AI Navigate

Clear, Compelling Arguments: Rethinking the Foundations of Frontier AI Safety Cases

arXiv cs.AI / 3/11/2026

Ideas & Deep Analysis

Key Points

  • The paper contributes to the emerging discussion on safety cases for frontier AI systems, emphasizing their importance in ensuring safe deployment.
  • It highlights that current research in AI alignment draws from assurance community lessons but has significant limitations.
  • The authors propose rethinking alignment safety cases by incorporating methodologies and insights from established safety assurance practices used in critical industries.
  • A case study focusing on Deceptive Alignment and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) capabilities illustrates the application of these improved safety case frameworks.
  • The work aims to establish a robust, defensible safety case methodology to better assure the safety of advanced AI systems in high-risk contexts.

Computer Science > Computers and Society

arXiv:2603.08760 (cs)
[Submitted on 8 Mar 2026]

Title:Clear, Compelling Arguments: Rethinking the Foundations of Frontier AI Safety Cases

View a PDF of the paper titled Clear, Compelling Arguments: Rethinking the Foundations of Frontier AI Safety Cases, by Shaun Feakins and 2 other authors
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:This paper contributes to the nascent debate around safety cases for frontier AI systems. Safety cases are structured, defensible arguments that a system is acceptably safe to deploy in a given context. Historically, they have been used in safety-critical industries, such as aerospace, nuclear or automotive. As a result, safety cases for frontier AI have risen in prominence, both in the safety policies of leading frontier developers and in international research agendas proposed by leaders in generative AI, such as the Singapore Consensus on Global AI Safety Research Priorities and the International AI Safety Report. This paper appraises this work. We note that research conducted within the alignment community which draws explicitly on lessons from the assurance community has significant limitations. We therefore aim to rethink existing approaches to alignment safety cases. We offer lessons from existing methodologies within safety assurance and outline the limitations involved in the alignment community's current approach. Building on this foundation, we present a case study for a safety case focused on Deceptive Alignment and CBRN capabilities, drawing on existing, theoretical safety case "sketches" created by the alignment safety case community. Overall, we contribute holistic insights from the field of safety assurance via rigorous theory and methodologies that have been applied in safety-critical contexts. We do so in order to create a better foundational framework for robust, defensible and useful safety case methodologies which can help to assure the safety of frontier AI systems.
Comments:
Subjects: Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Cryptography and Security (cs.CR)
Cite as: arXiv:2603.08760 [cs.CY]
  (or arXiv:2603.08760v1 [cs.CY] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.08760
Focus to learn more
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Shaun Feakins [view email]
[v1] Sun, 8 Mar 2026 16:25:58 UTC (546 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Clear, Compelling Arguments: Rethinking the Foundations of Frontier AI Safety Cases, by Shaun Feakins and 2 other authors
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source
Current browse context:
cs.CY
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:

References & Citations

export BibTeX citation Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

×
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy logo Reddit logo
Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
Links to Code Toggle
Papers with Code (What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.