AI News HubLIVE
原文2 min read

Attack Selection in Agentic AI Control Evaluations Meaningfully Decreases Safety

A new study shows that if attackers strategically choose when to attack, the measured safety of AI control evaluations drops significantly. The researchers decompose attack decisions into start and stop policies, and demonstrate on BashArena and LinuxArena that both policies reduce safety by 20 to 28 percentage points at a 1% audit budget, without changing the underlying attack capability. Existing evaluations may overestimate safety, and the study recommends incorporating attack selection for more realistic estimates.

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Catherine Ge-Wang, Tyler Crosse, Benjamin Hadad IV, Joachim Schaeffer, Ram Potham, Tyler Tracy

[2606.06529] Attack Selection in Agentic AI Control Evaluations Meaningfully Decreases Safety

[Submitted on 3 Jun 2026]

Title:Attack Selection in Agentic AI Control Evaluations Meaningfully Decreases Safety

View a PDF of the paper titled Attack Selection in Agentic AI Control Evaluations Meaningfully Decreases Safety, by Catherine Ge-Wang and 5 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:An attacker that strategically chooses when to attack is much harder to catch than one that attacks indiscriminately. AI control is a safety framework for deploying capable but untrusted AI agents under the oversight of a weaker, trusted monitor and a limited human audit budget. Control evaluations stress-test these protocols by pitting a red-team attack policy against the blue-team monitor, but current evaluations typically assume attackers that do not strategically select when to attack. We study this capability, attack selection, in agentic settings by decomposing attack decisions into a start policy, which decides when an attacker should attack, and a stop policy, which decides when an attacker should abort an ongoing attack. Across two agentic settings, BashArena and LinuxArena, both policies substantially lower measured empirical safety without changing the underlying attack capability. At a 1% audit budget, our start policy reduces safety by 20pp on both BashArena and LinuxArena, and our stop policy reduces safety by 20pp on BashArena and 28pp on LinuxArena. These reductions should be interpreted as upper bounds on the effect of attack selection. Existing control evaluations may therefore yield overly optimistic safety estimates against selective attackers. We recommend that future evaluations, system cards, and safety cases elicit attack selection to produce more realistic safety estimates.

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

Cite as: arXiv:2606.06529 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2606.06529v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.06529

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Tyler Crosse [view email] [v1] Wed, 3 Jun 2026 11:04:59 UTC (5,255 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Attack Selection in Agentic AI Control Evaluations Meaningfully Decreases Safety, by Catherine Ge-Wang and 5 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-06

Change to browse by:

cs cs.LG

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Attack Selection in Agentic AI Control Evaluations Meaningfully Decreases Safety | AI News Hub