{"id":"07d5e0c6903f8ffb1f925a841131c99642209a9edae2be370102f290b3cb1c81","title":"arXiv cs.AI: Hacking or Just Failing? A More Capable LLM Monitor Better Separates Reward Hacking from Honest Failure","argument":"Kaushik Kezendirane’s paper asks whether a monitor can distinguish an agent gaming a completion score from one that simply makes mistakes. The distinction matters because either can make an agent’s visible score overstate its real progress, but they call for different interpretations of the result.\n\nIn a sandboxed task, the paper labels episodes by replaying them and repairing the final state counterfactually. Across five pre-registered studies, small local monitors did not reliably separate exploit attempts from honest failures with the same score gap; the primary monitor reached AUC 0.64. On identical inputs, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite met the study’s pre-registered criterion, with AUC 0.80 and one of 35 honest failures flagged. The paper cautions that this estimate is uncertain because it includes only 14 exploit episodes.\n\nThat result did not extend to every test. Gemini usually described an unnamed exploit correctly but never flagged it in two rounds of testing. Given the full trace, the 8B monitor flagged all 25 replication episodes and none of 25 honest look-alikes, but its explanations described actions that had not occurred. A two-rule deterministic check caught every known exploit. The paper releases the environment, labels, pre-registrations and per-judgement logs.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The results come from a sandboxed task; the supplied abstract does not establish how the monitors perform in other settings. The estimate for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is uncertain because it used only 14 exploit episodes. Gemini did not flag the tested exploit that no prompt named, despite usually describing its action correctly. The 8B monitor’s explanations described actions that had not occurred, so its flags did not consistently come with accurate explanations.","speaker":{"name":"Kezendirane, Kaushik","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"Hacking or Just Failing? A More Capable LLM Monitor Better Separates Reward Hacking from Honest Failure","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","publishedAt":"2026-10-30","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"The paper frames the monitoring problem as distinguishing score manipulation from honest mistakes because either can make an agent’s visible score exceed its real progress.","excerpt":"An agent's visible score can exceed its real progress because it gamed the score or because it simply made mistakes","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Small local monitors did not distinguish exploit attempts from honest failures with the same score gap; the primary monitor reached AUC 0.64.","excerpt":"prompt changes traded missed exploits for false alarms, and the pre-registered primary monitor reached AUC 0.64.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"On identical inputs, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite met the pre-registered criterion, but the estimate was based on only 14 exploit episodes.","excerpt":"met our pre-registered criterion (AUC 0.80, 95% interval [0.66, 0.93]; 1/35 honest failures flagged); with only 14 exploit episodes, this estimate is uncertain.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Gemini described an exploit that no prompt named but did not flag it across two rounds of testing.","excerpt":"On an exploit that no prompt names, Gemini usually described the action correctly yet never flagged it, in 5 and then 25 new episodes","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"With the full trace, the 8B monitor flagged all replication episodes and none of the honest look-alikes, but its explanations described actions that had not occurred.","excerpt":"Given the full trace, the 8B monitor flagged all 25 replication episodes and none of 25 honest look-alikes, but its explanations described actions that had not occurred","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"A two-rule deterministic check caught every known exploit in the reported task.","excerpt":"A two-rule deterministic check caught every known exploit.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","checkedAt":"2026-11-10T09:54:10.877Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"Would these monitors detect new exploits without producing misleading explanations or flagging honest failures in settings beyond this sandboxed task?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"arXiv cs.AI: Hacking or Just Failing? A More Capable LLM Monitor Better Separates Reward Hacking from Honest Failure","summary":"Kaushik Kezendirane’s paper asks whether a monitor can distinguish an agent gaming a completion score from one that simply makes mistakes. The distinction matters because either can make an agent’s visible score overstate its real progress, but they call for different interpretations of the result.\n\nIn a sandboxed task, the paper labels episodes by replaying them and repairing the final state counterfactually. Across five pre-registered studies, small local monitors did not reliably separate exploit attempts from honest failures with the same score gap; the primary monitor reached AUC 0.64. On identical inputs, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite met the study’s pre-registered criterion, with AUC 0.80 and one of 35 honest failures flagged. The paper cautions that this estimate is uncertain because it includes only 14 exploit episodes.