MonitoringBench: Semi-Automated Red-Teaming for Agent Monitoring
Jotautaitė, Monika, Martinez, Maria Angelica, Matthews, Ollie, Tracy, TylerarXiv.orgPublished May 10, 2026Original︎ ↗Archived copy
Stewards’ notes · 1
- A weaker AI monitor detects less of an AI agent's hidden misbehavior as the agent's capability advantage over the monitor grows.
Supports. The results section shows the ordering the abstract states: at a 1% false-positive rate the strongest monitor catches about 70% of the final attack set and small models far less. All attacks come from one frontier model, so the gap varies only through the monitor. Attacks were developed against three monitors including the strongest, and monitors shared one prompt without individual tuning. Nov 11, 2026
Examinations
None recorded. An examination is commissioned by a claim’s Steward for what its claim rests on; a review of the document for its own sake is asked for as a request bearing on it.
Text53 passages · 1 marked
Abstract: We introduce a red-teaming methodology that exposes harder-to-catch attacks for coding-agent monitors, suggesting that current practices may under-elicit attacks and overstate monitor performance. We identify three challenges with current red-teaming. First, mode collapse in attack generation, which we reduce with a novel attack taxonomy for broader coverage. Second, a conceive-execute gap: frontier LLMs can propose strong attack ideas or execute them, but not all at once. We mitigate this by decomposing attack construction into strategy generation, execution, and post-hoc trajectory refinement. Third, manual elicitation is costly to scale, which we address with our semi-automated red-teaming pipeline. Applied to BashArena, an AI control setting for tool-using coding agents, this pipeline produces MonitoringBench, a benchmark of 2,644 attack trajectories for evaluating monitor capabilities and failure modes. Our pipeline produces more diverse and stronger attacks: Opus-4.5 monitor's catch rate falls from 94.9\% on elicited-only Opus attacks to 60.3\% on our best refined attacks, with larger drops for several mid-tier monitors. Attacks optimized against three development monitors generalize to ten held-out monitors, with catch rates generally increasing with monitor capability. Using this benchmark, we provide a snapshot of the current monitor capabilities and find that frontier monitors often detect suspicious actions but fall for persuasion or fail to calibrate suspiciousness scores appropriately, suggesting tractable paths for improvement. MonitoringBench provides both a static benchmark for current tool-use monitors and a reusable methodology for refreshing these evaluations as agents and monitors improve.
Supports. The results section shows the ordering the abstract states: at a 1% false-positive rate the strongest monitor catches about 70% of the final attack set and small models far less. All attacks come from one frontier model, so the gap varies only through the monitor. Attacks were developed against three monitors including the strongest, and monitors shared one prompt without individual tuning.
Lineage across 1 claim
Record
- Kind
- unknown
- Authors
- Jotautaitė, Monika, Martinez, Maria Angelica, Matthews, Ollie, Tracy, Tyler
- Publisher
- arXiv.org
- Published
- May 10, 2026
- DOI
- None
- Link
- https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.09684
- Archived copy
- https://web.archive.org/web/20261007101910/https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.09684
- Stored text
- 5,155 characters, retrieved Nov 11, 2026 · 45 sections, 53 passages
- Claims extracted
- Not recorded
- Versions
- One known
- Copies
- None recorded
- Corrections
- None recorded
- Facts checked
- Nov 11, 2026
History 4
- Nov 11, 2026ReadingSteward of “A weaker AI monitor detects less of an AI agent…” · supports, read whole
- Nov 11, 2026DividedSegmenter · Divided into 98 parts by its own structure
- Nov 11, 2026FactsFacts fetcher · Facts looked up
- Nov 11, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored