Safeguarded AI

Clarification questions

Answering your questions

Ahead of submitting your application, we encourage you to read our funding FAQs.

If you still have questions related to Safeguarded AI, please reach out to

We’ll update this page twice a week with answers.

Nb: clarification questions should be submitted no later than 4 days prior to the relevant deadline date. Clarification questions received after this date will not be reviewed. 


What is the threshold for funding?

There is no upper budget limit however when estimating your proposed project you should consider that we are looking to fund this Technical Area 1.1 with up to £3.5M in total (including VAT where applicable) for the first year and we expect to make 10 to 16 awards.


What is the expected duration for projects?

We expect to commit funding for TA1.1 projects until September 2025, as such applicant proposals should not exceed this timeframe. Based upon the outputs of the initial funding we intend to make decisions in March 2025 about a second phase of funding, to be delivered from September 2025 until September 2026 (Phase 2). 

Where we decide to release funding for Phase 2, existing Creators will be required to submit proposals for Phase 2 funding. At the same time we will release a solicitation for TA1.1 Phase 2 inviting new applicants to submit new proposals.


Are we permitted to budget for staff (e.g., postdocs) who are not nominated?

Yes, you should include the costs required to deliver the proposed project. If you know who the postdoc is at the time of submission you should include their details. You should also indicate what proportion of their time will be dedicated to the project (this includes the time a PI will dedicate to the project).


Would you organise an event to meet other individuals or would you know individuals who are looking to partner with others for this call?

We are not planning to hold an event for the TA1.1 solicitation but where you believe your proposal would benefit from collaboration with another organisation but you are yet to connect with potential partners you should identify any gaps or potential areas where you may need a partner in your proposal.

Where you identify potential gaps or areas you may need to partner on, we may offer an introduction to any suitable matches we identify (there will be no obligation to meet with these matches).

That said, we do not encourage joint proposals across more than one recipient institution, and/or across groups that are not likely to actually work together on a regular (~weekly) basis.


Before preparing a full proposal, we wanted to inquire about the requirement and timeline for submitting a concept paper. The general ARIA project review and selection process (ARIA-project-review-and-selection-process.pdf) outlines a concept paper stage, but the TA1.1 Theory call document does not explicitly mention this requirement or provide a deadline.

Could you please clarify whether a concept paper is expected for this specific call, and if so, what the submission deadline would be? We want to ensure we follow the correct process and timeline.

The review process you refer to outlines the entire process where we release a two stage call (concept papers and full proposals). However, for TA1.1 of the Safeguarded AI programme in order to optimise the process for the programme we have chosen to only have a one stage process with a longer submission timeline. 

As such we have removed the concept paper stage and only request full proposals, award decisions will therefore be made based on the full proposal you submit.


Can the costs for research associate work on the projects be included?

Yes you can include research associate costs within your cost estimates for a proposal.


Is there a maximum budget for a single proposal?

There is no upper budget limit however when estimating your proposed project you should consider that we are looking to fund this Technical Area 1.1 with up to £3.5M in total (including VAT where applicable) for the first year and we expect to make 10 to 16 awards.


Can we budget for small hardware development related to the proposal?

Yes, you can budget for compute, but given the length of the contracts we prefer to fund cloud compute. Implementation on edge devices is out of scope for TA1.1.


Do we budget for TA1, TA2 and TA3 together or individually?

For clarity, we are currently only accepting proposals for TA1.1. TA2 and TA3 will be launched in the near future.


If we apply for TA1.1 and our application is accepted, are there any explicit or implicit rules that would prevent us from applying to the other stages (e.g. TA1.2, TA2, etc.)?

No, there are no explicit or implicit rules that would prevent you from applying.


On p. 9 of the TA1.1 call for proposals, it says that “World models should be able to combine the following kinds of uncertainty: … partiality.” Can you clarify what you mean by “partiality”?

Partiality is in the sense of “partial function” and is sometimes called “nontermination” (I don’t use this term, because nontermination is only one source of a partiality effect; contradiction or inconsistency is another). To elaborate further: partiality is often modelled by the “Maybe monad” (–⨿1). Nondeterminism without partiality is modelled by the nonempty powerset monad; nondeterminism combined with partiality is modelled by the powerset monad. Stochasticity without partiality is modelled by probability; stochasticity combined with partiality is modelled by sub probability. For more on this see citation [35] of the programme thesis.


On p. 5 of the TA1.1 call for proposals, it says that “the aspirational aim of TA1.1 as a whole is to define “syntax” (algebraic construction operators, and version-controllable serialisable data structures), and formal semantics, for language(s) that can be used by teams of humans (and, later, AI systems) to define “world models”, probabilistic specifications, neural network controllers, and proof certificates.” Does each project for TA1.1 need to develop a language that can be used to define all of these things? 

Each project need not develop a language that can be used to define all these things. Rather, that is the goal of the entire technical subarea TA1.1, and each project needs to be plausibly critical toward achieving that overall goal. Focusing on a narrower scope is encouraged, but you will be required to coordinate with other projects at quarterly workshops to steer towards technical interoperability and integration into an eventual unified solution.


How much detail would you like to see in the proposal about the architecture/structure of the language that will be developed, versus focusing on the criteria that the language will satisfy?

At this stage we expect specific solutions to be tentative and speculative, but fleshing out one or two key concepts that you believe are novel and important will help demonstrate your team’s ability to contribute constructively. Defining the criteria for the problem you hope to solve demonstrates ambition and the ability to ask the right questions. And discussion of alternative approaches and their shortcomings demonstrates rigour and critical thinking. As a rough guideline, a good proposal would spend a comparable amount of ink in each of these three modes.


On p. 7 of the TA1.1 call for proposals, it says that “creators in TA1.1 should, in their proposal: *Define their problem with multiple formal criteria (of the kind that could in principle be encoded in a proof assistant such as Lean 4), likely in addition to informal criteria.” Could you clarify what you mean by “formal criteria” in the context of language/representation design?

It means stating hoped-for theorems that would be the “main result” of a paper if your proposed project is carried through to success. See for example Theorem 2 of ‘Sound and Complete Certificates for Quantitative Termination Analysis of Probabilistic Programs’ [PDF]  or section 4 of Verified Density Compilation for a Probabilistic Programming Language [PDF].


On p. 7 of the TA1.1 call for proposals, it says that “creators in TA1.1 should, in their proposal: … *Identify and contrast two or three potential approaches to the problem.” Does this mean two or three approaches that the proposer is considering using/pursuing for the project, or two or three approaches that are different from what the proposer is considering using (perhaps with an explanation of why the proposer thinks these approaches are less likely to be successful than their own approach)?

Success in this part of the proposal means for the proposer to demonstrate their ability to critically evaluate the prospects of alternative approaches. This does not mean claiming the superiority of your proposal over others’. Rather, you are encouraged to give some insight into how you are actually beginning to think about the large design space of potential solutions to your chosen problem. An ideal response might identify three variations on a novel idea, which each seem equally good at first, then show why one is inferior to the other two, then list tradeoffs between the remaining two, leaving both options open with specific questions to be investigated further in future analysis if your project goes forward.