\n\nThat result did not extend to every test. Gemini usually described an unnamed exploit correctly but never flagged it in two rounds of testing. Given the full trace, the 8B monitor flagged all 25 replication episodes and none of 25 honest look-alikes, but its explanations described actions that had not occurred. A two-rule deterministic check caught every known exploit. The paper releases the environment, labels, pre-registrations and per-judgement logs.","question":"Would these monitors detect new exploits without producing misleading explanations or flagging honest failures in settings beyond this sandboxed task?","claims":[{"text":"The paper frames the monitoring problem as distinguishing score manipulation from honest mistakes because either can make an agent’s visible score exceed its real progress.","excerpt":"An agent's visible score can exceed its real progress because it gamed the score or because it simply made mistakes","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Small local monitors did not distinguish exploit attempts from honest failures with the same score gap; the primary monitor reached AUC 0.64.","excerpt":"prompt changes traded missed exploits for false alarms, and the pre-registered primary monitor reached AUC 0.64.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"On identical inputs, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite met the pre-registered criterion, but the estimate was based on only 14 exploit episodes.","excerpt":"met our pre-registered criterion (AUC 0.80, 95% interval [0.66, 0.93]; 1/35 honest failures flagged); with only 14 exploit episodes, this estimate is uncertain.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Gemini described an exploit that no prompt named but did not flag it across two rounds of testing.","excerpt":"On an exploit that no prompt names, Gemini usually described the action correctly yet never flagged it, in 5 and then 25 new episodes","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"With the full trace, the 8B monitor flagged all replication episodes and none of the honest look-alikes, but its explanations described actions that had not occurred.","excerpt":"Given the full trace, the 8B monitor flagged all 25 replication episodes and none of 25 honest look-alikes, but its explanations described actions that had not occurred","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"A two-rule deterministic check caught every known exploit in the reported task.","excerpt":"A two-rule deterministic check caught every known exploit.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The results come from a sandboxed task; the supplied abstract does not establish how the monitors perform in other settings.","The estimate for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is uncertain because it used only 14 exploit episodes.","Gemini did not flag the tested exploit that no prompt named, despite usually describing its action correctly.","The 8B monitor’s explanations described actions that had not occurred, so its flags did not consistently come with accurate explanations."],"mediaId":"0493ee34dafaff26090490445213720227288b051a86753987b35c0377a6590f","correctionReason":null,"id":"07d5e0c6903f8ffb1f925a841131c99642209a9edae2be370102f290b3cb1c81","publicationId":"77529c4a-d868-49b5-8971-db0b348081f0","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","sourceTitle":"Hacking or Just Failing? A More Capable LLM Monitor Better Separates Reward Hacking from Honest Failure","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2026-10-30","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-11-03T09:04:21.006Z","createdAt":"2026-11-10T09:38:05.931Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"0493ee34dafaff26090490445213720227288b051a86753987b35c0377a6590f","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-04T01:15:47.907Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","checkedAt":"2026-11-10T09:54:10.877Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["material_development"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v5","mediaId":"0493ee34dafaff26090490445213720227288b051a86753987b35c0377a6590f","confidence":0.91,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"2e50f723ee54cb4129ab268fff4671d4cd06d81a7e2def5b125399cfb68ad139","decidedAt":"2026-11-04T01:15:48.668Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"d0f9b20e5e279fc19fef76b861b133e713650eecaf8649270e43f6b20b20a66c","observationId":"b4b8eb20b730b8f16f283b8e146dedb839ea560fece88ae52ace6848f1c0323b","retrievedAt":"2026-11-04T01:15:47.802Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"0d0180f7-9f71-4c9d-8111-f47995c818a8"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"c33fe2c5-0fdd-4bb9-83dc-57429dffa9b6"}},"audit":{"status":"uncertain","reviewedAt":"2026-11-10T09:38:05.931Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Kezendirane, Kaushik","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Kezendirane, Kaushik","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Kezendirane, Kaushik","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"8e1494ce344ae7b42d2c6cef32fde2e227efd900662f323eabe8149841fe0963:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-10T09:54:10.877Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"8e1494ce344ae7b42d2c6cef32fde2e227efd900662f323eabe8149841fe0963","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","contentSha256":"06f3f4028c1ee54afd19bceb866cab478544461668cda6a55675e548a0c49077","textHash":"d0f9b20e5e279fc19fef76b861b133e713650eecaf8649270e43f6b20b20a66c","observedAt":"2026-11-10T09:54:10.877Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":1,"returned":1,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