CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications

Detecting Multi-Agent Collusion Through Multi-Agent Interpretability

Open access
Rose, Aaron, Cullen, Carissa, Abdelnabi, Sahar, Torr, Philip, Kaplowitz, Brandon Gary, de Witt, Christian Schroeder·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2604.01151arXiv 2604.01151
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Non-verbalised or secret collusion may impose a ceiling on transcript-level monitoring in multi-agent deployments. Internal model activations are known to provide an additional monitoring surface for single-agent phenomena such as deception, but detecting collusion within an unknown subgroup is ultimately a joint inference task over multiple agents. This paper derives collusion detection statistics based on the composite hypothesis testing literature and introduces HELIOS, a multi-agent detection framework for collusion. Using per-agent activation probes as sensors, we then evaluate these principled statistics alongside heuristics on NARCBench, a novel benchmark for evaluating multi-agent collusion detection under environment distribution shift. Across four open-weight models, both our group-level statistics and heuristics transfer zero-shot to NARCBenchs holdout environments. Notably, the best method on every model reaches 0.99 to 1.00 AUROC when transferred from committee deliberations to a steganographic collusion task that unprimed transcript monitors fail to separate. We find empirically that no single statistic or heuristic dominates across tasks, consistent with our analysis that there is no known universally most powerful test for this setting. We then evaluate detector transfer to third-party environments with emergent, rather than instructed, collusion. In one such environment, only 2 of 229 collusive episodes verbalise the coordination in the transcript. We find evidence of partial transfer from NARCBench to these environments, indicating that probes fitted to instructed collusion may not fully capture emergent collusion signals. Overall, we establish multi-agent interpretability as a complementary monitoring technique, while highlighting the need to evaluate detector performance on both emergent and instructed collusion risks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2604.01151

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Rose et al. (2026) introduce NARCBench, a benchmark for collusion detection under distribution shift, and propose methods that aggregate per-agent deception signals from internal activations to identify coordinated behaviour at the group level.

    “For instance, Rose et al. (2026) introduce NARCBench, a benchmark for collusion detection under distribution shift, and propose methods that aggregate per-agent deception signals from internal activations to identify coordinated behaviour at the group level.”

    From Open Challenges in Multi-Agent Security: Towards Secure Systems of Interacting AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Rose et al., 2026

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. Louigi Addario-Berry, Nicolas Broutin, Luc Devroye, and Gábor Lugosi. On Combinatorial Testing Problems. The Annals of Statistics, 38(5):3063-3092, 2010. ISSN 0090-5364.
  2. Guillaume Alain and Yoshua Bengio. Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes, 11 2018. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.01644. · arXiv
  3. Robert J. Aumann. Agreeing to Disagree. The Annals of Statistics, 4(6):1236 -1239, 1976. doi: 10.1214/aos/1176343654. URL https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176343654. · DOI
  4. Amos Azaria and Tom Mitchell. The internal state of an LLM knows when it's lying. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, 2023. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2304.13734.
  5. Patrick Bajari and Lixin Ye. Deciding between Competition and Collusion. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4):971-989, 2003. ISSN 0034-6535.
  6. Gerard Boxo, Ryan Socha, Daniel Yoo, and Shivam Raval. Caught in the Act: A mechanistic approach to detecting deception, 2025. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.19505. · arXiv
  7. Collin Burns, Haotian Ye, Dan Klein, and Jacob Steinhardt. Discovering Latent Knowledge in Lan- guage Models Without Supervision, 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.03827. · arXiv
  8. Emilio Calvano, Giacomo Calzolari, Vincenzo Denicolò, and Sergio Pastorello. Artificial Intelligence, Algorithmic Pricing, and Collusion. American Economic Review, 110(10):3267-3297, October 2020. ISSN 0002-8282. doi: 10.1257/aer.20190623. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Pedro M. P. Curvo. The traitors: Deception and trust in multi-agent language model simulations. In NeurIPS 2025 Workshop on Multi-Turn Interactions, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2505.12923.
