Training Deliberative Monitors for Black-Box Scheming Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As autonomous agents become more capable of performing real-world tasks, distinguishing scheming behavior from benign task pursuit may become a central AI control problem. Existing monitors often rely on chain-of-thought access or internal activations, or use prompted frontier models, all of which can be unavailable, unreliable or expensive in deployment. In this work, we study action-only deliberative monitors: smaller open-weight models trained to detect scheming and sabotage from agentic trajectories without accessing the monitored agent's reasoning or model internals. Our method, inspired by deliberative alignment, uses a scheming specification to elicit structured rationales from a frontier teacher, filters them with a separate judge, and distills the highest-quality rationales into open-weight monitors with supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning. We train on five datasets, and evaluate across six out-of-distribution agentic misalignment benchmarks. We show that applying our method to Qwen3.5-27B yields higher performance than all low-cost frontier models as prompted monitors (Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, GPT-5.4 Nano, and Claude Haiku 4.5) and than Gemini 2.5 Pro, while also achieving lower marginal inference cost (token-metered USD per 1,000 evaluations). Stronger prompted frontier monitors (Gemini 3.1 Pro, GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and Claude Opus 4.6) achieve higher performance but at roughly 16--34× higher marginal inference cost. Several of our trained monitors are positioned on the empirical cost--performance Pareto frontier among the monitors we evaluate, providing practical low-cost, low-FPR alternatives to prompted frontier models.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 28 May 2026.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Constitutional Black-Box Monitoring for Scheming in LLM Agents
- 2025Stress Testing Deliberative Alignment for Anti-Scheming Training
- 2024Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Scheming
- 2026SchemeArena: Factorized Stress Testing of Scheming in LLM Agents
- 2026Training Agents to Self-Report Misbehavior
- 2026DeceptGuard :A Constitutional Oversight Framework For Detecting Deception in LLM Agents
- 2026LLMs Learn to Evade Latent Monitors from Prior Feedback Alone
- 2026Ensemble Monitoring for AI Control: Diverse Signals Outweigh More Compute