The Distributed Detectability Band Against Marginal-Preserving Attacks
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
AI-control monitors score individual agent actions to detect misbehavior, but real harm can be distributed across many benign-looking steps, each individually below any per-step alarm. We construct a marginal-preserving, correlation-encoded distributed-sabotage attack using a Gaussian-copula AR(1) construction: the per-step monitor-score marginal is held exactly equal to benign, so mean, max, top-k tail, and threshold monitors (Monitor A) are defeated by construction, while harm is encoded in the temporal correlation structure. We sequence the paper around three reviewer-mandated gates. (1) Realizability gate: the stealthy attack achieves KS-distance to benign of 0.013 (effectively zero) at all tested harm levels up to 3.0, confirming that harm is fully decoupled from the per-step marginal and realizability is not harm-limited. (2) Monitor-A-vs-B reconciliation: we show formally that the attack, built against Monitor A's score marginal, remains marginal-preserving under a different-score Monitor B (the correlation/sequence family: CUSUM, SPRT, HMM-LR, runs test, autocorrelation, windowed logistic), and scope worst-case claims to score functions that admit a temporal signature. (3) Non-empty detectability band: Monitor A achieves AUC 0.52 (chance); Monitor B spans AUC 0.79-0.97 at the same 1% FPR target, and as harm is amortized over more steps Monitor A collapses to chance while Monitor B holds at AUC ~0.95. These results demonstrate a non-empty detectability band and characterize the sub-threshold sabotage frontier: distribution-shape monitors fail by construction; temporal-correlation monitors can detect but are not trivially optimal.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jun 2026.
Builds on
11 of 26 references.
References · 11
- 2023Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak Supervisioncited by 467
- 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Thinkcited by 415
- 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscationcited by 384
- 2024Alignment faking in large language modelscited by 360
- 2024Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Schemingcited by 287
- 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safetycited by 249
- 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 229
- 2024Sycophancy to Subterfuge: Investigating Reward-Tampering in Large Language Modelscited by 178
- 2025Natural Emergent Misalignment from Reward Hacking in Production RLcited by 136
- 2024Sabotage Evaluations for Frontier Modelscited by 52
- 2025LLMs Can Covertly Sandbag on Capability Evaluations Against Chain-of-Thought Monitoringcited by 18
Built on by
Not cited yet.