Hodoscope: Unsupervised Monitoring for AI Misbehaviors
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Existing approaches to monitoring AI agents rely on supervised evaluation: human-written rules or LLM-based judges that check for known failure modes. However, novel misbehaviors may fall outside predefined categories entirely and LLM-based judges can be unreliable. To address this, we formulate unsupervised monitoring, drawing an analogy to unsupervised learning. Rather than checking for specific misbehaviors, an unsupervised monitor assists humans in discovering problematic agent behaviors without prior assumptions about what counts as problematic, leaving that determination to the human. We observe that problematic behaviors are often distinctive: a model exploiting a benchmark loophole exhibits actions absent from well-behaved baselines, and a vulnerability unique to one evaluation manifests as behavioral anomalies when the same model runs across multiple benchmarks. This motivates using group-wise behavioral differences as the primary signal for unsupervised monitoring. We introduce Hodoscope, a tool that operationalizes this insight. Hodoscope compares behavior distributions across groups and highlights distinctive and potentially suspicious action patterns for human review. Using Hodoscope, we discover a previously unknown vulnerability in the Commit0 benchmark (unsquashed git history allowing ground-truth recovery, inflating scores for at least five models) and independently recover known exploits on ImpossibleBench and SWE-bench. Quantitative evaluation estimates that our method reduces review effort by 6-23× compared to naive uniform sampling. Finally, we show that behavior descriptions discovered through Hodoscope could improve the detection accuracy of LLM-based judges, demonstrating a path from unsupervised to supervised monitoring.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Apr 2026.
Builds on
16 of 27 references.
References · 16
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
- 2018UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reductioncited by 2,841
- 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscationcited by 338
- 2024Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agentscited by 223
- 2025KernelBench: Can LLMs Write Efficient GPU Kernels?cited by 206
- 2020Understanding How Dimension Reduction Tools Work: An Empirical Approach to Deciphering t-SNE, UMAP, TriMAP, and PaCMAP for Data Visualizationcited by 170
- 2022Domino: Discovering Systematic Errors with Cross-Modal Embeddingscited by 155
- 2025Natural Emergent Misalignment from Reward Hacking in Production RLcited by 111
- 2019TriMap: Large-scale Dimensionality Reduction Using Tripletscited by 59
- 2025School of Reward Hacks: Hacking harmless tasks generalizes to misaligned behavior in LLMscited by 58
- 2025ImpossibleBench: Measuring LLMs' Propensity of Exploiting Test Casescited by 51
4 more
- 2024Commit0: Library Generation from Scratchcited by 50
- 2025Async Control: Stress-testing Asynchronous Control Measures for LLM Agentscited by 18
- 2026IQuest-Coder-V1 Technical Reportcited by 6
- 2025AutoLibra: Agent Metric Induction from Open-Ended Human Feedbackcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.