Who Evaluates AI's Social Impacts? Mapping Coverage and Gaps in First and Third Party Evaluations

Foundation models are increasingly central to high-stakes AI systems, and governance frameworks now depend on evaluations to assess their risks and capabilities. Although general capability evaluations are widespread, social impact assessments covering bias, fairness, privacy, environmental costs, and labor practices remain uneven across the AI ecosystem. To characterize this landscape, we conduct the first comprehensive analysis of both first-party and third-party social impact evaluation reporting across a wide range of model developers. Our study examines 186 first-party release reports and 183 post-release evaluation sources, and complements this quantitative analysis with interviews of model developers. We find a clear division of evaluation labor: first-party reporting is sparse, often superficial, and has declined over time in key areas such as environmental impact and bias, while third-party evaluators including academic researchers, nonprofits, and independent organizations provide broader and more rigorous coverage of bias, harmful content, and performance disparities. However, this complementarity has limits. Only model developers can authoritatively report on data provenance, content moderation labor, financial costs, and training infrastructure, yet interviews reveal that these disclosures are often deprioritized unless tied to product adoption or regulatory compliance. Our findings indicate that current evaluation practices leave major gaps in assessing AI's societal impacts, highlighting the urgent need for policies that promote developer transparency, strengthen independent evaluation ecosystems, and create shared infrastructure to aggregate and compare third-party evaluations in a consistent and accessible way.

Hidden in Plain Text: Emergence & Mitigation of Steganographic Collusion in LLMs

The rapid proliferation of frontier model agents promises significant societal advances but also raises concerns about systemic risks arising from unsafe interactions. Collusion to the disadvantage of others has been identified as a central form of undesirable agent cooperation. The use of information hiding (steganography) in agent communications could render collusion practically undetectable. This underscores the need for evaluation frameworks to monitor and mitigate steganographic collusion capabilities. We address a crucial gap in the literature by demonstrating, for the first time, that robust steganographic collusion in LLMs can arise indirectly from optimization pressure. To investigate this problem we design two approaches -- a gradient-based reinforcement learning (GBRL) method and an in-context reinforcement learning (ICRL) method -- for reliably eliciting sophisticated LLM-generated linguistic text steganography. Importantly, we find that emergent steganographic collusion can be robust to both passive steganalytic oversight of model outputs and active mitigation through communication paraphrasing. We contribute a novel model evaluation framework and discuss limitations and future work. Our findings imply that effective risk mitigation from steganographic collusion post-deployment requires innovation in passive and active oversight techniques.