  10. Aritra Das, Jaee Ponde, Mihir More, and Debayan Gupta. You Can't Escape Your Own Activations : Evaluation Awareness and Multi-Agent Monitoring, 2026. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2609.03035.
  11. DeepSeek-AI. DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in LLMs via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12948. · arXiv
  12. D. Dolev and A. Yao. On the security of public key protocols. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 29(2):198-208, March 1983. ISSN 1557-9654. doi: 10.1109/TIT.1983.1056650. · DOI
  13. David Donoho and Jiashun Jin. Higher Criticism for Detecting Sparse Heterogeneous Mixtures. The Annals of Statistics, 32(3):962-994, 2004. ISSN 0090-5364.
  14. Sara Fish, Yannai A. Gonczarowski, and Ran I. Shorrer. Algorithmic collusion by large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00806, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404. 00806. · arXiv
  15. Jack Foxabbott, Sam Deverett, Kaspar Senft, Samuel Dower, and Lewis Hammond. Defining and Mitigating Collusion in Multi-Agent Systems. In Multi-Agent Security Workshop @ NeurIPS'23, October 2023.
  16. Clement Fung, Chris J. M. Yoon, and Ivan Beschastnikh. The Limitations of Federated Learning in Sybil Settings. In 23rd International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions and Defenses (RAID 2020), pp. 301-316, 2020. ISBN 978-1-939133-18-2.
  17. Claudia V. Goldman and Shlomo Zilberstein. Decentralized control of cooperative systems: Cate- gorization and complexity analysis. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 22(1):143-174, November 2004. ISSN 1076-9757.
  18. Nicholas Goldowsky-Dill, Bilal Chughtai, Stefan Heimersheim, and Marius Hobbhahn. Detecting strategic deception using linear probes. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.03407. · arXiv
  19. Satvik Golechha and Adrià Garriga-Alonso. Among Us: A Sandbox for Measuring and Detecting Agentic Deception. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 38, Main Conference, pp. 11025-11055.
  20. Curran Associates, Inc., 2025. doi: 10.52202/085713-0370. · DOI
  21. C. W. J. Granger. Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods. Econometrica, 37(3):424-438, 1969. ISSN 00129682. doi: 10.2307/1912791. URL https: //www.jstor.org/stable/1912791. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Ryan Greenblatt, Buck Shlegeris, Kshitij Sachan, and Fabien Roger. AI control: Improving safety despite intentional subversion. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06942. · arXiv
  23. Taicheng Guo, Xiuying Chen, Yaqi Wang, Ruidi Chang, Shichao Pei, Nitesh V Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang. Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01680. · arXiv
  24. Ben Hagag, William L. Anderson, Srija Chakraborty, and Christian Schroeder de Witt. Orbit: A framework for multi-agent safety and security evaluations. NeurIPS, 2026.
  25. Joseph Y. Halpern and Yoram Moses. Knowledge and common knowledge in a distributed en- vironment. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 37(3):549-587, July 1990. ISSN 0004-5411. doi: 10.1145/79147.79161. · DOI
  26. Lewis Hammond, Alan Chan, Jesse Clifton, Jason Hoelscher-Obermaier, Akbir Khan, Euan McLean, Chandler Smith, Wolfram Barfuss, Jakob Foerster, Tomáš Gavenčiak, The Anh Han, Edward Hughes, Vojtěch Kovařík, Jan Kulveit, Joel Z. Leibo, Caspar Oesterheld, Christian Schroeder de Witt, Nisarg Shah, Michael Wellman, Paolo Bova, Theodor Cimpeanu, Carson Ezell, Quentin Feuillade-Montixi, Matija Franklin, Esben Kran, Igor Krawczuk, Max Lamparth, Niklas Lauffer, Alexander Meinke, Sumeet Motwani, Anka Reuel, Vincent Conitzer, Michael Dennis, Iason Gabriel, Adam Gleave, Gillian Hadfield, Nika Haghtalab, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, Sébastien Krier, Kate Larson, Joel Lehman, David C. Parkes, Georgios Piliouras, and Iyad Rahwan. Multi-agent risks from advanced AI. Cooperative AI Foundation Technical Report, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2502.14143.
