Mapping the Unknown: A New Approach to AI Risk

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

Researchers have developed a structured methodology for quantifying the potential harms of increasingly powerful artificial intelligence systems.

This paper details a six-step process leveraging scenario building, expert judgment, and Bayesian Networks for quantitative AI risk modeling, with a focus on Large Language Models.

Despite the transformative potential of advanced AI, systematic methods for assessing and managing associated risks remain underdeveloped. This challenge is addressed in ‘A Methodology for Quantitative AI Risk Modeling’, which introduces a six-step framework integrating scenario building with quantitative estimation-drawing on established risk assessment techniques from high-risk industries. Our methodology enables concrete claims about potential harms, such as the probability of exceeding specific damage thresholds, by mapping key risk indicators to model parameters and aggregating them into overall risk estimates. Will this approach facilitate more informed decision-making and proactive mitigation of systemic AI risks, particularly those arising from Large Language Models?

Defining the Landscape of AI Risk: A Systems-Level Perspective

The escalating sophistication of artificial intelligence, notably the advent of Large Language Models, demands a move beyond ad-hoc evaluations of potential harms and towards formalized, systematic risk identification. These systems, characterized by billions of parameters and emergent capabilities, present challenges that traditional risk assessment frameworks are ill-equipped to address. A rigorous, structured approach allows for the decomposition of complex AI systems into their constituent components, facilitating the analysis of potential failure modes and the propagation of errors. This methodology isn’t simply about identifying if something could go wrong, but rather systematically mapping how failures might occur across the entire system lifecycle – from data ingestion and model training to deployment and ongoing monitoring – and prioritizing mitigation efforts based on the likelihood and severity of those harms.

Conventional risk assessment frameworks, designed for more predictable systems, struggle to adequately address the intricacies of modern artificial intelligence. These established methods often rely on identifying known hazards and estimating their probabilities – an approach ill-suited to AI, where emergent behaviors and unforeseen interactions are common. The very nature of complex AI, particularly large language models, introduces a level of opacity that makes anticipating all potential failure modes exceedingly difficult. Consequently, novel techniques are required – methods that move beyond simple hazard identification to explore the entire solution space and systematically map potential harms. This necessitates a shift toward proactive, simulation-based approaches capable of uncovering subtle vulnerabilities and quantifying risks associated with increasingly sophisticated AI systems, rather than reacting to failures after they occur.

Responsible artificial intelligence development hinges on the ability to not only identify potential harms, but also to rigorously quantify them. Recent advancements necessitate a move beyond qualitative risk assessments towards methodologies capable of assigning numerical values to the likelihood and magnitude of adverse outcomes. A six-step quantitative AI risk modeling approach offers a structured pathway to achieve this, beginning with hazard identification and progressing through consequence analysis, probability estimation, risk aggregation, and ultimately, the implementation of mitigation strategies. This process allows developers and deployers to move beyond speculation and establish a data-driven understanding of systemic vulnerabilities, facilitating informed decision-making and proactive harm reduction. By translating abstract concerns into measurable metrics, organizations can prioritize resources, validate safety measures, and foster greater transparency and accountability in the age of increasingly complex AI systems.

Effective mitigation of artificial intelligence risks demands a shift from reactive responses to proactive anticipation of potential failure pathways. Rather than solely addressing harms as they emerge, a robust strategy necessitates identifying how and where an AI system might deviate from intended behavior. This involves systematically mapping out possible scenarios – from data biases leading to discriminatory outcomes, to unexpected interactions with the real world, and even vulnerabilities to adversarial attacks. By meticulously examining these potential failure modes during the design and development phases, researchers and engineers can implement safeguards, refine algorithms, and establish robust monitoring systems. This forward-looking approach doesn’t eliminate risk entirely, but it significantly reduces the likelihood of unforeseen consequences and allows for more effective responses when challenges inevitably arise, ultimately fostering greater trust and responsible innovation in the field of AI.

Quantitative Risk Modeling: A Systematic Decomposition of Harm

Quantitative Risk Modeling (QRM) provides a systematic approach to AI harm assessment by combining scenario building with numerical estimation. This methodology begins with the identification of potential hazards and the construction of plausible risk pathways – sequences of events leading from a hazard to a negative consequence. Each pathway is then quantified, assigning numerical values to the likelihood and magnitude of associated harms. This allows for the calculation of risk metrics, such as expected value or probability distributions of potential losses. The structured nature of QRM facilitates the consistent evaluation of diverse AI risks and enables comparison across different scenarios, moving beyond purely descriptive risk assessments to provide data-driven insights.

