Automated Researchers Can Mitigate Well-characterized Alignment Failures

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28945v3
• Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2026 02:07:11 GMT
• Title: Automated Researchers Can Mitigate Well-characterized Alignment Failures
• Abstract summary: We study whether automated alignment researchers can mitigate alignment failures by proposing training methods and data.<n>Across 10 alignment failures, the strongest AAR methods significantly reduce the targeted alignment failures and generalize to a held-out benchmark.<n>Using human ideas as the AARs' initial research direction does not improve performance, suggesting current AARs may not need guidance from experienced researchers.
• Score: 10.460794002279489
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Automating alignment research may accelerate progress toward aligned AI, but whether it does is hard to measure. Luckily, many alignment failures, such as deception, sycophancy, and jailbreaks, are already measurable by public benchmarks. We study whether automated alignment researchers (AARs) can post-train to mitigate alignment failures by proposing training methods and data to simultaneously optimize multiple safety benchmarks, while largely preserving general capability. Across 10 alignment failures, the strongest AAR methods significantly reduce the targeted alignment failures and generalize to a held-out benchmark, multi-turn behavioral audits, and models up to 4.7x larger than the target model. As a human baseline, 28 experienced researchers receive up to eight hours to develop one-shot methods for the same benchmarks, but their methods underperform the best AAR methods. Using human ideas as the AARs' initial research direction does not improve performance, suggesting current AARs may not need guidance from experienced researchers. These results suggest that automating alignment research on well-characterized failures may be practical in the near term.

Related papers

• How Do Agents Fail on AutoResearch: End-to-End Diagnostic Evaluation on 100 Real-World Frontier Research Tasks [6.001213285107465]
  AutoResearchEval features 100 tasks grounded in published frontier science across 7 scientific domains.<n> evaluating 8 harness-model combinations yields 800 autoresearch agent trajectories.<n>We leverage a human-calibrated agent-as-a-judge pipeline to inspect complete trajectories and intermediate artifacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-14T21:39:38Z)
• AI Research Preference Models [87.14303218008381]
  Research agents can propose, implement, and evaluate their own machine learning experiments.<n> progress on frontier tasks is throttled by cost.<n>We introduce AI Research Preference Models ( RPMs) that predict which of multiple candidate solutions are most worth executing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-14T04:20:37Z)
• Better, Faster: Harnessing Self-Improvement in Large Reasoning Models [88.9107786925265]
  We propose HSIR, which effectively Harnesses Self-Improvement in large Reasoning models via two simple-yet-effective approaches.<n>Specifically, HSIR introduces a verify-then-exit sampling strategy to mitigate data imbalance.<n>HSIR also designs an Intrinsic Diversity score to quantify overthinking and filter out the undesired solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-24T10:54:46Z)
• Automated alignment is harder than you think [41.94180208011558]
  A leading proposal for aligning artificial superintelligence (ASI) is to use AI agents to automate an increasing fraction of alignment research as capabilities improve.<n>We argue that, even when research agents are not scheming to sabotage alignment work, this plan could produce compelling but catastrophically misleading safety assessments.<n>This could happen because alignment research involves many hard-to-supervise fuzzy tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T15:06:37Z)
• A Rubric-Supervised Critic from Sparse Real-World Outcomes [87.11204512676193]
  Real-world coding agents operate with humans in the loop, where success signals are typically noisy, delayed, and sparse.<n>We propose a process to learn a "critic" model from sparse and noisy interaction data, which can then be used both as a reward model for either RL-based training or inference-time scaling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-04T07:23:54Z)
• Towards Execution-Grounded Automated AI Research [106.90422658528819]
  Execution grounding may help, but it is unclear whether automated execution is feasible and whether LLMs can learn from the execution feedback.<n>We build an automated executor to implement ideas and launch large-scale parallel GPU experiments to verify their effectiveness.<n>We analyze two methods to learn from the execution feedback: evolutionary search and reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T22:35:44Z)
• Trajectory Guard -- A Lightweight, Sequence-Aware Model for Real-Time Anomaly Detection in Agentic AI [0.0]
  Trajectory Guard is a Siamese Recurrent Autoencoder with a hybrid loss function that jointly learns task-trajectory alignment via contrastive learning and sequential validity via reconstruction.<n>At 32 ms latency, our approach runs 17$-27times$ faster than LLM Judge baselines, enabling real-time safety verification in production deployments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-02T00:27:11Z)
• Guided Search Strategies in Non-Serializable Environments with Applications to Software Engineering Agents [31.651748374218446]
  Large language models (LLMs) have recently achieved remarkable results in complex multi-step tasks.<n>They often struggle to maintain consistent performance across multiple solution attempts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T18:50:15Z)
• The Automation Advantage in AI Red Teaming [0.0]
  This paper analyzes Large Language Model (LLM) security vulnerabilities based on data from Crucible.<n>Our findings reveal automated approaches significantly outperform manual techniques, despite only 5.2% of users employing automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-28T14:48:00Z)
• TFG: Unified Training-Free Guidance for Diffusion Models [82.14536097768632]
  Training-free guidance can generate samples with desirable target properties without additional training. Existing methods, though effective in various individual applications, often lack theoretical grounding and rigorous testing on extensive benchmarks. This paper introduces a novel algorithmic framework encompassing existing methods as special cases, unifying the study of training-free guidance into the analysis of an algorithm-agnostic design space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T05:31:17Z)
• InferAligner: Inference-Time Alignment for Harmlessness through Cross-Model Guidance [56.184255657175335]
  We develop textbfInferAligner, a novel inference-time alignment method that utilizes cross-model guidance for harmlessness alignment. Experimental results show that our method can be very effectively applied to domain-specific models in finance, medicine, and mathematics. It significantly diminishes the Attack Success Rate (ASR) of both harmful instructions and jailbreak attacks, while maintaining almost unchanged performance in downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-20T10:41:03Z)
• ZARTS: On Zero-order Optimization for Neural Architecture Search [94.41017048659664]
  Differentiable architecture search (DARTS) has been a popular one-shot paradigm for NAS due to its high efficiency. This work turns to zero-order optimization and proposes a novel NAS scheme, called ZARTS, to search without enforcing the above approximation. In particular, results on 12 benchmarks verify the outstanding robustness of ZARTS, where the performance of DARTS collapses due to its known instability issue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-10T09:35:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.