Automated Analysis of Global AI Safety Initiatives: A Taxonomy-Driven LLM Approach

The critical failure modes in deployed large language models (LLMs) are cross-dimensional: a model can score 99.3 in safety alignment while refusing one in three benign queries, or improve across every capability metric while losing 21 points in privacy. Existing evaluation frameworks that assess safety, security, and privacy independently cannot detect these patterns. We introduce aiXamine, a unified black-box platform that evaluates LLM trustworthiness across safety, security, and privacy as interdependent properties. aiXamine orchestrates 46 tests across nine services through an automated red-teaming pipeline, producing hierarchical risk profiles, from prompt-level diagnostics to cross-service trade-off analytics, that enable reproducible comparison of proprietary and open-weight systems under identical conditions. Applying aiXamine to over 120 LLMs through more than 5,000 test runs, we conduct the largest joint safety, security, and privacy study to date and uncover three cross-dimensional phenomena invisible to single-axis evaluation. First, safety enforcement incurs a quantifiable safety tax: stronger alignment systematically increases over-refusal, forcing providers to choose between protection and utility. Second, privacy is near-orthogonal to other trustworthiness dimensions and not captured by standard alignment. Third, we identify and formally characterize distillation-induced robustness collapse: off-policy distillation without on-policy correction causes entropy collapse, catastrophically destroying robustness (56.9$\to$2.6) on the same base architecture. These findings, compounded by diminishing returns from scale and category-dependent safety behaviors, demonstrate that trustworthiness is inherently multi-dimensional: progress along one axis does not guarantee, and can actively undermine, progress along others, yet current alignment methods treat it as a single objective.

The rapid deployment of LLM-based autonomous agents has introduced safety risks that extend far beyond traditional LLM concerns, prompting a proliferation of safety benchmarks since late 2023. However, these benchmarks have developed independently, with inconsistent threat models, incompatible metrics, and overlapping yet incomplete risk coverage. We present the first systematic analysis dedicated to agent safety benchmarks as evaluation instruments. We catalog 40 behavioral agent-safety benchmarks (2023-2026), plus 5 adjacent evaluator, defense, and dataset artifacts, propose a six-axis taxonomy of benchmark evaluation methodology, and apply it across the corpus to characterize how methodological choices shape safety conclusions. A coverage matrix reveals broad risk coverage but limited methodological convergence, while the taxonomy analysis shows a behavioral-benchmark core concentrated in sandboxed, constrained, and often safety-only evaluation. Across the landscape, we find that benchmark choice can yield contradictory safety conclusions, coverage counts often overstate evaluation depth, environment fidelity systematically shapes reported safety, the field disproportionately tests externally imposed rather than agent-internal risks, metric fragmentation limits comparison, and robustness remains effectively unbenchmarked. We ground these claims with a cross-benchmark consistency check, with 95% confidence intervals and Kendall's W concordance analysis, finding no evidence of ranking concordance across evaluation dimensions (W = 0.10, p = 0.94). We release structured metadata, full taxonomy codings, risk annotations, and all experimental artifacts, and propose minimum reporting standards for future benchmarks.

Rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in enterprise settings has introduced operational, security, and governance risks. As generative AI applications move from pilot to production, manual harm identification and mitigation are becoming difficult to scale. Although many tools support model evaluation, adversarial testing, runtime guardrails, and observability, the tooling landscape remains fragmented. Tools are typically designed for specific engineering tasks and described in technical terms that do not align with governance frameworks or risk taxonomies, making it difficult to determine which tools address which risks and where critical gaps remain. This paper proposes a structured protocol to automate AI risk mitigation through a taxonomy-driven analysis of open-source LLM evaluation and security tools. We map the capabilities of 21 prominent open-source tools to the 32 subcategories of the extended MIT AI Risk Mitigation and Response Taxonomy. An LLM-assisted retrieval-augmented generation pipeline analyzes source code and documentation to extract capabilities for each taxonomy category. Reliability assessment yielded moderate agreement (Fleiss' Kappa = 0.509) among three independent reviewers. The analysis reveals a highly skewed landscape in which tools cluster around technical and operational controls, while governance, legal and regulatory, and financial and market controls remain largely unaddressed. This motivates a layered risk-mitigation architecture combining tool-based controls with organizational and regulatory processes. The mapping protocol achieved an F1 score of 75.5% after majority voting. Overall, the study provides a practical mapping between enterprise AI risk categories and open-source mitigation capabilities, identifies where human oversight remains necessary, and presents a taxonomy-driven framework applicable to open-source and proprietary solutions.