Constitutional Black-Box Monitoring for Scheming in LLM Agents
Simon Storf, Rich Barton-Cooper, James Peters-Gill, Marius Hobbhahn
Abstract
Safe deployment of Large Language Model (LLM) agents in autonomous settings requires reliable oversight mechanisms. A central challenge is detecting scheming, where agents covertly pursue misaligned goals. One approach to mitigating such risks is LLM-based monitoring: using language models to examine agent behaviors for suspicious actions. We study constitutional blackbox monitors: prompted classifiers that detect scheming using only externally observable inputs and outputs, optimized on synthetic data generated from natural-language behavior specifications. We introduce two pipelines for generating synthetic agent trajectories, STRIDE (iterative refinement) and Gloom (agent-environment simulation), from which we generate 1,000 samples each. We optimize frontier LLM monitors on these datasets via prompt sweeps, human refinement, and automated prompt optimization, and evaluate performance on 7,500 held-out trajectories from ControlArena, a suite of grounded environments where agents operate in more realistic contexts. Our results demonstrate that monitors selected purely on synthetic data can generalize to more realistic environments, capturing a meaningful scheming signal. However, we find that performance saturates quickly in our setting, with simple prompt sweeps matching the results of more extensive optimization. Pushing beyond this limit yields no further improvements and instead leads to overfitting.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext f5249992-06e4-4e39-8cef-0c87dd6c93e8Builds on7
- SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-world Github Issues?Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao et al.ICLR 2024 · 2,082 citations
- Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought PromptingMiles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, Samuel R. BowmanNeurIPS 2023 · 1,792 citations
- The Alignment Problem from a Deep Learning PerspectiveRichard Ngo, Lawrence Chan, Sören MindermannICLR 2024 · 296 citations
- AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional SubversionRyan Greenblatt, Buck Shlegeris, Kshitij Sachan, Fabien RogerICML 2024 · 137 citations
- Why Do Some Language Models Fake Alignment While Others Don't?Abhay Sheshadri, John Hughes, Julian Michael, Alex Mallen et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 19 citations
Related papers
- How to Catch an AI Liar: Lie Detection in Black-Box LLMs by Asking Unrelated QuestionsLorenzo Pacchiardi, Alex James Chan, Sören Mindermann, Ilan Moscovitz et al.ICLR 2024 · 88 citations
- AutoControl Arena: Synthesizing Executable Test Environments for Frontier AI Risk EvaluationChangyi Li, Pengfei Lu, Xudong Pan, Fazl Barez et al.ICML 2026 · 2 citations
- Predicting the Performance of Black-box Language Models with Follow-up QueriesDylan Sam, Marc Finzi, Zico KolterNeurIPS 2025 · 10 citations
- Trajectory Signatures of Deception in Large Language ModelsViraaji Mothukuri, Reza M. PariziACL 2026
- Language Models can Subtly Deceive Without Lying: A Case Study on Strategic Phrasing in LegislationAtharvan Dogra, Krishna Pillutla, Ameet Deshpande, Ananya B. Sai et al.ACL 2025