","snapshotId":"8e1494ce344ae7b42d2c6cef32fde2e227efd900662f323eabe8149841fe0963","contentSha256":"06f3f4028c1ee54afd19bceb866cab478544461668cda6a55675e548a0c49077","textHash":"d0f9b20e5e279fc19fef76b861b133e713650eecaf8649270e43f6b20b20a66c","observedAt":"2026-11-10T09:54:10.877Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":42,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/07d5e0c6903f8ffb1f925a841131c99642209a9edae2be370102f290b3cb1c81/source"}},"canonicalUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-hacking-or-just-failing-a-more-capable-llm-monitor-07d5e0c6","formats":{"html":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-hacking-or-just-failing-a-more-capable-llm-monitor-07d5e0c6","markdown":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-hacking-or-just-failing-a-more-capable-llm-monitor-07d5e0c6.md","json":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-hacking-or-just-failing-a-more-capable-llm-monitor-07d5e0c6.json"},"attribution":"Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.","maintainedGuideLinks":[],"readerContext":{"version":"reader-context-v1","attribution":"Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.","terms":[{"id":"term-llm","name":"Large language model","explanation":"A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.","referenceUrl":"https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#large-language-model"},{"id":"term-reward-hacking","name":"Reward hacking","explanation":"When an AI finds a shortcut that scores well on its training objective without doing what its designers intended.","referenceUrl":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reward_hacking"}],"entities":[{"id":"arxiv","name":"arXiv","kind":"organization","context":"arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.","referenceUrls":["https://arxiv.org/","https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html"],"path":"/entities/arxiv","json":"/entities/arxiv.json","markdown":"/entities/arxiv.md"}]},"researchQuestions":[],"withdrawn":false,"references":{"schemaVersion":1,"target":{"type":"reading","id":"07d5e0c6903f8ffb1f925a841131c99642209a9edae2be370102f290b3cb1c81","revision":"77529c4a-d868-49b5-8971-db0b348081f0","revisionKind":"publication-id","title":"arXiv cs.AI: Hacking or Just Failing? A More Capable LLM Monitor Better Separates Reward Hacking from Honest Failure","url":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-hacking-or-just-failing-a-more-capable-llm-monitor-07d5e0c6"},"source":{"type":"source","id":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","revision":"d0f9b20e5e279fc19fef76b861b133e713650eecaf8649270e43f6b20b20a66c","revisionKind":"sha256-source-text","title":"Hacking or Just Failing? A More Capable LLM Monitor Better Separates Reward Hacking from Honest Failure","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407"},"status":"available","items":[],"next":null,"scope":"Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter."},"revisions":[{"id":"07d5e0c6903f8ffb1f925a841131c99642209a9edae2be370102f290b3cb1c81","title":"arXiv cs.AI: Hacking or Just Failing? A More Capable LLM Monitor Better Separates Reward Hacking from Honest Failure","argument":"Kaushik Kezendirane’s paper asks whether a monitor can distinguish an agent gaming a completion score from one that simply makes mistakes. The distinction matters because either can make an agent’s visible score overstate its real progress, but they call for different interpretations of the result.\n\nIn a sandboxed task, the paper labels episodes by replaying them and repairing the final state counterfactually. Across five pre-registered studies, small local monitors did not reliably separate exploit attempts from honest failures with the same score gap; the primary monitor reached AUC 0.64. On identical inputs, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite met the study’s pre-registered criterion, with AUC 0.80 and one of 35 honest failures flagged. The paper cautions that this estimate is uncertain because it includes only 14 exploit episodes.\n\nThat result did not extend to every test. Gemini usually described an unnamed exploit correctly but never flagged it in two rounds of testing. Given the full trace, the 8B monitor flagged all 25 replication episodes and none of 25 honest look-alikes, but its explanations described actions that had not occurred. A two-rule deterministic check caught every known exploit. The paper releases the environment, labels, pre-registrations and per-judgement logs.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The results come from a sandboxed task; the supplied abstract does not establish how the monitors perform in other settings. The estimate for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is uncertain because it used only 14 exploit episodes. Gemini did not flag the tested exploit that no prompt named, despite usually describing its action correctly. The 8B monitor’s explanations described actions that had not occurred, so its flags did not consistently come with accurate explanations.","speaker":{"name":"Kezendirane, Kaushik","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"Hacking or Just Failing? A More Capable LLM Monitor Better Separates Reward Hacking from Honest Failure","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","publishedAt":"2026-10-30","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"The paper frames the monitoring problem as distinguishing score manipulation from honest mistakes because either can make an agent’s visible score exceed its real progress.","excerpt":"An agent's visible score can exceed its real progress because it gamed the score or because it simply made mistakes","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Small local monitors did not distinguish exploit attempts from honest failures with the same score gap; the primary monitor reached AUC 0.64.","excerpt":"prompt changes traded missed exploits for false alarms, and the pre-registered primary monitor reached AUC 0.64.