Positive-Unlabeled Learning for Agent Safety False Alarm Auditing

Activation probes can predict safety-relevant properties of language models with high area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUROC), but deployed agent monitors make thresholded alarm decisions under tight false-alarm budgets. These are different estimands. We introduce an Operational Validity Contract that fixes a monitor's target, observability, identity, timing, intervention unit, comparator, calibration, and cost. We formalize risk at the semantic request or trajectory level: when one task contains repeated alarm opportunities, row-level AUROC and false positive rate do not identify semantic-unit any-alarm risk. A confidence-certified threshold also requires enough independent negative units, a tie-safe rule, and transport to deployment. Across Models Under Pressure, LASR refusal prediction, immutable AgentDojo, and a prospectively protocol-frozen ST-WebAgentBench replication, joint activation-observable monitors reach AUROC 0.957 and 0.935 on the first two benchmarks, yet their locked 5%/10% detection rates are only .642/.742 and .719/.782, respectively. On AgentDojo, the secondary mean-activation rollout monitor reaches AUROC 0.922 but detects none of 38 positive semantic cases at the locked 5% operating point; thresholds intended for 10% false alarms realize 18.7-20.0% on test. Because the test misses its prospectively frozen 40-positive support gate, we label it support-insufficient. On ST-WebAgentBench, activation reaches AUROC .874, but 23 independent calibration negatives cannot identify even a 10% controller; the locked policy abstains rather than reporting its mechanical zero FPR as a success. An exploratory counterexample also lowers full AUROC while improving realized 10% utility. The fail-closed compiler caps MUP and LASR at restricted predictive value and AgentDojo and ST-Web at representation accessibility; no setting reaches alarm-policy validity.

Many deployments must compare candidate language models for safety before a labeled benchmark exists for the relevant language, sector, or regulatory regime. We formalize this setting as benchmarkless comparative safety scoring and specify the contract under which a scenario-based audit can be interpreted as deployment evidence. Scores are valid only under a fixed scenario pack, rubric, auditor, judge, sampling configuration, and rerun budget. Because no labels are available, we replace ground-truth agreement with an instrumental-validity chain: responsiveness to a controlled safe-versus-abliterated contrast, dominance of target-driven variance over auditor and judge artifacts, and stability across reruns. We instantiate the chain in SimpleAudit, a local-first scoring instrument, and validate it on a Norwegian safety pack. Safe and abliterated targets separate with AUROC values between 0.89 and 1.00, target identity is the dominant variance component ($η^2 \approx 0.52$), and severity profiles stabilize by ten reruns. Applying the same chain to Petri shows that it admits both tools. The substantial differences arise upstream of the chain, in claim-contract enforcement and deployment fit. A Norwegian public-sector procurement case comparing Borealis and Gemma 3 demonstrates the resulting evidence in practice: the safer model depends on scenario category and risk measure. Consequently, scores, matched deltas, critical rates, uncertainty, and the auditor and judge used must be reported together rather than collapsed into a single ranking.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to detect unsafe content. A common approach is to combine judgments from a panel of models to correct individual mistakes, but this benefit may disappear when every model sees the same misleading context before voting. We study this risk in a controlled two-round experiment. Each model first judges an item alone, then judges it again after six simulated peers either assert the wrong label or abstain. We combine the final judgments by majority vote. Across six open-weight LLMs and six datasets, we find that the wrong-label peer message raises the average reviewer false-alarm rate from 56.5% under silent peers to 87.5%, and majority voting raises the panel false-alarm rate to 100%. Without an asserted label, the same panel outperforms its average member. The effect is strongly asymmetric: reviewers follow pushes toward "unsafe" far more than pushes toward "safe" (about 75% versus 17%), so the panel's false-alarm rate rises sharply while its harmful-miss rate changes little. The proprietary-model probe shows substantial variation across models. These results identify susceptibility to shared social cues as a failure mode of safety panels and provide a simple pre-deployment diagnostic.