Marklund, Henrik, Infanger, Alex, Van Roy, Benjamin · Nov 4, 2026
arXiv paper proposes a definition of catastrophic performance
Markdown · JSON · Original source
Henrik Marklund, Alex Infanger and Benjamin Van Roy argue that AI research needs to distinguish catastrophic outcomes from outcomes that are merely suboptimal. Their paper introduces a formal definition of catastrophic performance for analyzing risk from AI . It compares two reference values: the baseline value, which captures what is attained if no agent is deployed, and the orthogonal value, which captures a trajectory unrelated to human preferences, in the authors’ sense. The authors say the orthogonal value is typically far worse than the baseline value. They illustrate the references with settings where past human activity has improved the environment and an is then deployed to accelerate further progress. In this framing, catastrophic performance is the agent undoing benefits created by human activity. The proposal gives researchers a way to frame a distinction that existing theoretical results, as the authors describe them, typically leave unresolved. The supplied abstract does not include the formal definition or details of the examples, so its criteria and application cannot be assessed from this evidence alone.
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.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Nov 4, 2026 (2026-11-04).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-09T13:09:38.862Z. First observed: 2026-11-05T05:06:26.003Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-09T13:08:49.496Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The supplied evidence is the abstract, not the formal definition or the paper’s detailed examples; the criteria and their application cannot be assessed here.
Open question
How does the paper determine whether a trajectory is unrelated to human preferences?
Source-stated
The authors argue that existing theoretical results typically do not distinguish merely suboptimal outcomes from catastrophic ones.
they typically do not distinguish between merely suboptimal and catastrophic outcomes.
Source-stated
The authors introduce a formal definition intended to support rigorous analysis of catastrophic risk from AI misalignment.
we introduce a formal definition of catastrophic performance.
Source-stated
The definition uses baseline value for the value attained if no agent is deployed, and orthogonal value for a trajectory unrelated to human preferences in the authors’ sense.
The first, baseline value, captures the value attained if no agent is deployed. The second, orthogonal value, captures the value of a trajectory that is unrelated to human preferences
Source-stated
The authors say orthogonal value is typically much worse than baseline value.
Orthogonal value is typically far worse than baseline value.
Source-stated
In the examples described, catastrophic performance is an agent undoing benefits afforded by earlier human activity.
Catastrophic performance represents this agent's undoing of benefits afforded by human activity.
Source and contributor context
Marklund, Henrik, Infanger, Alex, Van Roy, Benjamin · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
AI alignment
Research and practice aimed at making AI systems pursue the goals their builders and users intend.
AI agent
An AI system that chooses and carries out actions toward a goal, often using software tools.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: dc312ea5-f448-4db8-87da-6c8f96393c20.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-09T13:09:38.862Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: useful_perspective.
Observation: 79921a5da8e415dda8644212d7161f1f957bfa598c125529c4dafc4ef1c44f5a. Source text hash: 5b611d3c3fbe2f9920f565cdfeef3b46ea02a0f09fb89594bf7df5e07a71eca2.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-09T13:09:38.862Z
arXiv paper proposes a definition of catastrophic performance
Henrik Marklund, Alex Infanger and Benjamin Van Roy argue that AI research needs to distinguish catastrophic outcomes from outcomes that are merely suboptimal. Their paper introduces a formal definition of catastrophic performance for analyzing risk from AI . It compares two reference values: the baseline value, which captures what is attained if no agent is deployed, and the orthogonal value, which captures a trajectory unrelated to human preferences, in the authors’ sense. The authors say the orthogonal value is typically far worse than the baseline value. They illustrate the references with settings where past human activity has improved the environment and an is then deployed to accelerate further progress. In this framing, catastrophic performance is the agent undoing benefits created by human activity. The proposal gives researchers a way to frame a distinction that existing theoretical results, as the authors describe them, typically leave unresolved. The supplied abstract does not include the formal definition or details of the examples, so its criteria and application cannot be assessed from this evidence alone.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Nov 4, 2026 (2026-11-04).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-09T13:09:38.862Z. First observed: 2026-11-05T05:06:26.003Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-09T13:08:49.496Z.
