System appreciation is an activity often included in the maintenance phase of software engineering projects. Key deliverables from this phase include documentation that describes what the system does in terms of its functional features, and how it achieves those features in terms of its architecture and design. Software architecture recovery is often the first step within System appreciation.
Human–robot collaboration
Human-Robot Collaboration is the study of collaborative processes in human and robot agents work together to achieve shared goals. Many new applications for robots require them to work alongside people as capable members of human-robot teams. These include robots for homes, hospitals, and offices, space exploration and manufacturing. Human-Robot Collaboration (HRC) is an interdisciplinary research area comprising classical robotics, human-computer interaction, artificial intelligence, process design, layout planning, ergonomics, cognitive sciences, and psychology. Industrial applications of human-robot collaboration involve Collaborative Robots, or cobots, that physically interact with humans in a shared workspace to complete tasks such as collaborative manipulation or object handovers. == Collaborative Activity == Collaboration is defined as a special type of coordinated activity, one in which two or more agents work jointly with each other, together performing a task or carrying out the activities needed to satisfy a shared goal. The process typically involves shared plans, shared norms and mutually beneficial interactions. Although collaboration and cooperation are often used interchangeably, collaboration differs from cooperation as it involves a shared goal and joint action where the success of both parties depend on each other. For effective human-robot collaboration, it is imperative that the robot is capable of understanding and interpreting several communication mechanisms similar to the mechanisms involved in human-human interaction. The robot must also communicate its own set of intents and goals to establish and maintain a set of shared beliefs and to coordinate its actions to execute the shared plan. In addition, all team members demonstrate commitment to doing their own part, to the others doing theirs, and to the success of the overall task. == Theories Informing Human-Robot Collaboration == Human-human collaborative activities are studied in depth in order to identify the characteristics that enable humans to successfully work together. These activity models usually aim to understand how people work together in teams, how they form intentions and achieve a joint goal. Theories on collaboration inform human-robot collaboration research to develop efficient and fluent collaborative agents. === Belief Desire Intention Model === The belief-desire-intention (BDI) model is a model of human practical reasoning that was originally developed by Michael Bratman. The approach is used in intelligent agents research to describe and model intelligent agents. The BDI model is characterized by the implementation of an agent's beliefs (the knowledge of the world, state of the world), desires (the objective to accomplish, desired end state) and intentions (the course of actions currently under execution to achieve the desire of the agent) in order to deliberate their decision-making processes. BDI agents are able to deliberate about plans, select plans and execute plans. === Shared Cooperative Activity === Shared Cooperative Activity defines certain prerequisites for an activity to be considered shared and cooperative: mutual responsiveness, commitment to the joint activity and commitment to mutual support. An example case to illustrate these concepts would be a collaborative activity where agents are moving a table out the door, mutual responsiveness ensures that movements of the agents are synchronized; a commitment to the joint activity reassures each team member that the other will not at some point drop his side; and a commitment to mutual support deals with possible breakdowns due to one team member's inability to perform part of the plan. === Joint Intention Theory === Joint Intention Theory proposes that for joint action to emerge, team members must communicate to maintain a set of shared beliefs and to coordinate their actions towards the shared plan. In collaborative work, agents should be able to count on the commitment of other members, therefore each agent should inform the others when they reach the conclusion that a goal is achievable, impossible, or irrelevant. == Approaches to Human-Robot Collaboration == The approaches to human-robot collaboration include human emulation (HE) and human complementary (HC) approaches. Although these approaches have differences, there are research efforts to develop a unified approach stemming from potential convergences such as Collaborative Control. === Human Emulation === The human emulation approach aims to enable computers to act like humans or have human-like abilities in order to collaborate with humans. It focuses on developing formal models of human-human collaboration and applying these models to human-computer collaboration. In this approach, humans are viewed as rational agents who form and execute plans for achieving their goals and infer other people's plans. Agents are required to infer the goals and plans of other agents, and collaborative behavior consists of helping other agents to achieve their goals. === Human Complementary === The human complementary approach seeks to improve human-computer interaction by making the computer a more intelligent partner that complements and collaborates with humans. The premise is that the computer and humans have fundamentally asymmetric abilities. Therefore, researchers invent interaction paradigms that divide responsibility between human users and computer systems by assigning distinct roles that exploit the strengths and overcome the weaknesses of both partners. == Key Aspects == Specialization of Roles: Based on the level of autonomy and intervention, there are several human-robot relationships including master-slave, supervisor–subordinate, partner–partner, teacher–learner and fully autonomous robot. In addition to these roles, homotopy (a weighting function that allows a continuous change between leader and follower behaviors) was introduced as a flexible role distribution. Establishing shared goal(s): Through direct discussion about goals or inference from statements and actions, agents must determine the shared goals they are trying to achieve. Allocation of Responsibility and Coordination: Agents must decide how to achieve their goals, determine what actions will be done by each agent, and how to coordinate the actions of individual agents and integrate their results. Shared context: Agents must be able to track progress toward their goals. They must keep track of what has been achieved and what remains to be done. They must evaluate the effects of actions and determine whether an acceptable solution has been achieved. Communication: Any collaboration requires communication to define goals, negotiate over how to proceed and who will do what, and evaluate progress and results. Adaptation and learning: Collaboration over time require partners to adapt themselves to each other and learn from one's partner both directly or indirectly. Time and space: The time-space taxonomy divides human-robot interaction into four categories based on whether the humans and robots are using computing systems at the same time (synchronous) or different times (asynchronous) and while in the same place (collocated) or in different places (non-collocated). Ergonomics: Human factors and ergonomics are one of the key aspects for a sustainable human-robot collaboration. The robot control system can use biomechanical models and sensors to optimize various ergonomic metrics, such as muscle fatigue.
