mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Combining Cost-Constrained Runtime Monitors for AI Safety

arXiv 2507.15886 ↗First posted 19 Jul 2025cs.CY cs.AIcited by 10

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

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  2. 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,207
  3. 2024BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructionscited by 546
  4. 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Thinkcited by 415
  5. 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscationcited by 384
  6. 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 229
  7. 2025Constitutional Classifiers: Defending against Universal Jailbreaks across Thousands of Hours of Red Teamingcited by 181
  8. 2025Detecting Strategic Deception Using Linear Probescited by 68
  9. 2025Detecting High-Stakes Interactions with Activation Probescited by 53
  10. 2024Sabotage Evaluations for Frontier Modelscited by 52
  11. 2025An Approach to Technical AGI Safety and Securitycited by 45
  12. 2025A sketch of an AI control safety casecited by 39
8 more
  1. 2024Adaptive Deployment of Untrusted LLMs Reduces Distributed Threatscited by 31
  2. 2019Classification with Costly Features as a Sequential Decision-Making Problemcited by 23
  3. 2024Jailbreak Antidote: Runtime Safety-Utility Balance via Sparse Representation Adjustment in Large Language Modelscited by 23
  4. 2025How to evaluate control measures for LLM agents? A trajectory from today to superintelligencecited by 20
  5. 2025Benchmarking Deception Probes via Black-to-White Performance Boostscited by 19
  6. 2022Unifying Evaluation of Machine Learning Safety Monitorscited by 10
  7. 2025Control Tax: The Price of Keeping AI in Checkcited by 10
  8. 2024Online Safety Analysis for LLMs: a Benchmark, an Assessment, and a Path Forwardcited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 5; 2026: 5.

10 papers.