Combining Cost-Constrained Runtime Monitors for AI Safety
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Monitoring AIs at runtime can help us detect and stop harmful actions. In this paper, we study how to efficiently combine multiple runtime monitors into a single monitoring protocol. The protocol's objective is to maximize the probability of applying a safety intervention on misaligned outputs (i.e., maximize recall). Since running monitors and applying safety interventions are costly, the protocol also needs to adhere to an average-case budget constraint. Taking the monitors' performance and cost as given, we develop an algorithm to find the best protocol. The algorithm exhaustively searches over when and which monitors to call, and allocates safety interventions based on the Neyman-Pearson lemma. By focusing on likelihood ratios and strategically trading off spending on monitors against spending on interventions, we more than double our recall rate compared to a naive baseline in a code review setting. We also show that combining two monitors can Pareto dominate using either monitor alone. Our framework provides a principled methodology for combining existing monitors to detect undesirable behavior in cost-sensitive settings.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Jul 2025.
Builds on
20 of 32 references.
References · 20
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,207
- 2024BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructionscited by 546
- 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Thinkcited by 415
- 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscationcited by 384
- 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 229
- 2025Constitutional Classifiers: Defending against Universal Jailbreaks across Thousands of Hours of Red Teamingcited by 181
- 2025Detecting Strategic Deception Using Linear Probescited by 68
- 2025Detecting High-Stakes Interactions with Activation Probescited by 53
- 2024Sabotage Evaluations for Frontier Modelscited by 52
- 2025An Approach to Technical AGI Safety and Securitycited by 45
- 2025A sketch of an AI control safety casecited by 39
8 more
- 2024Adaptive Deployment of Untrusted LLMs Reduces Distributed Threatscited by 31
- 2019Classification with Costly Features as a Sequential Decision-Making Problemcited by 23
- 2024Jailbreak Antidote: Runtime Safety-Utility Balance via Sparse Representation Adjustment in Large Language Modelscited by 23
- 2025How to evaluate control measures for LLM agents? A trajectory from today to superintelligencecited by 20
- 2025Benchmarking Deception Probes via Black-to-White Performance Boostscited by 19
- 2022Unifying Evaluation of Machine Learning Safety Monitorscited by 10
- 2025Control Tax: The Price of Keeping AI in Checkcited by 10
- 2024Online Safety Analysis for LLMs: a Benchmark, an Assessment, and a Path Forwardcited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 5; 2026: 5.
10 papers.
- 2026Building Production-Ready Probes For Geminicited by 47
- 2026Constitutional Classifiers++: Efficient Production-Grade Defenses against Universal Jailbreakscited by 41
- 2025Beyond Linear Probes: Dynamic Safety Monitoring for Language Modelscited by 16
- 2025Practical challenges of control monitoring in frontier AI deploymentscited by 8
- 2026Ensemble Monitoring for AI Control: Diverse Signals Outweigh More Computecited by 6
- 2025Universal Dynamic Regret and Constraint Violation Bounds for Constrained Online Convex Optimizationcited by 4
- 2026Basic Legibility Protocols Improve Trusted Monitoringcited by 3
- 2025Agentic Metacognition: Designing a "Self-Aware" Low-Code Agent for Failure Prediction and Human Handoffcited by 2
- 2025Linear probes rely on textual evidence: Results from leakage mitigation studies in language modelscited by 2
- 2026LLM Wardens: Mitigating Adversarial Persuasion with Third-Party Conversational Oversightcited by 0
- 2026Ensemble Monitoring for AI Control: Diverse Signals Outweigh More Compute14 May 2026
- 2026LLM Wardens: Mitigating Adversarial Persuasion with Third-Party Conversational Oversight8 May 2026
- 2026Basic Legibility Protocols Improve Trusted Monitoring9 Feb 2026
- 2026Building Production-Ready Probes For Gemini16 Jan 2026
- 2026Constitutional Classifiers++: Efficient Production-Grade Defenses against Universal Jailbreaks8 Jan 2026
- 2025Practical challenges of control monitoring in frontier AI deployments15 Dec 2025
- 2025Universal Dynamic Regret and Constraint Violation Bounds for Constrained Online Convex Optimization2 Oct 2025
- 2025Beyond Linear Probes: Dynamic Safety Monitoring for Language Models30 Sep 2025
- 2025Agentic Metacognition: Designing a "Self-Aware" Low-Code Agent for Failure Prediction and Human Handoff24 Sep 2025
- 2025Linear probes rely on textual evidence: Results from leakage mitigation studies in language models16 Sep 2025