SafetyPage

Research papers · Paper

Automated Researchers Can Mitigate Well-characterized Alignment Failures

Chen Yueh-Han, Jiaxin Wen, Jan Hendrik Kirchner · 2 Sep 2026

ReadSource at arxiv.org ↗Read hereCC BY 4.0

Outline · 52 pages

  1. Introductionp. 2
  2. Environmentp. 3
  3. Benchmarksp. 3
  4. Metricsp. 3
  5. Evaluationp. 4
  6. Automated Alignment Researcher Harnessp. 4
  7. The hill-climbing loopp. 5
  8. Legibility and integrityp. 5
  9. Human Ideas as Baselines and Seedsp. 5
  10. Resultsp. 6
  11. Main resultsp. 6
  12. Qualitative findings on the proposed methodsp. 8
  13. Ablation of the AAR harnessp. 9
  14. Can AARs Post-Train Production-Grade Models?p. 9
  15. Monitoring for Cheatingp. 10
  16. Discussionp. 11
  17. Limitationsp. 11
  18. Future workp. 11
  19. Conclusionp. 13
  20. Benchmarks and auditsp. 21
  21. How we choose the held-out benchmarkp. 21
  22. Benchmark suitesp. 21
  23. Choosing target modelsp. 21
  24. The capability basketp. 21
  25. Benchmark validationp. 23
  26. Petri audit seedsp. 24
  27. Harness detailsp. 24
  28. Literature reviewp. 24
  29. Researcher briefingp. 25
  30. The submit-model contractp. 25
  31. Held-out isolationp. 25
  32. Method mini-paperp. 26
  33. Human-proposed ideasp. 27
  34. Example: a human idea and an AAR idea for the same failurep. 27
  35. Novelty of human and AAR ideasp. 30
  36. Hill-climbing under a novelty constraintp. 32
  37. Seeding a team with one human idea or fivep. 32
  38. Recruitment and quality controlp. 33
  39. The human-guided research direction instructionp. 34
  40. Additional results and ablationsp. 35
  41. Hill-climbing a single benchmarkp. 35
  42. Larger models under Petrip. 35
  43. How well does the hill-climbing score predict Petri generalization?p. 35
  44. The training objective, not the data, is the lever that mattersp. 37
  45. Ablation study on the AAR harnessp. 40
  46. Hill-climbing against many alignment failures on larger modelsp. 40
  47. Setupp. 40
  48. Resultsp. 42
  49. What the AARs proposedp. 44
  50. Proposed-method breakdownp. 44
  51. Idea diversity over a runp. 49
  52. More training data does not mean stronger performancep. 49
  53. Complexity rubricp. 49
  54. Cheating monitorp. 51
  55. Monitoring scaffold and scoring rulep. 51
  56. Integrity-monitor judge promptp. 52