Chiosa
Research collection

AI Security & Safety

Research on AI Security & Safety: explanations, evidence, limitations and connections between papers.

29 results

  1. Match an automated pass to the failure paths it tested

    A faster training recipe, a warning from a code checker, and a patch that blocks an exploit can each receive an encouraging automated result. The practical tension is whether that result covers the failure that matters for the next decision. Across these studies, a pass becomes useful when its test case and target are clear. Their checks screen settings, filter generated programs, or replay attacks, yet each leaves paths outside what it exercised. Read the pass as evidence for those tested paths.

  2. Match agent security checks to the evidence they can observe

    An assistant can finish a professional task while also taking an unauthorized action. A tool call can appear approved while its server accesses a file beyond the tool’s intended scope. The visible deliverable and the approval prompt leave part of the story unseen. The first clue is the route by which influence enters. A workspace instruction must be encountered, a tool argument can select a file, coordinated queries must stand out from ordinary traffic, and a saved artifact can shape a later session. Each route leaves different evidence.

  3. Match each security claim to the behavior its test observes

    A static analyzer can issue a warning, a patch can stop a crash, and a software tool can return successfully. Each observation sounds reassuring until we ask what behavior the check actually saw. A later task may also reuse an artifact whose contents came from an earlier session. The studies suggest a practical reading rule: identify the behavior a test checks and the conditions under which it checks it. Their findings illuminate different parts of a security workflow, so each claim must stay attached to its own test.