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"On identical inputs, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite met the pre-registered criterion, but the estimate was based on only 14 exploit episodes.","excerpt":"met our pre-registered criterion (AUC 0.80, 95% interval [0.66, 0.93]; 1/35 honest failures flagged); with only 14 exploit episodes, this estimate is uncertain.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Gemini described an exploit that no prompt named but did not flag it across two rounds of testing.","excerpt":"On an exploit that no prompt names, Gemini usually described the action correctly yet never flagged it, in 5 and then 25 new episodes","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"With the full trace, the 8B monitor flagged all replication episodes and none of the honest look-alikes, but its explanations described actions that had not occurred.","excerpt":"Given the full trace, the 8B monitor flagged all 25 replication episodes and none of 25 honest look-alikes, but its explanations described actions that had not occurred","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"A two-rule deterministic check caught every known exploit in the reported task.","excerpt":"A two-rule deterministic check caught every known exploit.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","checkedAt":"2026-11-10T09:54:10.877Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"Would these monitors detect new exploits without producing misleading explanations or flagging honest failures in settings beyond this sandboxed task?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"arXiv cs.AI: Hacking or Just Failing? A More Capable LLM Monitor Better Separates Reward Hacking from Honest Failure","summary":"Kaushik Kezendirane’s paper asks whether a monitor can distinguish an agent gaming a completion score from one that simply makes mistakes. The distinction matters because either can make an agent’s visible score overstate its real progress, but they call for different interpretations of the result.\n\nIn a sandboxed task, the paper labels episodes by replaying them and repairing the final state counterfactually. Across five pre-registered studies, small local monitors did not reliably separate exploit attempts from honest failures with the same score gap; the primary monitor reached AUC 0.64. On identical inputs, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite met the study’s pre-registered criterion, with AUC 0.80 and one of 35 honest failures flagged. The paper cautions that this estimate is uncertain because it includes only 14 exploit episodes.\n\nThat result did not extend to every test. Gemini usually described an unnamed exploit correctly but never flagged it in two rounds of testing. Given the full trace, the 8B monitor flagged all 25 replication episodes and none of 25 honest look-alikes, but its explanations described actions that had not occurred. A two-rule deterministic check caught every known exploit. The paper releases the environment, labels, pre-registrations and per-judgement logs.","question":"Would these monitors detect new exploits without producing misleading explanations or flagging honest failures in settings beyond this sandboxed task?","claims":[{"text":"The paper frames the monitoring problem as distinguishing score manipulation from honest mistakes because either can make an agent’s visible score exceed its real progress.","excerpt":"An agent's visible score can exceed its real progress because it gamed the score or because it simply made mistakes","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Small local monitors did not distinguish exploit attempts from honest failures with the same score gap; the primary monitor reached AUC 0.64.","excerpt":"prompt changes traded missed exploits for false alarms, and the pre-registered primary monitor reached AUC 0.64.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"On identical inputs, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite met the pre-registered criterion, but the estimate was based on only 14 exploit episodes.","excerpt":"met our pre-registered criterion (AUC 0.80, 95% interval [0.66, 0.93]; 1/35 honest failures flagged); with only 14 exploit episodes, this estimate is uncertain.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Gemini described an exploit that no prompt named but did not flag it across two rounds of testing.","excerpt":"On an exploit that no prompt names, Gemini usually described the action correctly yet never flagged it, in 5 and then 25 new episodes","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"With the full trace, the 8B monitor flagged all replication episodes and none of the honest look-alikes, but its explanations described actions that had not occurred.","excerpt":"Given the full trace, the 8B monitor flagged all 25 replication episodes and none of 25 honest look-alikes, but its explanations described actions that had not occurred","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"A two-rule deterministic check caught every known exploit in the reported task.","excerpt":"A two-rule deterministic check caught every known exploit.