The core of quantitative risk modeling involves constructing plausible risk pathways that detail how identified hazards can propagate to produce real-world consequences. This process begins with hazard identification – defining potential sources of harm stemming from an AI system. Subsequently, pathways are mapped, outlining the sequence of events and conditions that connect the hazard to specific consequences, such as economic loss, reputational damage, or physical harm. Each step in the pathway is characterized by associated probabilities or likelihoods, allowing for a quantitative assessment of the overall risk. The precision of these pathways is crucial; they must account for mediating factors and dependencies, enabling a comprehensive understanding of how a hazard translates into measurable impacts.

Expert elicitation is a core component of quantitative risk modeling, employed to generate informed probability estimates for uncertain events and parameters. Recent evaluations demonstrate the efficacy of this technique when integrated with Large Language Model (LLM) estimators; specifically, a Kendall’s W correlation of 3.6 percentage points was observed between LLM-derived estimates on paired benchmarks assessing the same characteristic. This statistically significant correlation indicates a notable degree of consistency between expert judgment – captured through elicitation – and LLM-based estimations, validating the LLM’s capacity to approximate human risk assessment when properly informed by expert knowledge. The Kendall’s W metric, measuring agreement among multiple raters, confirms the reliability of the combined approach in generating consistent and informed risk evaluations.

Traditional risk assessments for artificial intelligence frequently rely on subjective evaluations and descriptive analyses. Quantitative Risk Modeling facilitates a shift towards objective measurement by assigning numerical values to both the likelihood and potential impact of identified hazards. This data-driven approach enables the calculation of expected values and the prioritization of risks based on their magnitude, moving beyond descriptive statements of potential harm. The resulting quantitative framework allows for tracking changes in risk over time, comparing risks across different AI systems, and supporting informed decision-making regarding mitigation strategies and resource allocation. This contrasts with purely qualitative methods which lack the precision needed for rigorous analysis and comparative evaluation.

Uncertainty and Dependency: Modeling Complex Systems with Bayesian Networks

Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs) are directed acyclic graphical models that quantitatively represent probabilistic dependencies between variables relevant to AI risk assessment. These networks utilize Bayes’ theorem to update the probability of an event based on evidence, allowing for the modeling of complex relationships where multiple factors contribute to a particular risk. Specifically, each node in the network represents a variable-such as a technical capability, a societal factor, or a specific hazard-and the edges represent probabilistic dependencies between them. Conditional probability tables (CPTs) associated with each node define the probability distribution of that variable given the states of its parent nodes, enabling the calculation of the probability of any variable given evidence about others. This allows risk analysts to move beyond simple causal chains and explore interconnected risks and cascading failures within complex AI systems and their operational environments.

Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs) model complex systems by representing variables as nodes and the probabilistic relationships between them as directed edges. This allows for the explicit depiction of dependencies, moving beyond simple correlation to establish causal influence. Uncertainty is quantified using probabilities; each node possesses a conditional probability table (CPT) defining the probability of each state given the states of its parent nodes. Information propagation, or inference, is achieved through Bayes’ Theorem, enabling the calculation of the probability of a particular outcome given evidence about other variables in the network. This allows for both predictive reasoning – estimating future states – and diagnostic reasoning – inferring the causes of observed events – within a system where complete knowledge is unavailable or computationally intractable. The network’s structure, combined with the CPTs, defines a joint probability distribution $P(X_1, X_2, …, X_n)$ over all variables.

The utility of a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) is directly determined by the fidelity of its Structural Representation, which defines the network’s nodes – representing variables – and the directed edges illustrating probabilistic dependencies between them. An inaccurate Structural Representation, whether through omission of crucial dependencies, inclusion of spurious connections, or incorrect directional relationships, will yield flawed probabilistic inferences. Specifically, the Conditional Probability Tables (CPTs) associated with each node are only meaningful given a correct underlying structure; a misdefined structure fundamentally invalidates the CPTs and consequently, any risk assessment or prediction derived from the BBN. Therefore, meticulous expert elicitation and validation are critical steps in constructing a reliable BBN for AI risk analysis.

Common Cause Analysis, enabled by Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs), identifies vulnerabilities present in multiple, seemingly disparate risk scenarios. This is achieved by mapping causal relationships within the BBN; a single root node representing a common cause can influence multiple downstream events. By analyzing these shared dependencies, a BBN can reveal that the probability of multiple failures increases significantly if a single underlying factor occurs. This contrasts with independent failure modes, where probabilities are multiplied; with common causes, the probability of any of the related failures occurring is higher due to the shared dependency. Consequently, addressing the common cause provides a more efficient risk mitigation strategy than independently addressing each scenario.

