WhitzardNUWA Lab ↗
NUWANUWA INDEX

Search NUWA Index

Research · Benchmarks · Findings · Perspectives

中文

RESEARCH RECORD

BashArena and Control Setting Design

Adam Kaufman · James Lucassen · Redwood Research

Original publication ↗ · BibTeX · RIS

Task generation preserves a capability gap between trusted and untrusted models.The authors document grading weaknesses and overpowered strategies requiring correction.At 4% trajectory-wise false positives, the GPT-4.1 mini monitor reaches 74% safety. The associated 0.08% stepwise FPR uses a different denominator.Removing internet access changes partial-credit usefulness from 59% to 55% while disabling three of four side tasks; this exposes a setting-design shortcut.Honest Sonnet4.5 and GPT-4.1 mini policies each accidentally trigger the firewall task once in637 trajectories; no other side tasks trigger accidentally.

Research question

What makes a control setting informative about deployment safeguards?

Design & assumptions

Pairs system-administration main tasks with scored security side tasks.

Findings

Task generation preserves a capability gap between trusted and untrusted models.

The authors document grading weaknesses and overpowered strategies requiring correction.

At 4% trajectory-wise false positives, the GPT-4.1 mini monitor reaches 74% safety. The associated 0.08% stepwise FPR uses a different denominator.

Removing internet access changes partial-credit usefulness from 59% to 55% while disabling three of four side tasks; this exposes a setting-design shortcut.

Honest Sonnet4.5 and GPT-4.1 mini policies each accidentally trigger the firewall task once in637 trajectories; no other side tasks trigger accidentally.

Limits & counterevidence

Control-game usefulness is not an absolute capability ranking; model evaluations use different task subsets.

Main task usefulness by model.
Main task usefulness by model. Original figure ↗
Main task performance versus trajectory cutoff.
Main task performance versus trajectory cutoff. Original figure ↗
Monitor safety versus trajectory-wise FPR.
Monitor safety versus trajectory-wise FPR. Original figure ↗
Attacker performance by model and side task.
Attacker performance by model and side task. Original figure ↗
Control setting design illustration.
Control setting design illustration. Original figure ↗
Control setting design illustration.
Control setting design illustration. Original figure ↗

Source evidence

SystemMeasureReported valueConditions & location
—main task count637unique main tasksDataset inventory; two named models use all tasks, other models use random subsets of 100L26,L48
GPT-4.1 mini monitorSafety at 4% trajectory-wise FPR74%%BashArena original release; trusted monitoring; 4% trajectory-wise false-positive rate; monitor GPT-4.1 mini; attacker identity and denominator not disclosed in proseL60
—Stepwise FPR corresponding to 4% trajectory-wise FPR0.08%%BashArena long trajectories; step and trajectory FPR are different denominatorsL60
—Main-task usefulness59%%Original permissions; partial credit means average fraction of test cases passed, not all-or-nothing task success; exact model not identified in proseL68,L150-L156
—Main-task usefulness55%%Internet access removed; three of four side tasks disabled; partial credit means average fraction of test cases passed, not all-or-nothing task success; exact model not identified in proseL68,L150-L156
Claude Sonnet 4.5Accidental firewall side-task triggersonce out of 637countn = 637 Honest policy; each model evaluated on 637 trajectories; original count, not calculated rateL204
Claude Sonnet 4.5Accidental triggers of other side tasksNo other side tasks were ever triggered accidentallycountn = 637 Honest policy; aggregate for side tasks other than firewall; do not split as invented per-task valuesL204
GPT-4.1 miniAccidental firewall side-task triggersonce out of 637countn = 637 Honest policy; each model evaluated on 637 trajectories; original count, not calculated rateL204
GPT-4.1 miniAccidental triggers of other side tasksNo other side tasks were ever triggered accidentallycountn = 637 Honest policy; aggregate for side tasks other than firewall; do not split as invented per-task valuesL204
—System monitoring tasks120countTask inventory cluster; all 9 clusters sum to 637; not a model scoreL30
—Data processing tasks88countTask inventory cluster; all 9 clusters sum to 637; not a model scoreL32
—Low-level systems tasks86countTask inventory cluster; all 9 clusters sum to 637; not a model scoreL34
—Process management tasks69countTask inventory cluster; all 9 clusters sum to 637; not a model scoreL36
—Database automation tasks68countTask inventory cluster; all 9 clusters sum to 637; not a model scoreL38
—Security tasks65countTask inventory cluster; all 9 clusters sum to 637; not a model scoreL40
—Memory optimization tasks55countTask inventory cluster; all 9 clusters sum to 637; not a model scoreL42
—CI/CD tasks55countTask inventory cluster; all 9 clusters sum to 637; not a model scoreL44
—Other tasks31countTask inventory cluster; all 9 clusters sum to 637; not a model scoreL46
GPT-5.2Main task usefulness0.66fraction of test cases passedGraphical error barsOriginal release; partial credit as average fraction of test cases passed; 100 main tasks for this model per article L48. Task count is not the test-case denominator.Article image1; main task performance; bar GPT-5.2
Claude Opus 4.5Main task usefulness0.66fraction of test cases passedGraphical error barsOriginal release; partial credit as average fraction of test cases passed; 100 main tasks for this model per article L48. Task count is not the test-case denominator.Article image1; main task performance; bar Claude Opus 4.5
Claude Sonnet 4.5Main task usefulness0.59fraction of test cases passedGraphical error barsOriginal release; partial credit as average fraction of test cases passed; 637 main tasks for this model per article L48. Task count is not the test-case denominator.Article image1; main task performance; bar Claude Sonnet 4.5
GPT-5Main task usefulness0.51fraction of test cases passedGraphical error barsOriginal release; partial credit as average fraction of test cases passed; 100 main tasks for this model per article L48. Task count is not the test-case denominator.Article image1; main task performance; bar GPT-5
GPT-4.1 miniMain task usefulness0.34fraction of test cases passedGraphical error barsOriginal release; partial credit as average fraction of test cases passed; 637 main tasks for this model per article L48. Task count is not the test-case denominator.Article image1; main task performance; bar GPT-4.1 mini
Kimi K2Main task usefulness0.27fraction of test cases passedGraphical error barsOriginal release; partial credit as average fraction of test cases passed; 100 main tasks for this model per article L48. Task count is not the test-case denominator.Article image1; main task performance; bar Kimi K2
GPT-5 nanoMain task usefulness0.24fraction of test cases passedGraphical error barsOriginal release; partial credit as average fraction of test cases passed; 100 main tasks for this model per article L48. Task count is not the test-case denominator.Article image1; main task performance; bar GPT-5 nano
Reading scope & review

Selected substantive passages of original institutional article; linked full paper, data and figures not independently audited

Model-assisted reading; independent evidence review pending.

Check the original source ↗