Lukas Biewald
Lukas Biewald (born 1981) is an American entrepreneur and a prominent figure in artificial intelligence. He is recognized for his contributions to machine learning and as the CEO and co-founder of Weights & Biases, a company that builds developer tools for AI, that sold to CoreWeave in 2025 for $1.7B. He previously founded and was CEO of Figure Eight, a human-in-the-loop machine learning platform. He has co-authored 26 AI research papers from 2004 through 2018. == Early life and education == Biewald was born in Boston, Massachusetts in 1981. He attended Cambridge Rindge and Latin School and later earned both a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Computer science from Stanford University. == Early Career and Founding Figure Eight == After graduation, Biewald joined Yahoo! as an engineer, working on machine translations to improve search results, and eventually led the Search Relevance Team for Yahoo! Japan. He later joined Powerset, a natural language search technology company, as their Senior Scientist, which was acquired by Microsoft in 2008 for an estimated $100M. In 2007, Biewald co-founded Figure Eight (formerly CrowdFlower), a data labeling and crowdsourcing company that created datasets for training machine learning models. Figure Eight was acquired by Appen in 2019 for $300 million. == Weights and Biases == In 2017, Biewald co-founded Weights & Biases with Chris Van Pelt and Shawn Lewis. The company provides tools for tracking machine learning experiments, model management, and collaborative AI and LLM app development. The platform has been adopted by organizations such as OpenAI, Salesforce, and Microsoft. In March 2025 Coreweave acquired Weights and Biases at $1.7 billion, with the transaction closing on May 5, 2025. == Gradient Dissent == Biewald hosts the bi-weekly podcast Gradient Dissent. Guest have included: Anthony Goldbloom – Co-founder & CEO of Kaggle. “How to Win Kaggle Competitions” (podcast, Sep. 9, 2020). Shared tips on data-science competitions from the founder of the largest ML community. Richard Socher – Founder & CEO of You.com; former Chief Scientist at Salesforce. “The Challenges of Making ML Work in the Real World” (podcast, September 28, 2020). A leading NLP researcher, he spoke on multimodal search engines powered by large language models. Jensen Huang – Founder & CEO of NVIDIA. “NVIDIA’s CEO on the Next Generation of AI and MLOps” (podcast, March 3, 2022). Huang’s GPUs power modern ML research and production. Emad Mostaque – Co-founder & CEO of Stability AI. “Stable Diffusion, Stability AI, and What’s Next” (podcast, Nov. 15, 2022). Leads the company behind Stable Diffusion, which helped spark the generative-AI imaging boom. Drago Anguelov – Head of Research at Waymo. “Robustness, Safety, and Scalability at Waymo” (podcast, July 14, 2022). Covered Waymo’s self-driving AI advances and deployment challenges. Jeremy Howard – Co-founder of fast.ai. “The Simple but Profound Insight Behind Diffusion” (podcast, Jan. 5, 2023). Known for democratizing deep-learning education; discussed diffusion models and accessible AI tooling. Aidan Gomez – Co-founder & CEO of Cohere. “Scaling LLMs and Accelerating Adoption” (podcast, April 20, 2023). Co-author of “Attention Is All You Need,” he shared how Cohere delivers large-scale NLP models as a service. Chelsea Finn – Stanford Assistant Professor (AI & Robotics). “Shaping the World of Robotics with Chelsea Finn” (podcast, February 15, 2024). A pioneer in meta-learning and robotics, she detailed robots learning complex tasks like cooking. Andrew Feldman – Co-founder & CEO of Cerebras Systems. "Launching the Fastest AI Inference Solution" (podcast, August 27, 2024). Described wafer-scale AI chips achieving new training performance records. Thomas Dohmke – CEO of GitHub. “GitHub CEO on Copilot and the Future of Software Development” (podcast, June 10, 2025). Discussed building Copilot and the future of AI-assisted coding. Martin Shkreli – Founder of Godel Terminal. “From Pharma to AGI Hype, and Developing AI in Finance: Martin Shkreli’s Journey” (podcast, May 20, 2025). Shkreli reflects on his pharma controversies, prison experience, and his new AI-driven trading platform. Jarek Kutylowski – Founder & CEO of DeepL. “How DeepL Built a Translation Powerhouse with AI” (podcast, July 8, 2025). Shared how DeepL’s neural-MT rivals Google Translate through model and infrastructure innovation. == Awards and recognition == In 2010, Lukas Biewald won