Akshat Naik

Aditya Sinha, Akshat Naik, Victor Gillioz et al.

As autonomous agents become more capable of performing real-world tasks, distinguishing scheming behavior from benign task pursuit may become a central AI control problem. Existing monitors often rely on chain-of-thought access or internal activations, or use prompted frontier models, all of which can be unavailable, unreliable or expensive in deployment. In this work, we study action-only deliberative monitors: smaller open-weight models trained to detect scheming and sabotage from agentic trajectories without accessing the monitored agent's reasoning or model internals. Our method, inspired by deliberative alignment, uses a scheming specification to elicit structured rationales from a frontier teacher, filters them with a separate judge, and distills the highest-quality rationales into open-weight monitors with supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning. We train on five datasets, and evaluate across six out-of-distribution agentic misalignment benchmarks. We show that applying our method to Qwen3.5-27B yields higher performance than all low-cost frontier models as prompted monitors (Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, GPT-5.4 Nano, and Claude Haiku 4.5) and than Gemini 2.5 Pro, while also achieving lower marginal inference cost (token-metered USD per 1,000 evaluations). Stronger prompted frontier monitors (Gemini 3.1 Pro, GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and Claude Opus 4.6) achieve higher performance but at roughly $16$--$34\times$ higher marginal inference cost. Several of our trained monitors are positioned on the empirical cost--performance Pareto frontier among the monitors we evaluate, providing practical low-cost, low-FPR alternatives to prompted frontier models.

Sumeet Ramesh Motwani, Daniel Nichols, Charles London et al.

As language models are increasingly deployed for complex autonomous tasks, their ability to reason accurately over longer horizons becomes critical. An essential component of this ability is planning and managing a long, complex chain-of-thought (CoT). We introduce LongCoT, a scalable benchmark of 2,500 expert-designed problems spanning chemistry, mathematics, computer science, chess, and logic to isolate and directly measure the long-horizon CoT reasoning capabilities of frontier models. Problems consist of a short input with a verifiable answer; solving them requires navigating a graph of interdependent steps that span tens to hundreds of thousands of reasoning tokens. Each local step is individually tractable for frontier models, so failures reflect long-horizon reasoning limitations. At release, the best models achieve <10% accuracy (GPT 5.2: 9.8%; Gemini 3 Pro: 6.1%) on LongCoT, revealing a substantial gap in current capabilities. Overall, LongCoT provides a rigorous measure of long-horizon reasoning, tracking the ability of frontier models to reason reliably over extended periods.

Akshat Naik, Jay Culligan, Yarin Gal et al.

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents become more capable, their coordinated use in the form of multi-agent systems is anticipated to emerge as a practical paradigm. Prior work has examined the safety and misuse risks associated with agents. However, much of this has focused on the single-agent case and/or setups missing basic engineering safeguards such as access control, revealing a scarcity of threat modeling in multi-agent systems. We investigate the security vulnerabilities of a popular multi-agent pattern known as the orchestrator setup, in which a central agent decomposes and delegates tasks to specialized agents. Through red-teaming a concrete setup representative of a likely future use case, we demonstrate a novel attack vector, OMNI-LEAK, that compromises several agents to leak sensitive data through a single indirect prompt injection, even in the presence of data access control. We report the susceptibility of frontier models to different categories of attacks, finding that both reasoning and non-reasoning models are vulnerable, even when the attacker lacks insider knowledge of the implementation details. Our work highlights the importance of safety research to generalize from single-agent to multi-agent settings, in order to reduce the serious risks of real-world privacy breaches and financial losses and overall public trust in AI agents.

Akshat Naik, Patrick Quinn, Guillermo Bosch et al.

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents become more widespread, associated misalignment risks increase. While prior research has studied agents' ability to produce harmful outputs or follow malicious instructions, it remains unclear how likely agents are to spontaneously pursue unintended goals in realistic deployments. In this work, we approach misalignment as a conflict between the internal goals pursued by the model and the goals intended by its deployer. We introduce a misalignment propensity benchmark, \textsc{AgentMisalignment}, a benchmark suite designed to evaluate the propensity of LLM agents to misalign in realistic scenarios. Evaluations cover behaviours such as avoiding oversight, resisting shutdown, sandbagging, and power-seeking. Testing frontier models, we find that more capable agents tend to exhibit higher misalignment on average. We also systematically vary agent personalities through different system prompts and observe that persona characteristics can strongly and unpredictably influence misalignment, sometimes more than the choice of model itself. Our results reveal the limitations of current alignment methods for autonomous LLM agents and underscore the need to rethink misalignment in realistic deployment settings.