paper-with-me

홈 › Papers

CTRL-ALT-DECEIT: Sabotage Evaluations for Automated AI R&D

2025-11-13 · Francis Rhys Ward, Teun van der Weij, Hanna Gábor, Sam Martin, Raja Mehta Moreno, Harel Lidar, Louis Makower, Thomas Jodrell, Lauren Robson arxiv

AI systems are increasingly able to autonomously conduct realistic software engineering tasks, and may soon be deployed to automate machine learning (ML) R&D itself. Frontier AI systems may be deployed in safety-critical settings, including to help ensure the safety of future systems. Unfortunately, frontier and future systems may not be sufficiently trustworthy, and there is evidence that these systems may even be misaligned with their developers or users. Therefore, we investigate the capabilities of AI agents to act against the interests of their users when conducting ML engineering, by sabotaging ML models, sandbagging their performance, and subverting oversight mechanisms. First, we extend MLE-Bench, a benchmark for realistic ML tasks, with code-sabotage tasks such as implanting backdoors and purposefully causing generalisation failures. Frontier agents make meaningful progress on our sabotage tasks. In addition, we study agent capabilities to sandbag on MLE-Bench. Agents can calibrate their performance to specified target levels below their actual capability. To mitigate sabotage, we use LM monitors to detect suspicious agent behaviour, and we measure model capability to sabotage and sandbag without being detected by these monitors. Overall, monitors are capable at detecting code-sabotage attempts but our results suggest that detecting sandbagging is more difficult. Additionally, aggregating multiple monitor predictions works well, but monitoring may not be sufficiently reliable to mitigate sabotage in high-stakes domains. Our benchmark is implemented in the UK AISI's Inspect framework and we make our code publicly available at https://github.com/TeunvdWeij/ctrl-alt-deceit

📄 PDF Abstract BibTeX arXiv:2511.09904

Code (0)

등록된 구현이 없습니다.

Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반

The politics of deceptive borders: 'biomarkers of deceit' and the case of iBorderCtrl

2019-11-20 · Javier Sánchez-Monedero, Lina Dencik

This paper critically examines a recently developed proposal for a border control system called iBorderCtrl, designed to detect deception based on facial recognition technology and the measurement of micro-expressions, t…

Deception DetectionManagement

Sabotage Evaluations for Frontier Models

2024-10-28 · Joe Benton, Misha Wagner, Eric Christiansen, Cem Anil 외

Sufficiently capable models could subvert human oversight and decision-making in important contexts. For example, in the context of AI development, models could covertly sabotage efforts to evaluate their own dangerous c…

Decision Making

Gram: Assessing sabotage propensities via automated alignment auditing

2026-05-28 · David Lindner, Victoria Krakovna, Sebastian Farquhar arxiv

We introduce Gram, an automated alignment auditing framework to assess the propensity of AI agents to engage in sabotage. We evaluate Gemini models across 17 simulated agentic deployment scenarios that incentivize sabota…

ResearchArena: Evaluating Sabotage and Monitoring in Automated AI R&D

2026-07-21 · Lena Libon, Ben Rank, Jehyeok Yeon, David Schmotz 외 arxiv

As AI agents begin to automate AI R&D, we need ways to assess whether their outputs are safe to deploy, even when the agents themselves may be untrusted. AI control offers one such approach: rather than trusting the agen…

Evaluating whether AI models would sabotage AI safety research

2026-04-27 · Robert Kirk, Alexandra Souly, Kai Fronsdal, Abby D'Cruz 외 arxiv

We evaluate the propensity of frontier models to sabotage or refuse to assist with safety research when deployed as AI research agents within a frontier AI company. We apply two complementary evaluations to four Claude m…