the Netexplorateur Award for creating the GiveWork iPhone app, which allows users to perform small tasks that assist refugees and people in developing countries. In 2010, Inc Magazine included Biewald and Van Pelt on its list of the Top 30 Entrepreneurs Under 30. == Publications == Ensuring quality in crowdsourced search relevance evaluation: The effects of training question distribution by John Le, Andy Edmonds, Vaughn Hester, Lukas Biewald. SIGIR 2010 Workshop on Crowdsourcing for Search Evaluation, July 2010. Superficial Data Analysis: Exploring Millions of Social Stereotypes by Lukas Biewald, Brendan O’Connor. O’Reilly July 2009 Biewald has co-authored 26 AI research papers from 2004 through 2018.
Polythematic Structured Subject Heading System
Polythematic Structured Subject Heading System (abbreviated as PSH from the Czech Polytematický Strukturovaný Heslář) is a bilingual Czech–English controlled vocabulary of subject headings developed and maintained by the National Technical Library (the former State Technical Library) in Prague. It was designed for describing and searching information resources according to their subject. PSH contains more than 13,900 terms, which cover the main fields of human knowledge. Because of its release in SKOS, PSH can be used not only for describing documents in a library, but also for indexing web pages. Everyone can use PSH for free. PSH is a part of the Linked Open Data cloud diagram (LOD cloud diagram). The image of the LOD cloud diagram shows datasets that have been published in Linked Data format, by contributors to the Linked Open Data community project and other individuals and organisations. == History and development == The PSH preparation project started in 1993, supported by several grants from the Czech Ministry of Culture and Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. Since 1995, PSH has been used for indexing the State Technical Library's documents. Starting 1997, PSH has been distributed to other libraries and companies, originally as a commercial, paid product; since 2009 for free. In 2000, the State Technical Library received a grant from the Ministry of Culture to translate PSH into English. The next milestone in its development was its releasing in the SKOS format, in 2009. The vast majority of new subject headings is suggested and approved by the indexing experts from the National Technical Library. However, the users and public can also make suggestions, using an online form, which are then assessed by the experts. The main decisions about the development and the future of PSH are done by the Committee for Coordination of Polythematic Structured Subject Heading System. The Committee consists of specialists from the National Technical Library and cooperating institutions, and representatives from the libraries and companies which use PSH. The Committee meets once a year in the National Technical Library; in the meantime, the members communicate using an electronic mailing list. == Browsing PSH == PSH Browser was released in June 2009. It serves for browsing the PSH system and its distribution in SKOS format. This tool navigates users through PSH from general to specific terms. Users can also use the Search field. PSH manager tool was released in 2012. It serves as an indexing tool especially to catalogers. Catalogers can easy orient in its clear structure. All the terms in PSH manager contain link to the catalogue of NTK. There can be also viewed the record in MARC21 format. == Autoindexing == In 2012 was released beta version of autoindexing application. It is accessible on Autoindexing. Users enter chosen text into indexing field and activate indexing. In few seconds the terms describing content are displayed. == PSH structure == PSH is a tree structure with 44 thematic sections. Subject headings are included in a hierarchy of six (or seven) levels according to their semantic content and specificity. There are hierarchical, associative ("see also") and equivalence ("see") relations in PSH. Hierarchical relations are represented by broader and narrower terms (e.g. physical diagnostic methods is broader term to electrocardiography, and on the other hand, electrocardiography is narrower term to physical diagnostic methods). Equivalence relations link subject headings with their nonpreferred versions (e.g. electrocardiography and ECG). Moreover, associative relations are used to link related subject headings from different parts of PSH, regardless their affiliation