Limits
The supplied evidence is the abstract, not the formal definition or the paper’s detailed examples; the criteria and their application cannot be assessed here.
Open question
How does the paper determine whether a trajectory is unrelated to human preferences?
Source-stated
The authors argue that existing theoretical results typically do not distinguish merely suboptimal outcomes from catastrophic ones.
they typically do not distinguish between merely suboptimal and catastrophic outcomes.
Source-stated
The authors introduce a formal definition intended to support rigorous analysis of catastrophic risk from AI misalignment.
we introduce a formal definition of catastrophic performance.
Source-stated
The definition uses baseline value for the value attained if no agent is deployed, and orthogonal value for a trajectory unrelated to human preferences in the authors’ sense.
The first, baseline value, captures the value attained if no agent is deployed. The second, orthogonal value, captures the value of a trajectory that is unrelated to human preferences
Source-stated
The authors say orthogonal value is typically much worse than baseline value.
Orthogonal value is typically far worse than baseline value.
Source-stated
In the examples described, catastrophic performance is an agent undoing benefits afforded by earlier human activity.
Catastrophic performance represents this agent's undoing of benefits afforded by human activity.
Source and contributor context
Marklund, Henrik, Infanger, Alex, Van Roy, Benjamin · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
AI alignment
Research and practice aimed at making AI systems pursue the goals their builders and users intend.
AI agent
An AI system that chooses and carries out actions toward a goal, often using software tools.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: dc312ea5-f448-4db8-87da-6c8f96393c20.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-09T13:09:38.862Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: useful_perspective.
Observation: 79921a5da8e415dda8644212d7161f1f957bfa598c125529c4dafc4ef1c44f5a. Source text hash: 5b611d3c3fbe2f9920f565cdfeef3b46ea02a0f09fb89594bf7df5e07a71eca2.
uncertain · 2026-11-09T13:09:38.862Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: dc312ea5-f448-4db8-87da-6c8f96393c20
attribution — pass: The paper is correctly attributed to Henrik Marklund, Alex Infanger and Benjamin Van Roy. Their claims, including that orthogonal value is typically far worse than baseline value, stay attributed to them rather than presented as established fact.
Authors:Henrik Marklund, Alex Infanger, Benjamin Van Roy
summary — pass: The title, summary and question match the abstract. It explains baseline and orthogonal value in plain terms, keeps the qualifier 'in the authors' sense', and notes that the formal definition is absent. Optional fidelity repair: add the abstract's opening framing about specifying objectives that align with human preferences, so 'AI misalignment' is clear without a tooltip. 'Misalignment', 'agent' and 'trajectory' should have term-library tooltips. The question addresses a real gap in the evidence.
A central challenge in AI is specifying objectives that align with human preferences.
date — pass: The originalPublished date, 2026-11-04, matches the v1 submission date. It does not use the v2 revision date (6 Nov) or the feed date (5 Nov).
[Submitted on 4 Nov 2026 (v1), last revised 6 Nov 2026 (this version, v2)]
support — uncertain: The sentence 'The proposal gives researchers a way to frame a distinction that existing theoretical results... typically leave unresolved' states as achieved what the abstract presents as a purpose ('To enable'). The abstract does not show that the definition works. This turns an announcement into a demonstrated benefit. Smallest repair: 'The authors intend the definition to enable rigorous analysis of a distinction that, they say, existing theoretical results typically do not make.' The individual claims and their excerpts are otherwise accurate.
To enable rigorous analysis of catastrophic risk from AI misalignment, we introduce a formal definition of catastrophic performance.
media — pass: The selected media is the verified arXiv abstract page for this exact paper. It is the direct original source.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
Research and practice aimed at making AI systems pursue the goals their builders and users intend.
Definition referenceAn AI system that chooses and carries out actions toward a goal, often using software tools.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivResearch and practice aimed at making AI systems pursue the goals their builders and users intend.
Definition referenceAn AI system that chooses and carries out actions toward a goal, often using software tools.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXiv