Julian Stastny

Eric Gan, Aryan Bhatt, Buck Shlegeris et al.

As AI systems are increasingly used to conduct research autonomously, misaligned systems could introduce subtle flaws that produce misleading results while evading detection. We introduce ASMR-Bench (Auditing for Sabotage in ML Research), a benchmark for evaluating the ability of auditors to detect sabotage in ML research codebases. ASMR-Bench consists of 9 ML research codebases with sabotaged variants that produce qualitatively different experimental results. Each sabotage modifies implementation details, such as hyperparameters, training data, or evaluation code, while preserving the high-level methodology described in the paper. We evaluated frontier LLMs and LLM-assisted human auditors on ASMR-Bench and found that both struggled to reliably detect sabotage: the best performance was an AUROC of 0.77 and a top-1 fix rate of 42%, achieved by Gemini 3.1 Pro. We also tested LLMs as red teamers and found that LLM-generated sabotages were weaker than human-generated ones but still sometimes evaded same-capability LLM auditors. We release ASMR-Bench to support research on monitoring and auditing techniques for AI-conducted research.

Emil Ryd, Henning Bartsch, Julian Stastny et al.

As AI systems begin to automate complex tasks, supervision increasingly relies on weaker models or limited human oversight that cannot fully verify output quality. A model more capable than its supervisors could exploit this gap through sandbagging, producing work that appears acceptable but falls short of its true abilities. Can training elicit a model's best work even without reliable verification? We study this using model organisms trained to sandbag, testing elicitation techniques on problem-solving math, graduate-level science, and competitive coding tasks. We find that training with weak supervision can reliably elicit sandbagging models when supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL) are combined: SFT on weak demonstrations breaks the sandbagging behavior, enabling RL to then fully elicit performance. Neither method succeeds reliably alone-RL without SFT almost always leads to reward hacking rather than genuine improvement. Critically, this relies on training being indistinguishable from deployment; when models can distinguish between training and deployment, they can perform well during training while continuing to sandbag afterward. Our results provide initial evidence that training is a viable mitigation against sandbagging, while highlighting the importance of making training indistinguishable from deployment.

Dewi Gould, Francis Rhys Ward, Anders Cairns Woodruff et al.

Many efforts to ensure frontier AI models are safe rely on monitoring their chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. If models become able to perform sufficiently complex reasoning internally, without explicit thinking tokens, this would undermine such oversight. We measure how well frontier models reason without CoT across a suite of over 30,000 questions spanning 43 benchmarks in domains including math, coding, puzzles, causality, theory-of-mind, and strategic reasoning. To compare models against humans, we estimate the $50\%$-task-completion time horizon (TH): the human time required for tasks a model completes with $50\%$ success rate. We complement this with a $50\%$ reasoning token horizon: the minimum number of o3-mini reasoning tokens needed for tasks a model solves with $50\%$ success rate. We find that the no-CoT $50\%$ TH of frontier models has been doubling roughly every year over the past six years, with GPT-5.5's TH reaching over 3 minutes and reasoning token horizon exceeding 1,500 tokens. Our median estimates predict that frontier no-CoT THs could exceed 7 minutes by 2028, and 25 minutes by 2030, though these projections carry substantial uncertainty. We recommend frontier developers track this explicitly.

Julian Stastny, Maxime Riché, Alexander Lyzhov et al.

Cooperation in settings where agents have both common and conflicting interests (mixed-motive environments) has recently received considerable attention in multi-agent learning. However, the mixed-motive environments typically studied have a single cooperative outcome on which all agents can agree. Many real-world multi-agent environments are instead bargaining problems (BPs): they have several Pareto-optimal payoff profiles over which agents have conflicting preferences. We argue that typical cooperation-inducing learning algorithms fail to cooperate in BPs when there is room for normative disagreement resulting in the existence of multiple competing cooperative equilibria, and illustrate this problem empirically. To remedy the issue, we introduce the notion of norm-adaptive policies. Norm-adaptive policies are capable of behaving according to different norms in different circumstances, creating opportunities for resolving normative disagreement. We develop a class of norm-adaptive policies and show in experiments that these significantly increase cooperation. However, norm-adaptiveness cannot address residual bargaining failure arising from a fundamental tradeoff between exploitability and cooperative robustness.