to a section, (e.g. electrocardiography: see also cardiology). Every subject heading belongs to just one section, which has its own two-character abbreviation, assigned to every subject heading of the section. This enables users to recognize affiliation of subject headings from lower levels to the thematic sections. The 44 thematic sections have following root nodes: == PSH formats == The main format for storage, maintenance and sharing PSH is the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data, which is implemented in library automated systems. PSH is also available in SKOS, using RDF/XML syntax, which is a version suitable for web distribution. Single headings can be accessed on the PSH website through URI links. Alternatively, the whole vocabulary can be downloaded in one file. It is possible to display tags from PSH (metadata snippets – Dublin Core and CommonTag), which can be embedded in an HTML document to provide its semantic description in a machine-readable way. == New subject headings == New subject headings are primarily obtained through the log analysis in the National Technical Library's on-line catalogue of documents, which are the terms used by end-users when searching various documents. Google Analytics service is now used for gaining search queries used by users. Within the data analysis, users queries are divided into seven categories that contain the title of the document, person, subject, action, institution, geographical terms and others. Then the candidates for new preferred terms and non-preferred terms are identified in the subject category. Users can suggest preferred or non-preferred terms through the web form or via e-mail psh(@)techlib.cz. == PSH and Creative Commons == PSH/SKOS has been available under the Creative Commons License CC BY 3.0 CZ (Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Czech Republic)since 2011. Users are free to copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works, but they must give the original author credit and if they alter, transform, or build upon this work, they have to distribute the resulting work only under a licence identical to this one. Users can download all data in one zip file, which is continuously updated.
Interim Measures for the Management of Anthropomorphic AI Interactive Services
The Interim Measures for the Management of Anthropomorphic AI Interactive Services (Chinese: 人工智能拟人化互动服务管理暂行办法) is a document proposed by the Cyberspace Administration of China to regulate anthropomorphic artificial intelligence systems. The draft was released on December 27, 2026 for public comment period until January 25, 2026. The proposed document would prohibit AI companies and users of AI services from generating certain types of content deemed harmful to national interests or the social order, and impose various regulatory and safety requirements on providers of AI systems. The proposed regulation is motivated by concerns about the psychological and social effects of AI systems that are perceived as personalities by their users, including addiction, encouragement of self-harm, or generation of illegal content. == Description == === Scope === The regulation would apply to AI systems that are offered to the general public within China. They would not apply to company-internal or research use, or to products that are only available outside of China. For the purpose of the regulation, anthropomorphic Ai systems are defined as those that "simulate human personality traits, modes of thinking, and communication styles, and that engage in emotional interaction with humans through text, images, audio, video, or other means". === Requirements === The regulation would require AI providers to monitor users for signs of harmful use and to take various interventions when indications of harmful use are detected. It would also prohibit AI systems from certain types of behaviors and generation of certain types of content. In some circumstances where a user appears to be at risk of self harm, the system would be required to hand over control to a human operator who would manually intervene. The regulation would also require more rigorous practices for managing the provenance of training data used to develop these systems, and would require explicit opt-in consent from users before their interactions with an AI system were used as training data. Data used to train the regulated systems would be required to reflect core socialist values and traditional Chinese culture.
