Call for posters
We’ll have poster sessions running through both days.
What we want to see
Submissions should sit in or across one of the three focus areas. Work in progress is welcome — we would rather see a sharp open problem than a finished result that nobody can act on.
Trustworthy auditing
Third-party evaluators work through black-box APIs, on roughly a week’s notice, and rarely get a reliable upper bound on what a model can do. The map from a benchmark score to a real-world risk pathway stays largely undrawn — which is precisely the map policymakers need in order to write a guardrail that binds.
Verifiable AI
An agreement is only as good as the ability to check it. Tamper-resistant hardware that keeps a trustworthy record of what a chip was used for — how much compute ran, whether an evaluation took place — turns unverifiable self-reporting into claims a counterparty can test.
AI R&D automation
As models take on more of the research loop, the pace of capability gain and the difficulty of overseeing it move together. This track asks what can actually be measured about automated AI R&D — before the measurement problem outruns the measurers.
Cross-cutting work on translating technical findings into policy-relevant claims; negative results and failed evaluation designs; replication and methodology critiques; and empirical work on the governance ecosystem itself.
Key dates
1 September 2026
Submissions open
Alongside registration and the first speaker announcement.
2 October 2026, 23:59 BST
Abstract deadline
Approximately 300 words. No extensions — the review window is tight.
13 October 2026
Decisions sent
Accepted authors receive board dimensions and printing guidance.
23 October 2026
Final PDFs due
Bring your printed poster to the venue.
14–15 November 2026
The forum
Poster hall open through every break, both days.
Abstracts close 2 October
Submissions are now closed.
What reviewers look for
Abstracts are reviewed by the programme committee against four criteria, weighted equally.
Relevance
Does it sit in one of the three focus areas, or clearly bridge them?
Actionability
Is there something here a policy team, evaluator or lab could do differently as a result?
Rigour
Are the claims supported, and are the limits stated honestly?
Discussion value
Will it start the kind of conversation that continues after the break?
Format & requirements
| Item | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Abstract length | Approximately 300 words, plain text. |
| Authors | Any number; one presenting author must be registered and present in the hall. |
| Prior publication | Permitted. Preprints, published papers and unpublished work in progress are all eligible. |
Poster FAQ
No — you can submit an abstract before registering. But if your poster is accepted, the presenting author must be registered and present in the hall on both days.
Yes. Preprints, published papers and unpublished work in progress are all eligible. We care about whether the room should see it, not whether it is new to the literature.
Actively. An evaluation design that failed, and a clear account of why, is often more useful to this audience than a positive result — particularly under focus area 03.
From accepted posters, by the programme committee. There is no separate application. Selected authors get three minutes in the main theatre on day two.
Choose the closer one and say so in the abstract. Cross-cutting submissions are welcome and are reviewed on the same criteria.