The endowment of AI with reasoning capabilities and some degree of agency is widely viewed as a path toward more capable and generalizable systems. Our position is that the current development of agentic AI requires a more holistic, systems-theoretic perspective in order to fully understand their capabilities and mitigate any emergent risks. The primary motivation for our position is that AI development is currently overly focused on individual model capabilities, often ignoring broader emergent behavior, leading to a significant underestimation in the true capabilities and associated risks of agentic AI. We describe some fundamental mechanisms by which advanced capabilities can emerge from (comparably simpler) agents simply due to their interaction with the environment and other agents. Informed by an extensive amount of existing literature from various fields, we outline mechanisms for enhanced agent cognition, emergent causal reasoning ability, and metacognitive awareness. We conclude by presenting some key open challenges and guidance for the development of agentic AI. We emphasize that a systems-level perspective is essential for better understanding, and purposefully shaping, agentic AI systems.

We introduce the Granite Guardian models, a suite of safeguards designed to provide risk detection for prompts and responses, enabling safe and responsible use in combination with any large language model (LLM). These models offer comprehensive coverage across multiple risk dimensions, including social bias, profanity, violence, sexual content, unethical behavior, jailbreaking, and hallucination-related risks such as context relevance, groundedness, and answer relevance for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Trained on a unique dataset combining human annotations from diverse sources and synthetic data, Granite Guardian models address risks typically overlooked by traditional risk detection models, such as jailbreaks and RAG-specific issues. With AUC scores of 0.871 and 0.854 on harmful content and RAG-hallucination-related benchmarks respectively, Granite Guardian is the most generalizable and competitive model available in the space. Released as open-source, Granite Guardian aims to promote responsible AI development across the community.

Evaluating the safety of AI Systems is a pressing concern for organizations deploying them. In addition to the societal damage done by the lack of fairness of those systems, deployers are concerned about the legal repercussions and the reputational damage incurred by the use of models that are unsafe. Safety covers both what a model does; e.g., can it be used to reveal personal information from its training set, and how a model was built; e.g., was it only trained on licensed data sets. Determining the safety of an AI system requires gathering information from a wide set of heterogeneous sources including safety benchmarks and technical documentation for the set of models used in that system. In addition, responsible use is encouraged through mechanisms that advise and help the user to take mitigating actions where safety risks are detected. We present Usage Governance Advisor which creates semi-structured governance information, identifies and prioritizes risks according to the intended use case, recommends appropriate benchmarks and risk assessments and importantly proposes mitigation strategies and actions.

Large language models (LLMs) offer powerful capabilities but also introduce significant risks. One way to mitigate these risks is through comprehensive pre-deployment evaluations using benchmarks designed to test for specific vulnerabilities. However, the rapidly expanding body of LLM benchmark literature lacks a standardized method for documenting crucial benchmark details, hindering consistent use and informed selection. BenchmarkCards addresses this gap by providing a structured framework specifically for documenting LLM benchmark properties rather than defining the entire evaluation process itself. BenchmarkCards do not prescribe how to measure or interpret benchmark results (e.g., defining ``correctness'') but instead offer a standardized way to capture and report critical characteristics like targeted risks and evaluation methodologies, including properties such as bias and fairness. This structured metadata facilitates informed benchmark selection, enabling researchers to choose appropriate benchmarks and promoting transparency and reproducibility in LLM evaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) are susceptible to a variety of risks, from non-faithful output to biased and toxic generations. Due to several limiting factors surrounding LLMs (training cost, API access, data availability, etc.), it may not always be feasible to impose direct safety constraints on a deployed model. Therefore, an efficient and reliable alternative is required. To this end, we present our ongoing efforts to create and deploy a library of detectors: compact and easy-to-build classification models that provide labels for various harms. In addition to the detectors themselves, we discuss a wide range of uses for these detector models - from acting as guardrails to enabling effective AI governance. We also deep dive into inherent challenges in their development and discuss future work aimed at making the detectors more reliable and broadening their scope.

