Abstract:Artificial Intelligence (AI) Safety Institutes and governments worldwide are deciding whether they evaluate and audit advanced AI themselves, support a private auditor ecosystem or do both. Auditing regimes have been established in a wide range of industry contexts to monitor and evaluate firms' compliance with regulation. Auditing is a necessary governance tool to understand and manage the risks of a technology. This paper draws from nine such regimes to inform (i) who should audit which parts of advanced AI; and (ii) how much capacity public bodies may need to audit advanced AI effectively. First, the effective responsibility distribution between public and private auditors depends heavily on specific industry and audit conditions. On the basis of advanced AI's risk profile, the sensitivity of information involved in the auditing process, and the high costs of verifying safety and benefit claims of AI Labs, we recommend that public bodies become directly involved in safety critical, especially gray- and white-box, AI model evaluations. Governance and security audits, which are well-established in other industry contexts, as well as black-box model evaluations, may be more efficiently provided by a private market of evaluators and auditors under public oversight. Secondly, to effectively fulfill their role in advanced AI audits, public bodies need extensive access to models and facilities. Public bodies' capacity should scale with the industry's risk level, size and market concentration, potentially requiring 100s of employees for auditing in large jurisdictions like the EU or US, like in nuclear safety and life sciences.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

### Problems the Paper Attempts to Solve This paper explores the roles that public and private institutions should play in the auditing of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) and proposes a three-step logical framework to guide this decision-making process. #### Main Research Questions 1. **Who should audit which parts of advanced AI?** - The allocation of responsibilities between public and private institutions for auditing advanced AI in different industry contexts depends on the specific industry and auditing conditions. - Based on the risk characteristics of advanced AI, the sensitivity of information during the audit process, and the cost of verifying the safety and efficacy claims of AI labs, it is recommended that public institutions directly participate in the evaluation of high-risk AI models (especially grey-box and white-box models). - Governance and safety audits (established in other industry contexts) and black-box model evaluations may be more suitable for assessors and auditors in the private market under public oversight. 2. **How many resources do public institutions need to conduct effective advanced AI audits?** - To effectively fulfill their role in advanced AI auditing, public institutions need extensive access to models and facilities. - The capacity of public institutions should vary with the risk level, scale, and market concentration of the industry. In large jurisdictions (such as the EU or the US), hundreds of employees may be required to conduct auditing work. #### Methodology and Case Analysis - The research methodology includes case studies of auditing systems in 9 high-risk industries to qualitatively identify who conducts audits under different conditions. - Through these case studies, the authors propose a three-step logical framework to determine who is best suited to conduct specific types of audits. #### Conclusions and Recommendations - The authors propose a series of policy recommendations, including prioritizing high-risk audits, building internal capacity and expertise, and ensuring access to information for both the audited parties and auditors. - For AI safety research institutes and other regulatory bodies, it is recommended to provide sufficient access, consider statutory audits, and link audit results with subsequent transparency and regulatory enforcement. - For AI labs, it is recommended to share access and expertise and commit to responsible actions following audits. Through these studies and recommendations, the paper aims to provide a theoretical foundation and practical guidance for the design of advanced AI auditing systems.

Public vs Private Bodies: Who Should Run Advanced AI Evaluations and Audits? A Three-Step Logic Based on Case Studies of High-Risk Industries

Auditing of AI: Legal, Ethical and Technical Approaches

Black-Box Access is Insufficient for Rigorous AI Audits

From Transparency to Accountability and Back: A Discussion of Access and Evidence in AI Auditing

The Necessity of AI Audit Standards Boards

Auditing the AI auditors: A framework for evaluating fairness and bias in high stakes AI predictive models.

Towards algorithm auditing: managing legal, ethical and technological risks of AI, ML and associated algorithms

Advancing AI Audits for Enhanced AI Governance

Ethics-Based Auditing to Develop Trustworthy AI

Holistic Safety and Responsibility Evaluations of Advanced AI Models

Accountability in AI: From principles to industry-specific accreditation

An International Consortium for Evaluations of Societal-Scale Risks from Advanced AI

When code isn’t law: rethinking regulation for artificial intelligence

Conformity Assessments and Post-market Monitoring: A Guide to the Role of Auditing in the Proposed European AI Regulation

Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem

The risks of risk-based AI regulation: taking liability seriously

Audit and Assurance of AI Algorithms: A framework to ensure ethical algorithmic practices in Artificial Intelligence

Responsible AI in Open Ecosystems: Reconciling Innovation with Risk Assessment and Disclosure

AI auditing: The Broken Bus on the Road to AI Accountability

Frontier AI developers need an internal audit function

A Framework for Assurance Audits of Algorithmic Systems