessment framework underlying the IEEE P3396 Recommended Practice for AI Risk, Safety, Trustworthiness, and Responsibility. We distinguish between process risks (risks arising from how AI systems are built or operated) and outcome risks (risks manifest in the AI system's outputs and their real-world effects), arguing that generative AI governance should prioritize outcome risks. Central to our approach is an information-centric ontology that classifies AI-generated outputs into four fundamental categories: (1) Perception-level information, (2) Knowledge-level information, (3) Decision/Action plan information, and (4) Control tokens (access or resource directives). This classification allows systematic identification of harms and more precise attribution of responsibility to stakeholders (developers, deployers, users, regulators) based on the nature of the information produced. We illustrate how each information type entails distinct outcome risks (e.g. deception, misinformation, unsafe recommendations, security breaches) and requires tailored risk metrics and mitigations. By grounding the framework in the essence of information, human agency, and cognition, we align risk evaluation with how AI outputs influence human understanding and action. The result is a principled approach to AI risk that supports clear accountability and targeted safeguards, in contrast to broad application-based risk categorizations. We include example tables mapping information types to risks and responsibilities. This work aims to inform the IEEE P3396 Recommended Practice and broader AI governance with a rigorous, first-principles foundation for assessing generative AI risks while enabling responsible innovation.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Richard J. Tong, Marina Cortês, Jeanine A. DeFalco, Mark Underwood, Janusz Zalewski. 2025-03-31. A First-Principles Based Risk Assessment Framework and the IEEE P3396 Standard. https://doi.org/10.1109/cai64502.2025.00237

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Who Should Be Generated? Justifying Demographic Targets in Open-Ended Generation

Fairness evaluation concerns not only what a model produces, but also what its outputs ought to be compared against. When a model generates "a CEO in the United States," the prompt leaves demographic realization to the model. Existing group fairness definitions assume that sensitive attributes are given on the input side. Generative audits instead examine output-side demographic composition, yet the targets they compare it against are typically supplied rather than justified. The upstream question is what the target distribution should be. We formalize this missing-target problem for demographic-value-unspecified generation and decompose target construction into four commitments: the evaluative object, prior admissibility, allocation, and operationalization. In this framework, we admit the geographic prior under a geographic-membership interpretation for the declared public-world use. The occupational prior, under an incumbency interpretation, requires an independently defended objective such as workforce-composition fidelity. Instantiating this construction in AP-Bench, we find substantial distribution divergence from geography-derived targets, ranging from 0.508 to 0.606 on a 0-to-1 scale. Replacing each geography-derived target with an equal-category comparator, while holding generations and measurement fixed, produces model-specific mean absolute cell-level $\mathrm{JSD}_2$ changes ranging from 0.279 to 0.355. Target construction is therefore not a preliminary to fairness evaluation but a component of it. What we supply is not a universal target, but a framework that makes explicit the justification required before a distribution can serve as a fairness standard.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Anticipatory Human Oversight of Agentic AI: A Philosophical Account

Human oversight is widely held to mitigate the risks of AI systems. Even for systems that produce discrete outputs at identifiable decision points, the realisation of human oversight as a reactive measure is empirically fragile, yet increasingly well understood. However, for agentic AI -- systems that plan, decompose goals, and execute multi-step actions over extended horizons -- reactive oversight reaches its structural limits: intervention on individual actions defeats the autonomy that motivates the deployment, while intervention on aggregate patterns is too coarse for harms whose cumulative consequences only become legible after the fact. This paper argues that reactive oversight must be complemented by an anticipatory mode: oversight exercised before the agent acts, by specifying the normative agenda that structures the space of permissible action and refining it iteratively through specification, runtime, and inspection. The two are complements -- the agenda's escalation conditions specify when reactive intervention is invoked. Drawing on Meaningful Human Control, we read anticipatory oversight as the operationalisation of distal-reason tracking. In addition, we argue that the proposed framework yields a specific responsibility architecture by design: occupying the anticipatory mode is the discharge of a role-grounded prospective obligation, and backward-looking responsibility takes the form of strict moral answerability -- rationalistic, relational, and holding regardless of fault, in virtue of the principal's prior opportunity for precaution. We develop bridging failure modes, address objections including moral luck and the illusion of control, and close with regulatory, architectural, and empirical implications

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Critical Data Studies in the Anthropocene

This chapter introduces the concept of the Anthropocene into critical data studies, a field that has, for the past decade, explored the entanglements between datafication and politics. With the scaling up of contemporary datafication alongside generative computing, it is essential to expand these debates, both theoretically and methodologically, to consider the logics of extraction and exploitation inherent in the politics of artificial intelligence. Critical data scholars are called to interrogate how dominant narratives around the materiality of contemporary datafication either obscure or reveal its environmental impacts, along other key questions such as who benefits from these logics. To illustrate this, this chapter brings two case studies from Spain and Chile and explores how the infrastructure of contemporary datafication intersects with existing power structures, influencing which social and environmental consequences are recognized, addressed, and neglected. Finally, it invites critical data scholars to keep exploring the politics of data, infrastructure, and the Anthropocene by blending discipline boundaries between science and technology studies, media, geography, and political ecology.

cs.CY↗