Skip to content
← Back to explorer

AuditBench: Evaluating Alignment Auditing Techniques on Models with Hidden Behaviors

Abhay Sheshadri, Aidan Ewart, Kai Fronsdal, Isha Gupta, Samuel R. Bowman, Sara Price, Samuel Marks, Rowan Wang · Feb 26, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

We introduce AuditBench, an alignment auditing benchmark. AuditBench consists of 56 language models with implanted hidden behaviors. Each model has one of 14 concerning behaviors--such as sycophantic deference, opposition to AI regulation, or secret geopolitical loyalties--which it does not confess to when directly asked. AuditBench models are highly diverse--some are subtle, while others are overt, and we use varying training techniques both for implanting behaviors and training models not to confess. To demonstrate AuditBench's utility, we develop an investigator agent that autonomously employs a configurable set of auditing tools. By measuring investigator agent success using different tools, we can evaluate their efficacy. Notably, we observe a tool-to-agent gap, where tools that perform well in standalone non-agentic evaluations fail to translate into improved performance when used with our investigator agent. We find that our most effective tools involve scaffolded calls to auxiliary models that generate diverse prompts for the target. White-box interpretability tools can be helpful, but the agent performs best with black-box tools. We also find that audit success varies greatly across training techniques: models trained on synthetic documents are easier to audit than models trained on demonstrations, with better adversarial training further increasing auditing difficulty. We release our models, agent, and evaluation framework to support future quantitative, iterative science on alignment auditing.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

50/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Moderate-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence 55%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Demonstrations

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"We also find that audit success varies greatly across training techniques: models trained on synthetic documents are easier to audit than models trained on demonstrations, with better adversarial training further increasing auditing difficulty."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"We introduce AuditBench, an alignment auditing benchmark."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"We introduce AuditBench, an alignment auditing benchmark."

Benchmarks / Datasets

strong

Auditbench

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"We introduce AuditBench, an alignment auditing benchmark."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"We introduce AuditBench, an alignment auditing benchmark."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Demonstrations
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Moderate
  • Use this page as: Secondary protocol comparison source

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

Auditbench

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

We introduce AuditBench, an alignment auditing benchmark.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • We introduce AuditBench, an alignment auditing benchmark.
  • AuditBench consists of 56 language models with implanted hidden behaviors.
  • Each model has one of 14 concerning behaviors--such as sycophantic deference, opposition to AI regulation, or secret geopolitical loyalties--which it does not confess to when directly asked.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We introduce AuditBench, an alignment auditing benchmark.
  • To demonstrate AuditBench's utility, we develop an investigator agent that autonomously employs a configurable set of auditing tools.
  • By measuring investigator agent success using different tools, we can evaluate their efficacy.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We introduce AuditBench, an alignment auditing benchmark.
  • To demonstrate AuditBench's utility, we develop an investigator agent that autonomously employs a configurable set of auditing tools.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Demonstrations

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: Auditbench

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.