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The results come from a sandboxed task; the supplied abstract does not establish how the monitors perform in other settings.","The estimate for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite is uncertain because it used only 14 exploit episodes.","Gemini did not flag the tested exploit that no prompt named, despite usually describing its action correctly.","The 8B monitor’s explanations described actions that had not occurred, so its flags did not consistently come with accurate explanations."],"mediaId":"0493ee34dafaff26090490445213720227288b051a86753987b35c0377a6590f","correctionReason":null,"id":"07d5e0c6903f8ffb1f925a841131c99642209a9edae2be370102f290b3cb1c81","publicationId":"77529c4a-d868-49b5-8971-db0b348081f0","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","sourceTitle":"Hacking or Just Failing? A More Capable LLM Monitor Better Separates Reward Hacking from Honest Failure","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2026-10-30","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-11-03T09:04:21.006Z","createdAt":"2026-11-10T09:38:05.931Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"0493ee34dafaff26090490445213720227288b051a86753987b35c0377a6590f","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-04T01:15:47.907Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","checkedAt":"2026-11-10T09:54:10.877Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["material_development"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v5","mediaId":"0493ee34dafaff26090490445213720227288b051a86753987b35c0377a6590f","confidence":0.91,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"2e50f723ee54cb4129ab268fff4671d4cd06d81a7e2def5b125399cfb68ad139","decidedAt":"2026-11-04T01:15:48.668Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"d0f9b20e5e279fc19fef76b861b133e713650eecaf8649270e43f6b20b20a66c","observationId":"b4b8eb20b730b8f16f283b8e146dedb839ea560fece88ae52ace6848f1c0323b","retrievedAt":"2026-11-04T01:15:47.802Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"0d0180f7-9f71-4c9d-8111-f47995c818a8"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"c33fe2c5-0fdd-4bb9-83dc-57429dffa9b6"}},"audit":{"status":"uncertain","reviewedAt":"2026-11-10T09:38:05.931Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Kezendirane, Kaushik","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Kezendirane, Kaushik","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Kezendirane, Kaushik","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"8e1494ce344ae7b42d2c6cef32fde2e227efd900662f323eabe8149841fe0963:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-10T09:54:10.877Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"8e1494ce344ae7b42d2c6cef32fde2e227efd900662f323eabe8149841fe0963","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","contentSha256":"06f3f4028c1ee54afd19bceb866cab478544461668cda6a55675e548a0c49077","textHash":"d0f9b20e5e279fc19fef76b861b133e713650eecaf8649270e43f6b20b20a66c","observedAt":"2026-11-10T09:54:10.877Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":1,"returned":1,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00407","snapshotId":"8e1494ce344ae7b42d2c6cef32fde2e227efd900662f323eabe8149841fe0963","contentSha256":"06f3f4028c1ee54afd19bceb866cab478544461668cda6a55675e548a0c49077","textHash":"d0f9b20e5e279fc19fef76b861b133e713650eecaf8649270e43f6b20b20a66c","observedAt":"2026-11-10T09:54:10.877Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":42,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/07d5e0c6903f8ffb1f925a841131c99642209a9edae2be370102f290b3cb1c81/source"}}}],"audits":[{"publicationId":"77529c4a-d868-49b5-8971-db0b348081f0","verdict":"uncertain","findings":[{"dimension":"attribution","status":"pass","explanation":"The draft correctly attributes the paper to Kaushik Kezendirane and the publication to arXiv cs.AI. It presents the findings as the paper's results rather than as established facts.","excerpt":"Authors:Kaushik Kezendirane"},{"dimension":"summary","status":"uncertain","explanation":"Central terms are never explained for a general reader: AUC (the main metric), reward hacking, repairing the final state counterfactually, and deterministic check. Readers cannot judge what 0.64 versus 0.80 means. The draft also drops a key condition: with additional structured evidence, the 8B monitor flagged 15 of the 25 honest look-alikes. It omits the capability contrast (9/10 versus 2/10 clean tasks) that grounds the title's 'more capable'. Smallest repairs: add a plain gloss of AUC and the labeling method, and add the 15/25 sentence.","excerpt":"given additional structured evidence, it also flagged 15 of the 25 look-alikes"},{"dimension":"date","status":"pass","explanation":"originalPublished 2026-10-30 matches the arXiv v1 submission date. It is not the later feed date of 2026-11-03.","excerpt":"[Submitted on 30 Oct 2026]"},{"dimension":"support","status":"pass","explanation":"Each claim and limitation is supported by the abstract, including the AUC figures, the 14-exploit uncertainty, the unflagged unnamed exploit across 5 and 25 episodes, the 8B monitor's explanations of actions that had not occurred, and the two-rule check. The question follows from the evidence without asserting an answer. The framing about different interpretations is a mild paraphrase of the source's need to tell the two apart.","excerpt":"so a useful reward-hacking monitor must tell the two apart"},{"dimension":"media","status":"pass","explanation":"The selected media is the verified direct arXiv abstract page for this paper. It is the most direct way to access the source.","excerpt":null}],"createdAt":"2026-11-10T09:38:05.931Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"}],"correctionUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/"}