Although AI-based systems are increasingly being leveraged to provide value to organizations, individuals, and society, significant attendant risks have been identified. These risks have led to proposed regulations, litigation, and general societal concerns. As with any promising technology, organizations want to benefit from the positive capabilities of AI technology while reducing the risks. The best way to reduce risks is to implement comprehensive AI lifecycle governance where policies and procedures are described and enforced during the design, development, deployment, and monitoring of an AI system. While support for comprehensive governance is beginning to emerge, organizations often need to identify the risks of deploying an already-built model without knowledge of how it was constructed or access to its original developers. Such an assessment will quantitatively assess the risks of an existing model in a manner analogous to how a home inspector might assess the energy efficiency of an already-built home or a physician might assess overall patient health based on a battery of tests. This paper explores the concept of a quantitative AI Risk Assessment, exploring the opportunities, challenges, and potential impacts of such an approach, and discussing how it might improve AI regulations.

We also introduced a taxonomy to The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in navigate the space of explanation methods, not only the ten high stakes domains has been coupled with an increase in societal in the toolkit but also the broader literature on explainable demands for these systems to provide explanations for AI. The taxonomy was intended to be usable by consumers their outputs. This societal demand has already resulted in with varied backgrounds to choose an appropriate explanation new regulations requiring explanations (Goodman and Flaxman method for their application. AIX360 differs from other 2016; Wachter, Mittelstadt, and Floridi 2017; Selbst open source explainability toolkits (see Arya et al. (2020) and Powles 2017; Pasternak 2019). Explanations can allow for a list) in two main ways: 1) its support for a broad and users to gain insight into the system's decision-making process, diverse spectrum of explainability methods, implemented in which is a key component in calibrating appropriate a common architecture, and 2) its educational material as trust and confidence in AI systems (Doshi-Velez and Kim discussed below.

As AI models and services are used in a growing number of highstakes areas, a consensus is forming around the need for a clearer record of how these models and services are developed to increase trust. Several proposals for higher quality and more consistent AI documentation have emerged to address ethical and legal concerns and general social impacts of such systems. However, there is little published work on how to create this documentation. This is the first work to describe a methodology for creating the form of AI documentation we call FactSheets. We have used this methodology to create useful FactSheets for nearly two dozen models. This paper describes this methodology and shares the insights we have gathered. Within each step of the methodology, we describe the issues to consider and the questions to explore with the relevant people in an organization who will be creating and consuming the AI facts in a FactSheet. This methodology will accelerate the broader adoption of transparent AI documentation.

As artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms make further inroads into society, calls are increasing from multiple stakeholders for these algorithms to explain their outputs. At the same time, these stakeholders, whether they be affected citizens, government regulators, domain experts, or system developers, present different requirements for explanations. Toward addressing these needs, we introduce AI Explainability 360 (http://aix360.mybluemix.net/), an open-source software toolkit featuring eight diverse and state-of-the-art explainability methods and two evaluation metrics. Equally important, we provide a taxonomy to help entities requiring explanations to navigate the space of explanation methods, not only those in the toolkit but also in the broader literature on explainability. For data scientists and other users of the toolkit, we have implemented an extensible software architecture that organizes methods according to their place in the AI modeling pipeline. We also discuss enhancements to bring research innovations closer to consumers of explanations, ranging from simplified, more accessible versions of algorithms, to tutorials and an interactive web demo to introduce AI explainability to different audiences and application domains. Together, our toolkit and taxonomy can help identify gaps where more explainability methods are needed and provide a platform to incorporate them as they are developed.

Using machine learning in high-stakes applications often requires predictions to be accompanied by explanations comprehensible to the domain user, who has ultimate responsibility for decisions and outcomes. Recently, a new framework for providing explanations, called TED, has been proposed to provide meaningful explanations for predictions. This framework augments training data to include explanations elicited from domain users, in addition to features and labels. This approach ensures that explanations for predictions are tailored to the complexity expectations and domain knowledge of the consumer. In this paper, we build on this foundational work, by exploring more sophisticated instantiations of the TED framework and empirically evaluate their effectiveness in two diverse domains, chemical odor and skin cancer prediction. Results demonstrate that meaningful explanations can be reliably taught to machine learning algorithms, and in some cases, improving modeling accuracy.