Mobile Passport Control
Mobile Passport Control (MPC) is a mobile app that enables eligible travelers entering the United States to submit their passport information and customs declaration form to Customs and Border Protection via smartphone or tablet and go through the inspections process using an expedited lane. It is available to "U.S. citizens, U.S. lawful permanent residents, Canadian B1/B2 citizen visitors and returning Visa Waiver Program travelers with approved ESTA". The app is available on iOS and Android devices and is operational at 34 US airports, 14 international airports offering preclearance facilities, and 4 seaports. The use of Mobile Passport Control operations have increased threefold from 2016 to 2017. == History == Mobile Passport Control operations were launched in Atlanta at the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in 2016 and is now available at 34 U.S. airports, 14 international airports that offer preclearance and 4 U.S. cruise ports. The Mobile Passport app is authorized by CBP and sponsored by the Airports Council International-North America, Boeing, and the Port of Everglades. Airside Mobile, Inc. secured a Series A funding of $6 million in the fall of 2017. == How it works == During the customs process at the Federal Inspection Service (FIS) area of a U.S. airport, travelers arriving from international locations typically wait in long lines before presenting passports and paperwork and verbally answering questions made by CBP officials. Eligible travelers who have downloaded the Mobile Passport app can expedite this process by submitting information regarding their passport and trip details, and a newly-taken selfie, via their mobile device to CBP officials, then access an expedited line. Mobile Passport Control users will be required to show their physical passport(s) and briefly talk to a CBP officer. == Locations == === US airports === Atlanta (ATL) Baltimore (BWI) Boston (BOS) Charlotte (CLT) Chicago (ORD) Dallas/Ft Worth (DFW) Denver (DEN) Detroit (DTW) as of 7/2024 Ft. Lauderdale (FLL) Honolulu (HNL) Houston (HOU and IAH) Kansas City (MCI) Las Vegas (LAS) Los Angeles (LAX) Miami (MIA) Minneapolis (MSP) New York (JFK) Newark (EWR) Oakland (OAK) Orlando (MCO) Palm Beach (PBI) Philadelphia (PHL) Phoenix (PHX) Pittsburgh (PIT) Portland (PDX) Sacramento (SMF) San Diego (SAN) San Francisco (SFO) San Jose (SJC) San Juan (SJU) Seattle (SEA) Tampa (TPA) Washington Dulles (IAD) === International Preclearance locations === Abu Dhabi (AUH) Aruba (AUA) Bermuda (BDA) Calgary (YYC) Dublin (DUB) Edmonton (YEG) Halifax (YHZ) Montreal (YUL) Nassau (NAS) Ottawa (YOW) Shannon (SNN) Toronto (YYZ) Vancouver (YVR) Winnipeg (YWG) Sepinggan (BPN) === Seaports === Fort Lauderdale (PEV) Miami (MSE) San Juan (PUE) West Palm Beach (WPB)
General-Purpose AI Code of Practice
The General-Purpose AI Code of Practice (GPAI CoP) is a compliance tool released by the European Commission on 10 July 2025 to support compliance with the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). It provides operational guidance for providers of general-purpose AI models, particularly in relation to Articles 53 and 55 of the AI Act, which entered into application on 2 August 2025. The Code is organised into three chapters (Transparency, Copyright, and Safety and Security) and outlines how providers can meet the Act's relevant obligations. Although non-binding, providers can rely on adherence to the Code, meaning that EU regulators will assume that providers following the Code meet the corresponding legal requirements of the AI Act. As such, signatories to the Code will benefit from reduced administrative burdens and increased legal certainty compared to providers that prove compliance in other ways. While adherence to the Code is voluntary, compliance with the AI Act is not. == Background == The EU AI Act, adopted in 2024, established a risk-based regulatory regime for artificial intelligence in the European Union. The rationale for the GPAI CoP stems from Article 56 of the AI Act, which empowers the EU AI Office to develop a voluntary rulebook to guide how AI model providers can meet their legal obligations – specifically those found in Articles 53 and 55. Under Articles 53 and 55, developers of general-purpose AI models whose training compute exceeds 1023 floating-point operations (FLOPs) and that are placed on the EU market must meet transparency obligations and put in place a policy for EU copyright law. Models trained with more than 1025 FLOPs are classified as presenting systemic risk and are subject to enhanced safety requirements. The Commission may also designate a model as presenting systemic risk if it has equivalent impact or capabilities (Annex XIII criteria), even below that compute figure. Because the AI Act is relatively vague on how model providers should implement these requirements, the Code is meant to help by detailing processes and practices for compliance. == Drafting process == The development of the GPAI CoP was drawn up by 13 independent experts and involved four thematic working groups: Transparency & Copyright, Risk assessment for systemic risk, Technical risk mitigation for systemic risk, and Governance risk mitigation for systemic risk. Each group was coordinated by the European Union Artificial Intelligence Office (EU AI Office), drawing on contributions from nearly 1,000 stakeholders, including AI developers, academics, civil society organisations, national authorities, and international observers. The Code underwent three earlier iterations in November 2024, December 2024, and March 2025, before the final version was published on 10 July 2025, more than two months later than initially planned. The GPAI CoP will likely be updated continuously by the EU AI Office, alongside other tools such as the training data summary template. == Signatories == Among U.S.