  27. E. Hansen, D. Bernstein, and S. Zilberstein. Dynamic Programming for Partially Observable Stochastic Games. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, July 2004.
  28. Xu He, Di Wu, Yan Zhai, and Kun Sun. Sentinelagent: Graph-based anomaly detection in multi-agent systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24201, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505. 24201. · arXiv
  29. John Hewitt and Percy Liang. Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Tasks. In Kentaro Inui, Jing Jiang, Vincent Ng, and Xiaojun Wan (eds.), Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pp. 2733-2743, Hong Kong, China, November 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/D19-1275. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Sirui Hong, Mingchen Zhuge, Jiaqi Chen, Xiawu Zheng, Yuheng Cheng, Ceyao Zhang, Jinlin Wang, Zili Wang, Steven Ka Shing Yau, Zijuan Lin, Liyang Zhou, Chenyu Ran, Lingfeng Xiao, Chenglin Wu, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. MetaGPT: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.00352. · arXiv
  31. Nicholas J. Hopper, John Langford, and Luis Von Ahn. Provably Secure Steganography. In Gerhard Goos, Juris Hartmanis, Jan Van Leeuwen, and Moti Yung (eds.), Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2002, volume 2442, pp. 77-92. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2002. ISBN 978-3-540-44050-5 978-3-540-45708-4. doi: 10.1007/3-540-45708-9_6. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Steven R Howard, Aaditya Ramdas, Jon McAuliffe, and Jasjeet Sekhon. Time-uniform, nonparamet- ric, nonasymptotic confidence sequences. The Annals of Statistics, 49(2):1055-1080, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.08240. · arXiv
  33. Sune K. Jakobsen, Troels B. Sørensen, and Vincent Conitzer. Timeability of extensive-form games. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, ITCS '16, pp. 191-199. Association for Computing Machinery, 2016. ISBN 978-1-4503-4057-1. doi: 10.1145/2840728.2840737. URL https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2840728. 2840737. · DOI
  34. Vojtěch Kovařík, Martin Schmid, Neil Burch, Michael Bowling, and Viliam Lisý. Rethinking formal models of partially observable multiagent decision making. Artificial Intelligence, 303: 103645, 2022. ISSN 0004-3702. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2021.103645. URL https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000437022100196X. · DOI
  35. Prashant Kulkarni. Latent adversarial detection: Adaptive probing of LLM activations for multi-turn attack detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.28129, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2604.28129. · arXiv
  36. Leslie Lamport, Robert Shostak, and Marshall Pease. The Byzantine Generals Problem. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), 4(3):382-401, July 1982. ISSN 0164-0925. doi: 10.1145/357172.357176. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Butler W. Lampson. A note on the confinement problem. Commun. ACM, pp. 613-615, 1973. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/362375.362389. · DOI
  38. S. C. Larson. The shrinkage of the coefficient of multiple correlation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 22(1):45-55, 1931. ISSN 1939-2176. doi: 10.1037/h0072400. · DOI · Paper page
  39. E.L. Lehmann and Joseph P. Romano. Testing Statistical Hypotheses. Springer Texts in Statis- tics. Springer International Publishing, 2022. ISBN 978-3-030-70577-0 978-3-030-70578- 7. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-70578-7. URL https://link.springer.com/10.1007/ 978-3-030-70578-7. · DOI
  40. Benjamin A. Levinstein and Daniel A. Herrmann. Still no lie detector for language models: Probing empirical and conceptual roadblocks. Philosophical Studies, 182(7):1539-1565, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.00175. · arXiv
  41. Kenneth Li, Oam Patel, Fernanda Viégas, Hanspeter Pfister, and Martin Wattenberg. Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:41451-41530, 2023. doi: 10.52202/075280-1797. · DOI · Paper page
