# LinuxArena: A Control Setting for AI Agents in Live Production Software Environments

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15384 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.15384/

## Key facts

- Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 13 of its 24 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent threats, guardrails and governance](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-threats-guardrails-and-governance/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [Alignment faking in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14093/) (2024)
- [AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06942/) (2023)
- [Scheming AIs: Will AIs fake alignment during training in order to get power?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.08379/) (2023)
- [SHADE-Arena: Evaluating Sabotage and Monitoring in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.15740/) (2025)
- [Sabotage Evaluations for Frontier Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21514/) (2024)
- [Ctrl-Z: Controlling AI Agents via Resampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.10374/) (2025)
- [Games for AI Control: Models of Safety Evaluations of AI Deployment Protocols](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.07985/) (2024)
- [Async Control: Stress-testing Asynchronous Control Measures for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.13526/) (2025)
- [How to evaluate control measures for LLM agents? A trajectory from today to superintelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.05259/) (2025)
- [BashArena: A Control Setting for Highly Privileged AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.15688/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Think Fast: Estimating No-CoT Task-Completion Time Horizons of Frontier AI Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.07157/) (2026)
- [Distributed Attacks in Persistent-State AI Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.02514/) (2026)
- [MonitoringBench: Semi-Automated Red-Teaming for Agent Monitoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.09684/) (2026)
- [ResearchArena: Evaluating Sabotage and Monitoring in Automated AI R&D](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.19321/) (2026)
- [Diffuse AI Control on Fuzzy Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.08892/) (2026)
- [MOLE: Detecting Insider Threats in AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.06966/) (2026)
- [Red-Teaming Auto Mode: Improving Blocking Classifiers Against Malign Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.19587/) (2026)
- [The Wisdom of Artificial Deliberative Crowds](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.22497/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We introduce LinuxArena, a control setting in which agents operate directly on live, multi-service production environments. LinuxArena contains 20 environments, 1,671 main tasks representing legitimate software engineering work, and 184 side tasks representing safety failures such as data exfiltration and backdooring, making it the largest and most diverse control setting for software engineering to date. We validate LinuxArena is useful for control research by running sabotage evaluations, which measure whether attackers can complete side tasks while working on main tasks, and monitor evaluations, which measure a monitor model's ability to detect sabotage attempts. Against a GPT-5-nano trusted monitor at a 1% step-wise false positive rate, Claude Opus 4.6 achieves roughly a 23% undetected sabotage success rate. We additionally release LaStraj, a dataset of human-crafted attack trajectories that evade monitors at substantially higher rates than any model-generated attacks we elicited, showing that current attack policies do not saturate LinuxArena. These results suggest that LinuxArena has meaningful headroom for both attackers and defenders, making it a strong testbed for developing and evaluating future control protocols.