Simple Features Beat Most AI Control Monitors

Trusted monitoring is a central defense in AI control: a cheaper trusted model scores an untrusted model's actions for sabotage, and the most suspicious are audited or deferred. Such monitors are evaluated against one or two untrusted models, and the accuracy is reported as a property of the monitor. We ask whether it is partly a property of the pairing. We make the untrusted policy family the controlled axis: we fit a monitor on family A's transcripts, apply it to family B, and decompose the cross-family AUROC into how obvious each family's sabotage is, how capable each monitor is, and the residual own-family advantage after both are removed: the interaction. On code-backdoor transcripts the interaction is positive and survives the dominant confounds: +0.172 (95% CI [+0.158, +0.185]) on four open-weight families on a strict leak-free basis, holding across an eight-family matrix spanning four frontier vendors, blatancy-matched controls, a trained transcript-reading monitor up to 34B parameters, and a second code benchmark. The gap is geometric: each lineage's sabotage occupies a different scoring direction, and rotating the monitor's scoring direction toward the target lineage recovers most of the lost detection while a matched random rotation recovers nothing. At a 1% audit budget under defer-to-trusted, an off-lineage monitor catches 19% of attack attempts where an in-lineage monitor catches 41% at the same audit cost, a +21.7-point gap. Control evaluations should report cross-family transfer matrices: a single-pairing accuracy overstates the safety a monitor delivers against a lineage it was not calibrated on. We give a four-step protocol that acts on the gap, with each step a measured result.

Large language models are often fine-tuned, shared, or downloaded from third parties, so a deployed model may carry a hidden backdoor that behaves normally on benign inputs but switches to attacker-controlled behavior when a secret trigger appears. While backdoors can be audited before deployment, runtime monitoring remains important for models that are frequently updated. The challenge is that LLM serving is latency-sensitive: existing inference-time detectors either rely on assumptions about the trigger form, which can fail on stealthy attacks, or require extra model computation, such as input perturbations or an additional generation pass. We introduce SpecGuard, an inference-time backdoor detector that repurposes speculative decoding at zero added model-computation cost. Speculative decoding speeds up inference by using a small draft model to propose tokens and a target model to verify them. We observe that this verification process already exposes a useful signal: when a backdoor is triggered, the target model shifts toward the attacker's behavior, while a clean draft model does not predict this shift, causing the draft-token acceptance rate to change. We formalize when this signal appears and show that an attacker who suppresses it must also weaken the backdoor. Across diverse backdoor types and model families, SpecGuard reliably detects triggered behavior, including stealthy cases where input-level filters are blind, while avoiding the extra generation cost of existing runtime detectors. Speculative decoding therefore doubles as a free, always-on signal for detecting backdoored LLM behavior.

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.