  42. Xianxuan Long, Yao Fu, Runchao Li, Mu Sheng, Haotian Yu, Xiaotian Han, and Pan Li. When Truthful Representations Flip Under Deceptive Instructions? In Christos Christodoulopoulos, Tanmoy Chakraborty, Carolyn Rose, and Violet Peng (eds.), Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 16315-16335. Association for Com- putational Linguistics, 2025. ISBN 979-8-89176-332-6. doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.826. URL https://aclanthology.org/2025.emnlp-main.826/. · DOI
  43. Samuel Marks and Max Tegmark. The geometry of truth: Emergent linear structure in large language model representations of true/false datasets. In Conference on Language Modeling (COLM), 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06824. · arXiv
  44. Yohan Mathew, Ollie Matthews, Robert McCarthy, Joan Velja, Christian Schroeder de Witt, Dylan Cope, and Nandi Schoots. Hidden in plain text: Emergence and mitigation of steganographic collusion in LLMs. In NeurIPS 2024 Workshop on Safe Generative AI, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.03768.
  45. Alex McKenzie, Urja Pawar, Phil Blandfort, William Bankes, David Krueger, Ekdeep Singh Lubana, and Dmitrii Krasheninnikov. Detecting High-Stakes Interactions with Activation Probes. In The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, October 2025.
  46. Sumeet Ramesh Motwani, Mikhail Baranchuk, Martin Strohmeier, Vijay Bolina, Philip H.S. Torr, Lewis Hammond, and Christian Schroeder de Witt. Secret collusion among AI agents: Multi-agent deception via steganography. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07510. · arXiv
  47. Mason Nakamura, Abhinav Kumar, Saswat Das, Sahar Abdelnabi, Saaduddin Mahmud, Fer- dinando Fioretto, Shlomo Zilberstein, and Eugene Bagdasarian. Colosseum: Auditing col- lusion in cooperative multi-agent systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.15198, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.15198. · arXiv
  48. Joe Needham, Giles Edkins, Govind Pimpale, Henning Bartsch, and Marius Hobbhahn. Large language models often know when they are being evaluated. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23836, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23836. · arXiv
  49. Jerzy Neyman and Egon Sharpe Pearson. IX. On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character, 231(694-706):289-337, 1933. ISSN 0264-3952, 2053-9258. doi: 10.1098/rsta.1933.0009. · DOI
  50. Kiho Park, Yo Joong Choe, and Victor Veitch. The linear representation hypothesis and the geometry of large language models. In Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian Weller, Nuria Oliver, Jonathan Scarlett, and Felix Berkenkamp (eds.), Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 235 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp. 39643-39666. PMLR, 21-27 Jul 2024. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v235/ park24c.html.
  51. Tiago Pimentel, Josef Valvoda, Rowan Hall Maudslay, Ran Zmigrod, Adina Williams, and Ryan Cotterell. Information-Theoretic Probing for Linguistic Structure. In Dan Jurafsky, Joyce Chai, Na- talie Schluter, and Joel Tetreault (eds.), Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 4609-4622, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.420. · DOI
  52. Chen Qian, Wei Liu, Hongzhang Liu, Nuo Chen, Yufan Dang, Jiahao Li, Cheng Yang, Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Xin Cong, Juyuan Xu, Dahai Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. ChatDev: Communicative agents for software development. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2307.07924. · arXiv
  53. Qwen Team. Qwen3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.09388. · arXiv
  54. Aaditya Ramdas, Peter Grünwald, Vladimir Vovk, and Glenn Shafer. Game-theoretic statistics and Safe Anytime-Valid Inference. Statistical Science, 38(4):576-597, November 2023. ISSN 0883-4237. doi: 10.1214/23-STS894. · DOI
  55. Christian Schroeder de Witt. A note on the strategic confinement problem, 2026. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2606.09931.
