When Does Randomized Oversight Align AI Agents That Can Conceal?

We introduce AuditBench, an alignment auditing benchmark. AuditBench consists of 56 language models with implanted hidden behaviors. Each model has one of 14 concerning behaviors--such as sycophantic deference, opposition to AI regulation, or secret geopolitical loyalties--which it does not confess to when directly asked. AuditBench models are highly diverse--some are subtle, while others are overt, and we use varying training techniques both for implanting behaviors and training models not to confess. To demonstrate AuditBench's utility, we develop an investigator agent that autonomously employs a configurable set of auditing tools. By measuring investigator agent success using different tools, we can evaluate their efficacy. Notably, we observe a tool-to-agent gap, where tools that perform well in standalone non-agentic evaluations fail to translate into improved performance when used with our investigator agent. We find that our most effective tools involve scaffolded calls to auxiliary models that generate diverse prompts for the target. White-box interpretability tools can be helpful, but the agent performs best with black-box tools. We also find that audit success varies greatly across training techniques: models trained on synthetic documents are easier to audit than models trained on demonstrations, with better adversarial training further increasing auditing difficulty. We release our models, agent, and evaluation framework to support future quantitative, iterative science on alignment auditing.

LLM agents call tools, query databases, delegate tasks, and trigger external side effects. Once an agent system can act in the world, the question is no longer only whether harmful actions can be prevented--it is whether those actions remain answerable after deployment. We distinguish accountability (the ability to determine compliance and assign responsibility), auditability (the system property that makes accountability possible), and auditing (the process of reconstructing behavior from trustworthy evidence). Our claim is direct: no agent system can be accountable without auditability. To make this operational, we define five dimensions of agent auditability, i.e., action recoverability, lifecycle coverage, policy checkability, responsibility attribution, and evidence integrity, and identify three mechanism classes (detect, enforce, recover) whose temporal information-and-intervention constraints explain why, in practice, no single approach suffices. We support the position with layered evidence rather than a single benchmark: lower-bound ecosystem measurements suggest that even basic security prerequisites for auditability are widely unmet (617 security findings across six prominent open-source projects); runtime feasibility results show that pre-execution mediation with tamper-evident records adds only 8.3 ms median overhead; and controlled recovery experiments show that responsibility-relevant information can be partially recovered even when conventional logs are missing. We propose an Auditability Card for agent systems and identify six open research problems organized by mechanism class.

An agent's probability report is paid for twice: by a strictly proper scoring rule, and by an approval rule for the decision it triggers. In this classical decision-coupled setting, non-affine approval is known to defeat truthful reporting. We show the conflict is endogenous: when feasible, the welfare-maximizing approval rule is never affine. The distortion, however, is predictable and can be designed around. There is a reserve report at which pretending to be the marginal type costs exactly the approval prize. Approving at or above the reserve screens types perfectly under every strictly proper score, and the reserve does not depend on the type distribution. A Lipschitz rule with a single kink attains first-best exactly; under strict feasibility no continuously differentiable rule does. The binding constraint is steepness, not smoothness. First-best is attainable within a slope budget if and only if the budget is at least the critical slope: the steepest chord of the pretending cost up to the reserve. Below it the welfare loss is cubic in the shortfall. Where the pretending cost is convex up to the reserve, as for Brier, log and power scores, the critical slope is closed-form. The instances are AI-agent oversight and marketplace operation.