mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Improving scalable oversight with co-trained monitors

arXiv 2609.36049 ↗First posted 28 Sep 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Worker-monitor setups are a promising approach to AI oversight, but training workers against fixed monitors can incentivize monitor evasion. We study whether this failure mode can be avoided by co-training the monitor alongside the worker, and explore both supervised and self-supervised approaches. In the supervised setting, we prove a characterization: monitoring is possible with vanishing error and query rates exactly when the class of possible monitor functions has finite Littlestone dimension. This connects worker monitoring with an established literature on adversarial online learning. For self-supervision, we propose a co-training procedure based on test-time distillation: the monitor uses additional test-time compute to generate training labels, then trains its standard-compute policy on those labels. For majority-vote labels, we give a finite-sample sharpening guarantee under adaptive worker distributions with action coverage, that shows that the monitor's verdicts converge to its initial modal verdicts. We stress-test the former in code-security settings where the worker is trained adversarially to fool the monitor. Our results suggest that adaptive monitors are better at keeping pace with evolving worker strategies, while fixed monitors are more vulnerable to evasion.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Sep 2026.

Builds on

24 of 42 references.

References · 24

  1. 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
  2. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
  3. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
  4. 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,582
  5. 2022Large Language Models Can Self-Improvecited by 656
  6. 2023Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak Supervisioncited by 445
  7. 2019Nuanced Metrics for Measuring Unintended Bias with Real Data for Text Classificationcited by 396
  8. 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Thinkcited by 388
  9. 2018AI safety via debatecited by 384
  10. 2022Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluatorscited by 372
  11. 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscationcited by 338
  12. 2022Measuring Progress on Scalable Oversight for Large Language Modelscited by 212
12 more
  1. 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 207
  2. 2020Understanding Self-Training for Gradual Domain Adaptationcited by 149
  3. 2018Supervising strong learners by amplifying weak expertscited by 139
  4. 2024Self-Improvement in Language Models: The Sharpening Mechanismcited by 102
  5. 2024On scalable oversight with weak LLMs judging strong LLMscited by 94
  6. 2024Self-Consistency Preference Optimizationcited by 50
  7. 2022Understanding Gradual Domain Adaptation: Improved Analysis, Optimal Path and Beyondcited by 32
  8. 2026Reward Hacking in the Era of Large Models: Mechanisms, Emergent Misalignment, Challengescited by 30
  9. 2024Games for AI Control: Models of Safety Evaluations of AI Deployment Protocolscited by 28
  10. 2026Ensemble Monitoring for AI Control: Diverse Signals Outweigh More Computecited by 5
  11. 2026Weak Critics Make Strong Learners: On-Policy Critique Distillation for Scalable Oversightcited by 5
  12. 2024Learning from Snapshots of Discrete and Continuous Data Streamscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Training on Documents About Monitoring Leads to CoT Obfuscation
  2. 2025Monitoring Monitorability
  3. 2025Adaptive Attacks on Trusted Monitors Subvert AI Control Protocols
  4. 2026Instrumental Monitor Evasion Emerges Under Ordinary Task Pressure
  5. 2026A Near-Zero Monitor Readout Is Not Evidence of Behavioral Control
  6. 2025Reliable Weak-to-Strong Monitoring of LLM Agents
  7. 2026Monitor Jailbreaking: Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Without Encoded Reasoning
  8. 2026Oversight Has a Capacity: Calibrating Agent Guards to a Subjective, Fatiguing Human