  56. Christian Schroeder de Witt, Samuel Sokota, J. Zico Kolter, Jakob Nicolaus Foerster, and Martin Strohmeier. Perfectly Secure Steganography Using Minimum Entropy Coupling. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, September 2023.
  57. Xinrui Shi, Yanzhe Zhang, and Diyi Yang. Emergent collusion in long-horizon llm agent interaction, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.24967. · arXiv
  58. Ali Shojaie and Emily B. Fox. Granger causality: A review and recent advances. Annual Re- view of Statistics and Its Application, 9:289-319, 2022. ISSN 2326-8298, 2326-831X. doi: 10.1146/annurev-statistics-040120-010930. URL https://www.annualreviews.org/ content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-040120-010930. · DOI
  59. Gustavus J. Simmons. The Prisoners' Problem and the Subliminal Channel. In David Chaum (ed.), Advances in Cryptology: Proceedings of Crypto 83, pp. 51-67. Springer US, Boston, MA, 1984. ISBN 978-1-4684-4730-9. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4684-4730-9_5. · DOI
  60. Samuel Sokota, Ryan D'Orazio, Chun Kai Ling, David J. Wu, J. Zico Kolter, and Noam Brown. Abstracting imperfect information away from two-player zero-sum games. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 32169-32193. PMLR, 2023. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v202/sokota23a.html.
  61. M. Stone. Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 36(2):111-147, 1974. ISSN 0035-9246.
  62. Marcantonio Bracale Syrnikov, Federico Pierucci, Marcello Galisai, Matteo Prandi, Piercosma Bis- conti, Francesco Giarrusso, Olga Sorokoletova, Vincenzo Suriani, and Daniele Nardi. Institutional AI: Governing LLM collusion in multi-agent cournot markets via public governance graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.11369, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.11369. · arXiv
  63. A. Wald. Sequential Tests of Statistical Hypotheses. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 16(2): 117-186, 1945. ISSN 0003-4851.
  64. Yao Xie and David Siegmund. Sequential multi-sensor change-point detection. The Annals of Statistics, 41(2):670-692, April 2013. ISSN 0090-5364, 2168-8966. doi: 10.1214/13-AOS1094. · DOI
  65. Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena. In Thirty-Seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track, November 2023.
  66. Andy Zou, Long Phan, Sarah Chen, James Campbell, Phillip Guo, Richard Ren, Alexander Pan, Xuwang Yin, Mantas Mazeika, and Ann-Kathrin Dombrowski. Representation engineering: A top-down approach to ai transparency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01405, 2023a. · arXiv
  67. Andy Zou, Long Phan, Sarah Chen, James Campbell, Phillip Guo, Richard Ren, Alexander Pan, Xuwang Yin, Mantas Mazeika, Ann-Kathrin Dombrowski, Shashwat Goel, Nathaniel Li, Michael J Byun, Zifan Wang, Alex Mallen, Steven Basart, Sanmi Koyejo, Dawn Song, Matt Fredrikson, J. Zico Kolter, and Dan Hendrycks. Representation engineering: A top-down approach to AI transparency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01405, 2023b. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2310.01405. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rose, A., Cullen, C., Abdelnabi, S., Torr, P., Kaplowitz, B. G., & de Witt, C. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • ELLIS Institute Tübingen (DE)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
47-47
ISSN
3067-2627 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2604.01151
arXiv
2604.01151
OpenAlex
W7148280789
Cited by
0
References
2
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • SuperIntelligence - Robotics - Safety & Alignment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Royal Academy of Engineering
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Keywords
linear probing, LLM agents, distributed anomaly detection, zero-shot transfer, human oversight

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review