arXiv AI By Luca Zanolini

Correlated Failures of AI Approval Monitors

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper investigates how AI approval monitors can fail together when they share a base model or poisoned input, using concepts from distributed computing to identify vulnerable monitor sets. Experiments on twelve open‑weight monitors and several closed models show that fooling a monitor into approving fraud is limited to its own evidence source, while blocking correct payments requires overcoming injection resistance. A rule that counts distinct evidence sources rather than votes reduces false rejections, and adding a rule engine that cannot be persuaded restores safety and liveness against the measured attacks.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Aug 26

More Rejective, Not More Discriminative: The Unit of Verification in Pre-Execution LLM Oversight

The paper introduces the twin‑prefix framework to evaluate how the size of the verification unit—i.e., how many actions a pre‑execution LLM monitor reviews in one call—affects its performance. By pairing each gold plan with a twin that differs by a single write and injecting a controlled error, the authors isolate the impact of review length on catch rates and false rejections. Their findings show that longer review windows increase rejection rates but do not improve discrimination, with the highest informedness occurring at one or two actions across all judges and domains.

By Yuchen Han, Cheng Yan, Wuyang Zhang
arXiv AI
Oct 1

Who Verifies the Graph? Misspecification Attacks on Causal Action Verification for Language Agents

The paper investigates how causal action verifiers, which guard language agents’ tool calls by checking identifiability against a committed action‑state graph, can be compromised through small graph misspecifications. By removing a single bidirected edge or reversing an arrowhead, the authors demonstrate that a verifier (CIVeX) that originally had zero false executions can suffer false execution rates up to 48.9%, with most of those executions being harmful and overall utility dropping dramatically. An additional attestation step that samples executions can detect these attacks with few false alarms, but it also leads to many wrongful rejections that reduce beneficial actions and incur significant experimental costs. whyItMatters":"The study shows that even minor errors in the verifier’s underlying graph can drastically undermine safety and performance, highlighting the need for robust auditing mechanisms."

By Fabio Rovai