From Pathways to Quantification: Translating Risk into Actionable Metrics

The progression from identifying potential hazards to genuinely understanding their impact relies on risk quantification, a process of translating qualitative concerns into measurable values. Rather than simply acknowledging a risk exists, this approach assigns numerical probabilities and magnitudes to each stage of a potential harm’s pathway. Techniques like Monte Carlo Simulation are then employed, running thousands of iterations to model the range of possible outcomes and generate a distribution of potential impacts. This allows for a more nuanced understanding than single-point estimates, revealing not just the most likely result, but also the potential for extreme events. By quantifying each step – from initial trigger to ultimate consequence – decision-makers gain a clear, data-driven basis for prioritizing resources and implementing effective mitigation strategies, ultimately transforming abstract concerns into actionable insights.

The ability to calculate overall risk transforms abstract concerns into a quantifiable metric, facilitating informed decision-making across complex scenarios. By aggregating the probabilities and potential impacts of individual risk factors within a pathway, a single, comprehensive risk score emerges. This score isn’t merely an academic exercise; it provides a clear signal for prioritizing mitigation strategies and allocating resources effectively. Such a metric allows for comparative risk assessments – determining which potential failures demand immediate attention versus those that can be monitored or accepted. Ultimately, this process shifts risk management from a qualitative assessment of vulnerabilities to a data-driven approach focused on minimizing potential harm and maximizing the likelihood of positive outcomes, empowering stakeholders to make proactive and defensible choices.

A comprehensive understanding of potential system failures necessitates a systematic approach to identifying and analyzing those failures, and techniques like Event Tree Analysis and Fault Tree Analysis provide precisely that. Event Tree Analysis begins with an initiating event and maps out all possible subsequent outcomes, branching as each event either proceeds normally or leads to a failure state. Conversely, Fault Tree Analysis starts with a defined system failure and traces back to the possible events and conditions that could cause it, constructing a logical ‘tree’ of contributing factors. By combining these methodologies, researchers can comprehensively map out all credible failure pathways, assess the probability of each, and ultimately pinpoint critical vulnerabilities requiring focused mitigation strategies. This proactive approach moves beyond reactive problem-solving, allowing for the design of more robust and resilient systems, particularly crucial in complex domains like artificial intelligence where unforeseen consequences can be significant.

A novel LLM-estimator has demonstrated a strong ability to assess the inherent difficulty of tasks presented on the Cybench benchmark, effectively mirroring human evaluations of complexity. Crucially, this estimator reveals a positive correlation between an AI system’s capability and its associated risk – as performance increases, so does the potential for harm, a finding consistent with assessments from human expert groups. This allows for the calculation of a Total Risk score for AI systems, moving beyond qualitative assessments to a quantifiable metric. Consequently, developers and policymakers can leverage this score to prioritize mitigation efforts, focusing resources on addressing the most substantial risks posed by increasingly capable artificial intelligence, and ensuring responsible innovation in the field.

The methodology detailed within this work emphasizes a holistic understanding of potential harms stemming from Large Language Models. It views AI risk not as isolated incidents, but as emergent properties of complex systems – a perspective echoed by Paul Erdős, who once stated, “A mathematician knows a lot of things, but the mathematician who knows the most knows nothing.” This sentiment aptly captures the inherent uncertainty in predicting the behavior of LLMs. Just as a mathematician acknowledges the limits of complete knowledge, this research advocates for a structured, quantitative approach-scenario building and Bayesian Networks-to navigate the unknown and model risks with greater precision, recognizing that complete certainty remains elusive. The framework’s strength lies in its ability to map interconnected vulnerabilities and potential cascading failures, treating the system as an integrated whole.

The Road Ahead

This methodology, while offering a structured approach to quantifying AI risk, necessarily highlights the limitations inherent in attempting to model complex systems. Each elicited probability, each constructed scenario, represents a simplification – a necessary concession to tractability, but one that introduces its own biases. The elegance of Bayesian Networks lies in their ability to represent dependencies, yet the true topology of risks surrounding Large Language Models remains largely unknown; every new dependency is the hidden cost of freedom. Future work must address the challenge of identifying and incorporating these hidden interconnections, acknowledging that the map will always be a distortion of the territory.

A crucial next step involves refining the expert elicitation process. The subjective nature of risk assessment demands robust methods for aggregating diverse perspectives and mitigating cognitive biases. Furthermore, the framework’s scalability needs careful consideration. Applying this methodology to increasingly complex AI systems will require automation and the development of tools for managing the inevitable combinatorial explosion of scenarios. The question is not simply what could go wrong, but where will the leverage points for meaningful intervention lie?

Ultimately, the pursuit of quantitative AI risk modeling is not about achieving perfect prediction – a fool’s errand. Instead, it’s about fostering a more nuanced understanding of the trade-offs involved in deploying these powerful technologies. Structure dictates behavior, and a clearer articulation of that structure – even an imperfect one – is a vital step toward responsible innovation.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.08844.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2025-12-10 11:42