AI systems are increasingly able to autonomously conduct realistic software engineering tasks, and may soon be deployed to automate machine learning (ML) R&D itself. Frontier AI systems may be deployed in safety-critical settings, including to help ensure the safety of future systems. Unfortunately, frontier and future systems may not be sufficiently trustworthy, and there is evidence that these systems may even be misaligned with their developers or users. Therefore, we investigate the capabilities of AI agents to act against the interests of their users when conducting ML engineering, by sabotaging ML models, sandbagging their performance, and subverting oversight mechanisms. First, we extend MLE-Bench, a benchmark for realistic ML tasks, with code-sabotage tasks such as implanting backdoors and purposefully causing generalisation failures. Frontier agents make meaningful progress on our sabotage tasks. In addition, we study agent capabilities to sandbag on MLE-Bench. Agents can calibrate their performance to specified target levels below their actual capability. To mitigate sabotage, we use LM monitors to detect suspicious agent behaviour, and we measure model capability to sabotage and sandbag without being detected by these monitors. Overall, monitors are capable at detecting code-sabotage attempts but our results suggest that detecting sandbagging is more difficult. Additionally, aggregating multiple monitor predictions works well, but monitoring may not be sufficiently reliable to mitigate sabotage in high-stakes domains. Our benchmark is implemented in the UK AISI's Inspect framework and we make our code publicly available at https://github.com/TeunvdWeij/ctrl-alt-deceit

We address the challenge of generating diverse attack prompts for large language models (LLMs) that elicit harmful behaviors (e.g., insults, sexual content) and are used for safety fine-tuning. Rather than relying on manual prompt engineering, attacker LLMs can be trained with reinforcement learning (RL) to automatically generate such prompts using only a toxicity classifier as a reward. However, capturing a wide range of harmful behaviors is a significant challenge that requires explicit diversity objectives. Existing diversity-seeking RL methods often collapse to limited modes: once high-reward prompts are found, exploration of new regions is discouraged. Inspired by the active learning paradigm that encourages adaptive exploration, we introduce \textit{Active Attacks}, a novel RL-based red-teaming algorithm that adapts its attacks as the victim evolves. By periodically safety fine-tuning the victim LLM with collected attack prompts, rewards in exploited regions diminish, which forces the attacker to seek unexplored vulnerabilities. This process naturally induces an easy-to-hard exploration curriculum, where the attacker progresses beyond easy modes toward increasingly difficult ones. As a result, Active Attacks uncovers a wide range of local attack modes step by step, and their combination achieves wide coverage of the multi-mode distribution. Active Attacks, a simple plug-and-play module that seamlessly integrates into existing RL objectives, unexpectedly outperformed prior RL-based methods -- including GFlowNets, PPO, and REINFORCE -- by improving cross-attack success rates against GFlowNets, the previous state-of-the-art, from 0.07% to 31.28% (a relative gain greater than $400\ \times$) with only a 6% increase in computation. Our code is publicly available \href{https://github.com/dbsxodud-11/active_attacks}{here}.