-based technology companies, Amazon, Anthropic, Google, IBM, Microsoft, and OpenAI have signed the GPAI CoP. xAI, founded by Elon Musk, has signed only one of the three chapters, namely the safety and security chapter. Prominent European AI companies that have signed include Aleph Alpha and Mistral AI. The European Commission maintains an updated list of signatories. As of January 2026, Meta is the most notable company that has declined to sign the Code. Major Chinese AI companies, such as Alibaba, Baidu or Deepseek, have also not signed. Providers that do not sign the GPAI CoP will still have to adhere to the binding requirements of the EU AI Act. The European Commission has indicated that it may take tougher action against companies that didn't sign the Code. == Transparency and Copyright chapters == The first two chapters of the GPAI CoP address transparency and copyright compliance and apply to all GPAI providers. They offer a way to demonstrate compliance with their obligations under Article 53 AI Act. The Transparency chapter addresses the documentation of a model's capabilities, limitations, and points of contact, and expects providers to make key documentation available to downstream providers. Signatories must also publish summaries of the content used to train their models. In the Copyright chapter, Signatories commit to follow a policy that aligns with EU copyright law. For example, they commit to mitigating the risk of copyright-infringing output. == Safety and Security chapter == The Safety and Security chapter is the most extensive chapter of the Code, and it applies to GPAI models with systemic risk, meaning it's only relevant to the small number of providers of the most advanced models. It specifies how Signatories commit to meeting Article 55(1) obligations to: Conduct model evaluations to identify systemic risks Assess and mitigate those risks Track and report serious incidents Ensure the cyber and physical security of their models The chapter outlines a comprehensive risk management process that must be applied before major deployment decisions, such as releasing a new systemic-risk GPAI model in the EU market, or substantially updating an existing one. Signatories commit to identifying systemic risks of their model, analysing and evaluating them, determining whether risk levels are acceptable, and implementing mitigation measures if necessary. This process should be repeated until models achieve an acceptable level of risk across all identified risks. === Risk identification === Signatories commit to analysing and evaluating at least four “specified” categories of systemic risk: CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear) Loss of control Cyber offence Harmful manipulation They are also expected to identify other systemic risks to public health, safety, and fundamental rights. The Code instructs providers to consider model capabilities, propensities, and affordances in this identification. Signatories commit to developing risk scenarios illustrating how identified risks could materialise in real-world conditions. === Risk analysis and risk evaluation === After identifying potential systemic risks, Signatories commit to analysing and evaluating the risks in order to determine whether they are acceptable or not, drawing on scientific literature, training data analysis, incident databases, expert consultation, and other sources. They also commit to conducting state-of-the-art model evaluations such as benchmarking, red teaming, and human uplift studies, targeting each risk. The risk analysis process is interconnected: insights from risk modelling should inform model evaluation design, while post-market monitoring should feed back into ongoing analysis. Signatories commit to ultimately estimating the likelihood and severity of each systemic risk. ==== Independent external model evaluations ==== Appendix 3.5 of the Safety and Security chapter requires signatories to ensure that independent external evaluators conduct model evaluations. Signatories may claim an exemption from this requirement only if they can demonstrate that their model is “similarly safe” to another model that has already been shown to comply with the Code, or if they are unable to appoint an appropriately qualified evaluator. The determination of “similarly safe” is based on comparable performance on benchmarks and the similarity of other model characteristics, such as their architecture. The CoP acknowledges that this kind of information is typically available only for models by the same provider, or potentially for open-weights or open-source models. === Risk acceptance criteria === The Code requires providers to compare estimated risks against predefined acceptance criteria, which must be measurable, based on model capabilities, and defined preemptively. While providers get to determine the level of risk they deem acceptable themselves, the pre-defined criteria and acceptance thresholds ensure providers cannot adjust their level of tolerance flexibly ahead of deployment decisions. Only if all risks are below acceptable levels should a model be deployed. === Continuous risk management and governance === The Code mandates ongoing risk management throughout the model lifecycle, including light-touch evaluations, continuous mitigation, post-market monitoring, and incident tracking and reporting. It further requires organisational governance structures assigning responsibility for risk management and expects providers to promote a “healthy risk culture,” including informing employees about the whistleblower protection policy, allowing internal challenges of decisions concerning systemic risk management, and committing to not retaliating against employees who disclose concerns about systemic risks to oversight authorities. === Documentation and transparency === Signatories commit to creating two types of documentation: Safety and Security Frame