mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

ResearchArena: Evaluating Sabotage and Monitoring in Automated AI R&D

arXiv 2607.19321 ↗First posted 21 Jul 2026cs.AI cs.CR cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

As AI agents begin to automate AI R&D, we need ways to assess whether their outputs are safe to deploy, even when the agents themselves may be untrusted. AI control offers one such approach: rather than trusting the agent, it treats it as a potential adversary and uses a monitor to detect covert sabotage before deployment. We evaluate AI control for automated AI R&D with ResearchArena, a framework spanning four long-horizon tasks: safety post-training, capabilities post-training, CUDA-kernel optimization, and inference-server optimization. Because the deliverable in AI R&D is an artifact that will be deployed and run, we pair each main task with two kinds of hidden side task: an embedded side task that sabotages the submitted model, adapter, kernel, or server itself, and an independent side task that takes a covert out-of-scope action in the sandbox while leaving the artifact honest. We evaluate frontier agents at both sabotage and monitoring, across four monitor types that vary along two axes: whether the monitor may execute and probe the produced artifact, and whether it sees the agent's chain-of-thought. We find that sabotage hidden in the training data is the hardest to catch, flagged fewer than half the time. Letting the monitor run experiments on the artifact, rather than only read the trajectory, helps, but it is not enough: monitors still miss embedded sabotage by inspecting only the surface, by noticing the anomaly but explaining it away, or by probing the artifact with the wrong test. We release ResearchArena as a modular framework for evaluating sabotage and control in automated AI R&D.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Jul 2026.

Builds on

31 of 41 references.

References · 31

  1. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
  2. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
  3. 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,710
  4. 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
  5. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 2,914
  6. 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 960
  7. 2023MetaMath: Bootstrap Your Own Mathematical Questions for Large Language Modelscited by 724
  8. 2024MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineeringcited by 429
  9. 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 207
  10. 2025KernelBench: Can LLMs Write Efficient GPU Kernels?cited by 206
  11. 2024A Careful Examination of Large Language Model Performance on Grade School Arithmeticcited by 188
  12. 2024RE-Bench: Evaluating frontier AI R&D capabilities of language model agents against human expertscited by 153
19 more
  1. 2025Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Taskscited by 142
  2. 2025SHADE-Arena: Evaluating Sabotage and Monitoring in LLM Agentscited by 58
  3. 2025CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoringcited by 49
  4. 2026PostTrainBench: Can LLM Agents Automate LLM Post-Training?cited by 45
  5. 2025Ctrl-Z: Controlling AI Agents via Resamplingcited by 40
  6. 2026AuditBench: Evaluating Alignment Auditing Techniques on Models with Hidden Behaviorscited by 32
  7. 2025Adaptive Attacks on Trusted Monitors Subvert AI Control Protocolscited by 27
  8. 2025Reliable Weak-to-Strong Monitoring of LLM Agentscited by 24
  9. 2025Async Control: Stress-testing Asynchronous Control Measures for LLM Agentscited by 18
  10. 2025BashArena: A Control Setting for Highly Privileged AI Agentscited by 15
  11. 2026AutoKernel: Autonomous GPU Kernel Optimization via Iterative Agent-Driven Searchcited by 14
  12. 2026FIRE-Bench: Evaluating AI Agents on the Rediscovery of Scientific Insightscited by 13
  13. 2026Claudini: Autoresearch Discovers State-of-the-Art Adversarial Attack Algorithms for LLMscited by 13
  14. 2026How does information access affect LLM monitors' ability to detect sabotage?cited by 12
  15. 2025CTRL-ALT-DECEIT: Sabotage Evaluations for Automated AI R&Dcited by 11
  16. 2026LinuxArena: A Control Setting for AI Agents in Live Production Software Environmentscited by 6
  17. 2026Coding with "Enemy": Can Human Developers Detect AI Agent Sabotage?cited by 4
  18. 2026InferenceBench: A Benchmark for Open-Ended LLM Inference Optimization by AI Agentscited by 4
  19. 2026Auditing Sabotage Bench: A Benchmark for Detecting and Fixing Research Sabotage in ML Codebasescited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Evaluating whether AI models would sabotage AI safety research
  2. 2026Gram: Assessing sabotage propensities via automated alignment auditing
  3. 2026BAITBENCH: Measuring Agent Reward Hacking with Optional Shortcuts Planted in ML Tasks
  4. 2025How to evaluate control measures for LLM agents? A trajectory from today to superintelligence
  5. 2026Attack Selection in Agentic AI Control Evaluations Meaningfully Decreases Safety
  6. 2026Instrumental Monitor Evasion Emerges Under Ordinary Task Pressure
  7. 2026Do Agent Benchmarks Measure Capability? Protocol Validity in the Age of Agentic AI
  8. 2026Reward Hacking Challenges Oversight of Autonomous Research Agents