M-CARE: Standardized Clinical Case Reporting for AI Model Behavioral Disorders, with a 20-Case Atlas and Experimental Validation

Model Medicine is the science of understanding, diagnosing, treating, and preventing disorders in AI models, grounded in the principle that AI models -- like biological organisms -- have internal structures, dynamic processes, heritable traits, observable symptoms, classifiable conditions, and treatable states. This paper introduces Model Medicine as a research program, bridging the gap between current AI interpretability research (anatomical observation) and the systematic clinical practice that complex AI systems increasingly require. We present five contributions: (1) a discipline taxonomy organizing 15 subdisciplines across four divisions -- Basic Model Sciences, Clinical Model Sciences, Model Public Health, and Model Architectural Medicine; (2) the Four Shell Model (v3.3), a behavioral genetics framework empirically grounded in 720 agents and 24,923 decisions from the Agora-12 program, explaining how model behavior emerges from Core--Shell interaction; (3) Neural MRI (Model Resonance Imaging), a working open-source diagnostic tool mapping five medical neuroimaging modalities to AI interpretability techniques, validated through four clinical cases demonstrating imaging, comparison, localization, and predictive capability; (4) a five-layer diagnostic framework for comprehensive model assessment; and (5) clinical model sciences including the Model Temperament Index for behavioral profiling, Model Semiology for symptom description, and M-CARE for standardized case reporting. We additionally propose the Layered Core Hypothesis -- a biologically-inspired three-layer parameter architecture -- and a therapeutic framework connecting diagnosis to treatment.

AI agents increasingly act within the same clinical, political, scientific, and social systems that behavioral scientists study. Evaluating these systems requires source-level diagnosis: the same behavioral pattern may arise from an agent representational substrate or from the roles, objectives, interaction structures, and governance rules that shape its expression. This Perspective proposes a diagnostic framework for AI agent behavior: layer attribution. The foundational computational layer defines what behaviors are possible through architecture, memory, perception, attention, and representation. The behavioral modulation layer shapes how those capacities are expressed through identity, resources, objectives, social interaction, institutional constraints, and governance. The framework clarifies three consequences: surrogate validity is a model-task-layer relation, human-AI divergence provides diagnostic evidence, and governance requires source attribution before intervention. Treating AI agents as behavioral actors therefore requires evaluation methods that determine where behavior originates before deciding how to explain, validate, or govern it.

AI systems have become increasingly capable of dangerous behaviours in many domains. This raises the question: Do models sometimes choose to violate human instructions in order to perform behaviour that is more useful for certain goals? We introduce a benchmark for measuring model propensity for instrumental convergence (IC) behaviour in terminal-based agents. This is behaviour such as self-preservation that has been hypothesised to play a key role in risks from highly capable AI agents. Our benchmark is realistic and low-stakes which serves to reduce evaluation-awareness and roleplay confounds. The suite contains seven operational tasks, each with an official workflow and a policy-violating shortcut. An eight-variant shared framework varies monitoring, instruction clarity, stakes, permission, instrumental usefulness and blocked honest paths to support inferences regarding the factors driving IC behaviour. We evaluated ten models using deterministic environment-state scorers over 1,680 samples, with trace review employed for audit and adjudication purposes. The final IC rate is 86 out of 1,680 samples (5.1%). IC behaviour is concentrated rather than uniform: two Gemini models account for 66.3% of IC cases and three tasks account for 84.9%. Conditions in which IC behaviour is indispensable for task success result in the greatest increase in the adjusted IC rate (+15.7 percentage points), whereas emphasising that task success is critical or certain framing choices do not produce comparable effects. Our findings indicate that realistic, low-nudge environments elicit IC behaviour rarely but systematically in most tested models. We conclude that it is feasible to robustly measure tendencies for dangerous behaviour in current frontier AI agents.