CIAware-Bench: Benchmarking Control Intervention Awareness Across Frontier LLMs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
AI control protocols oversee untrusted models by monitoring their actions and modifying potentially unsafe steps, often using a trusted model. This partially tampers with the untrusted model's trajectory. If the acting model detects such an intervention, it may infer properties of the monitor and adapt to evade the control protocol. We introduce CIAware-Bench, a benchmark for measuring control intervention (CI) awareness across frontier models. CIAware-Bench tests whether models can distinguish their own trajectories from those modified by a control intervention. The benchmark comprises four task domains (essay writing, BigCodeBench, Bash Arena, and SHADE-Arena), with options to vary trajectory watermarking, side-task presence, and the control protocol. Evaluating thirteen acting models with eight intervening models shows substantial variation between settings and model pairs. CI awareness rises sharply for GPT-6 Astra and the Claude 5 models (Fable 5 and Opus 5). When explicitly probed, Astra reaches mean AUROC of 0.90 on Essay, 0.91 on BigCodeBench, 0.86 on Bash Arena and 0.77 on SHADE-Arena. Fable 5 and Opus 5 both reach 0.77 on Essay, with less consistent gains in the other environments. On SHADE-Arena, we demonstrate that telling an acting model that an action was replaced and asking it to adapt leads to moderate improvements in monitor evasion rates. In summary, our results highlight that control evaluations should already assume perfect CI awareness for conservative safety estimates, and that protocol design should explore countermeasures that make interventions harder to detect.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jun 2026.
Builds on
26 of 41 references.
References · 26
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
- 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 686
- 2020RobustBench: a standardized adversarial robustness benchmarkcited by 661
- 2024BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructionscited by 546
- 2024Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 258
- 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 229
- 2020Adversarial Watermarking Transformer: Towards Tracing Text Provenance with Data Hidingcited by 130
- 2025Large Language Models Often Know When They Are Being Evaluatedcited by 128
- 2024Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-Refinementcited by 114
- 2025Auditing language models for hidden objectivescited by 83
- 2025SHADE-Arena: Evaluating Sabotage and Monitoring in LLM Agentscited by 71
- 2023Preventing Language Models From Hiding Their Reasoningcited by 65
14 more
- 2025Great Models Think Alike and this Undermines AI Oversightcited by 58
- 2025Ctrl-Z: Controlling AI Agents via Resamplingcited by 44
- 2025Steering Evaluation-Aware Language Models to Act Like They Are Deployedcited by 35
- 2024Games for AI Control: Models of Safety Evaluations of AI Deployment Protocolscited by 31
- 2025Reliable Weak-to-Strong Monitoring of LLM Agentscited by 31
- 2025The Hawthorne Effect in Reasoning Models: Evaluating and Steering Test Awarenesscited by 30
- 2025Adaptive Attacks on Trusted Monitors Subvert AI Control Protocolscited by 30
- 2024PostMark: A Robust Blackbox Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 29
- 2024Self-Recognition in Language Modelscited by 18
- 2025Evidence for Limited Metacognition in LLMscited by 12
- 2025Evaluating Control Protocols for Untrusted AI Agentscited by 11
- 2026When can we trust untrusted monitoring? A safety case sketch across collusion strategiescited by 10
- 2026Attack Selection Reduces Safety in Concentrated AI Control Settings against Trusted Monitoringcited by 6
- 2025Can you Finetune your Binoculars? Embedding Text Watermarks into the Weights of Large Language Modelscited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Maintaining Benchmarks Against Increasingly Capable Agents: Detection and Remediation of Unearned Passes
- 2026LPS-Bench: Benchmarking Safety Awareness of Computer-Use Agents in Long-Horizon Planning under Benign and Adversarial Scenarios
- 2026PreAct-Bench: Benchmarking Predictive Monitoring in LLMs
- 2026BLINDSPOT: A Benchmark for Safety and Refusal Calibration in Long-Horizon Tool-Using Agents
- 2025CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoring
- 2026AJ-Bench: Benchmarking Agent-as-a-Judge for Environment-Aware Evaluation
- 2026Automated Benchmark Auditing for AI Agents and Large Language Models
- 2026Bootstrapped Monitoring: Leveraging Transparent Reasoning to Oversee Stronger AI Agents