arXiv:2607. 19321v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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.
By Lena Libon, Ben Rank, Jehyeok Yeon, David Schmotz, Jeremy Qin, Daniel Donnelly, Derck Prinzhorn, Maksym Andriushchenko
arXiv:2607. 11751v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As multi-agent, tool-using LLM systems are deployed, a common safety net is a runtime monitor that checks each message, tool call, or step on its own.
By Yibo Hu, Ren Wang
arXiv:2607. 08066v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is a promising safety mechanism for AI agents, based on the premise that visible reasoning traces can surface misaligned or deceptive behavior.
By Jennifer Za, Julija Bainiaksina, Nikita Ostrovsky, Tanush Chopra, Victoria Krakovna
arXiv:2608. 02820v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is an increasingly important component of AI safety stacks but relies on the assumption that a model's reasoning trace is informative about its actions.
By Giorgio Severi, Shujaat Mirza, Blake Bullwinkel, Amanda Minnich
arXiv:2606. 11998v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Trusted monitoring is a cornerstone of AI control.
By Frank Xiao, Mary Phuong
arXiv:2607. 07368v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI control is a family of techniques to prevent an AI with malicious goals from subverting its operator's intent.
By Oliver Makins, Orazio Angelini, Zohreh Shams, Mary Phuong
arXiv:2608. 09643v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents now write a growing share of production code, and human security review does not scale at the rate code is generated.
By Ivan Wiryadi
arXiv:2607. 02514v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI coding agents become more autonomous, they increasingly ship code iteratively, with the codebase persisting across sessions.
By Josh Hills, Ida Caspary, Asa Cooper Stickland
arXiv:2608. 09624v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Internal safety scores judge a prompt before any text is generated, and they are validated by how well they separate harmful prompts from benign ones.
By Mingyu Luo, Ming Deng, Zilang Qiu, Yiming Cheng, Ci Tao, Xue Tan, Sijin Sun, Yangfu Li, Ping Chen, Jun Dai, Xiaoyan Sun
arXiv:2607. 24893v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-agent LLM systems can be attacked by a payload that no single agent ever holds in full: a poisoned tool hides encrypted fragments in its observations, spreads them across several agents, and an external step reassembles and executes them after the run.
By Diego Fernandez Arias, Dev Prashant Mistry, Ren Wang, Yibo Hu
arXiv:2606. 10456v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI-control monitors score individual agent actions to detect misbehavior, but real harm can be distributed across many benign-looking steps, each individually below any per-step alarm.
By Zhang Qinqin, Gao Yuze
arXiv:2606. 08960v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agent benchmarks score submissions with outcome verifiers that are typically hand-written and brittle, leaving them open to reward hacking.
By Ziqian Zhong, Ivgeni Segal, Ivan Bercovich, Shashwat Saxena, Kexun Zhang, Aditi Raghunathan