Subversion Strategy Eval: Can language models statelessly strategize to subvert control protocols?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
An AI control protocol is a plan for usefully deploying AI systems that aims to prevent an AI from intentionally causing some unacceptable outcome. This paper investigates how well AI systems can generate and act on their own strategies for subverting control protocols whilst operating statelessly (without shared memory between contexts). To do this, an AI system may need to reliably generate optimal plans in each context, take actions with well-calibrated probabilities, and coordinate plans with other instances of itself without communicating. We develop Subversion Strategy Eval, a suite of eight environments, covering a range of protocols and strategic capabilities, and six sets of affordances that help isolate individual capabilities. We implement the evaluation in Inspect-AI and release it open-source. We evaluate Claude 3.5 models, including helpful-only versions, as well as OpenAI reasoning models. None of the models demonstrate substantial capability in strategizing to subvert control protocols statelessly. However, providing models with additional affordances, such as the ability to share a plan between contexts, can substantially improve performance. We hope our evaluations can act as a leading indicator for when models are capable of subverting control protocols and also relax the worst-case assumption of perfect strategic ability in AI control evaluations.
Key facts. Cited by 14 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Dec 2024.
Builds on
10 of 33 references.
References · 10
- 2021Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPScited by 879
- 2022Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluationscited by 805
- 2024WildChat: 1M ChatGPT Interaction Logs in the Wildcited by 598
- 2024The WMDP Benchmark: Measuring and Reducing Malicious Use With Unlearningcited by 488
- 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 207
- 2024GameBench: Evaluating Strategic Reasoning Abilities of LLM Agentscited by 89
- 2024Me, Myself, and AI: The Situational Awareness Dataset (SAD) for LLMscited by 78
- 2024Games for AI Control: Models of Safety Evaluations of AI Deployment Protocolscited by 28
- 2024Adaptive Deployment of Untrusted LLMs Reduces Distributed Threatscited by 27
- 2024Estimating the Probabilities of Rare Outputs in Language Modelscited by 15
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 8; 2026: 6.
14 papers.
Sort:
By area:
- 2025CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoringcited by 49
- 2025Evaluating Frontier Models for Stealth and Situational Awarenesscited by 30
- 2025How to evaluate control measures for LLM agents? A trajectory from today to superintelligencecited by 20
- 2025Async Control: Stress-testing Asynchronous Control Measures for LLM Agentscited by 18
- 2025Control Tax: The Price of Keeping AI in Checkcited by 7
- 2025Practical challenges of control monitoring in frontier AI deploymentscited by 6
- 2025Out of Control -- Why Alignment Needs Formal Control Theory (and an Alignment Control Stack)cited by 3
- 2025Subversion via Focal Points: Investigating Collusion in LLM Monitoringcited by 3
- 2026Basic Legibility Protocols Improve Trusted Monitoringcited by 3
- 2026Frontier Models Can Take Actions at Low Probabilitiescited by 3
- 2026Distributed Attacks in Persistent-State AI Controlcited by 3
- 2026Attack Selection in Agentic AI Control Evaluations Meaningfully Decreases Safetycited by 1
- 2026Shared and structured inputs undermine collective random choice by reasoning AI agents7 Oct 2026
- 2026Distributed Attacks in Persistent-State AI Control2 Jul 2026
- 2026Bootstrapped Monitoring: Leveraging Transparent Reasoning to Oversee Stronger AI Agents10 Jun 2026
- 2026Attack Selection in Agentic AI Control Evaluations Meaningfully Decreases Safety3 Jun 2026
- 2026Frontier Models Can Take Actions at Low Probabilities2 Mar 2026
- 2026Basic Legibility Protocols Improve Trusted Monitoring9 Feb 2026
- 2025Practical challenges of control monitoring in frontier AI deployments15 Dec 2025
- 2025Async Control: Stress-testing Asynchronous Control Measures for LLM Agents15 Dec 2025
- 2025Subversion via Focal Points: Investigating Collusion in LLM Monitoring2 Jul 2025
- 2025Out of Control -- Why Alignment Needs Formal Control Theory (and an Alignment Control Stack)21 Jun 2025
- 2025Control Tax: The Price of Keeping AI in Check5 Jun 2025
- 2025CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoring29 May 2025
- 2025How to evaluate control measures for LLM agents? A trajectory from today to superintelligencecited by 20
- 2025Async Control: Stress-testing Asynchronous Control Measures for LLM Agentscited by 18
- 2025Control Tax: The Price of Keeping AI in Checkcited by 7
- 2026Distributed Attacks in Persistent-State AI Controlcited by 3
- 2026Attack Selection in Agentic AI Control Evaluations Meaningfully Decreases Safetycited by 1
- 2026Shared and structured inputs undermine collective random choice by reasoning AI agentscited by 0
- 2026Shared and structured inputs undermine collective random choice by reasoning AI agents7 Oct 2026
- 2026Distributed Attacks in Persistent-State AI Control2 Jul 2026
- 2026Attack Selection in Agentic AI Control Evaluations Meaningfully Decreases Safety3 Jun 2026
- 2025Async Control: Stress-testing Asynchronous Control Measures for LLM Agents15 Dec 2025
- 2025Control Tax: The Price of Keeping AI in Check5 Jun 2025
- 2025How to evaluate control measures for LLM agents? A trajectory from today to superintelligence7 Apr 2025
- 2025CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoringcited by 49
- 2025CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoring29 May 2025
- 2025Evaluating Frontier Models for Stealth and Situational Awarenesscited by 30
- 2025Practical challenges of control monitoring in frontier AI deploymentscited by 6
- 2025Out of Control -- Why Alignment Needs Formal Control Theory (and an Alignment Control Stack)cited by 3
- 2026Frontier Models Can Take Actions at Low Probabilitiescited by 3
- 2026Bootstrapped Monitoring: Leveraging Transparent Reasoning to Oversee Stronger AI Agentscited by 0
- 2026Bootstrapped Monitoring: Leveraging Transparent Reasoning to Oversee Stronger AI Agents10 Jun 2026
- 2026Frontier Models Can Take Actions at Low Probabilities2 Mar 2026
- 2025Practical challenges of control monitoring in frontier AI deployments15 Dec 2025
- 2025Out of Control -- Why Alignment Needs Formal Control Theory (and an Alignment Control Stack)21 Jun 2025
- 2025Evaluating Frontier Models for Stealth and Situational Awareness2 May 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2023Evaluating Language-Model Agents on Realistic Autonomous Tasks
- 2026PACE: Two-Timescale Self-Evolution for Small Language Model Agents
- 2026AOrchestra: Automating Sub-Agent Creation for Agentic Orchestration
- 2026Exploration and Exploitation Errors Are Measurable for Language Model Agents
- 2024Sub-goal Distillation: A Method to Improve Small Language Agents
- 2026Agent Skills for Large Language Models: Architecture, Acquisition, Security, and the Path Forward
- 2025RepliBench: Evaluating the Autonomous Replication Capabilities of Language Model Agents
- 2026Subagents vs Agent Skills: Executing Reusable Knowledge for Long-Horizon Agentic Tasks