Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critiques current evaluation practices for open-weight AI models (OWMs), highlighting their inadequacy in addressing unique risks associated with these models compared to closed-weight AI models (CWMs). The authors advocate for the adoption of proportional evaluation (PE) approaches that include assessing robustness to modifications, selective capability amplification, and worst-case misuse scenarios. Their systematic review of 37 OWM families reveals that only one meets the proposed evaluation criteria, underscoring a significant gap in current methodologies that could jeopardize safe deployment.
Only one out of 37 open-weight AI models meets the necessary evaluation standards to ensure safety and robustness, revealing a critical oversight in current practices.
Open-weight AI models (OWMs), or models released with publicly-available weights, are distributing rapidly and approaching the performance levels of leading closed-weight AI models (CWMs). While OWMs offer substantial scientific and economic benefits, their release introduces distinct risk factors for which existing evaluation practices, largely designed for CWM deployment, fail to account. In this paper, we argue that these risk factors demand distinct proportional evaluation (PE) approaches: evaluating without system-level safeguards (PE1), assessing robustness to modifications that undo model-level safeguards (PE2), testing selective capability amplification (PE3), and proxying worst-case misuse (PE4). We systematically review current evaluation practices of OWMs released in 2025 through April 2026, finding that only one of the 37 families of models reviewed fulfills PE1-4 and most do not fulfill any. This paper targets policymakers, funders, and researchers involved in AI evaluation. As OWMs grow increasingly capable, their evaluation warrants close attention from developers, funders, and governance bodies alike.
