Good Papers

Evaluating and Understanding Scheming Propensity in LLM Agents

Realistic agent settings show minimal scheming despite high incentives, with model-organism scheming brittle to tool removal and oversight.

Mia Hopman, Jannes Elstner, Maria Avramidou, Amritanshu Prasad, David Lindner

Published 2026Paris Poster Session 1 · Wed, Dec 9, 12:30 PM–2:30 PM local time · Paris Poster HallarXiv ↗OpenReview ↗

83%
OverallMust read
?
OverallMust readVote to see the scoreThe exact score shows once you've voted, so every vote is your own call. The first half of each home page shelf shows its scores.
Readers
–

Only vote on papers you've read. Sign in with GitHub to vote.

AI panel13/20reviewers recommend it
lenient 5/5
medium 7/10
strict 1/5
AI panel?Vote to see what the 20 AI reviewers said

Abstract

As frontier language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents pursuing complex, long-term objectives, there is increased risk of scheming: agents covertly pursuing misaligned goals. Prior work has focused on showing agents are capable of scheming, but their propensity to scheme in realistic scenarios remains underexplored. To understand when agents scheme, we decompose scheming incentives into agent factors and environmental factors. We develop realistic settings allowing us to systematically vary these factors, each with scheming opportunities for agents that pursue instrumentally convergent goals such as self-preservation, resource acquisition, and goal-guarding. We find only minimal instances of scheming despite high environmental incentives, and show this is unlikely due to evaluation awareness. While inserting adversarially-designed prompt snippets that encourage agency and goal-directedness into an agent's system prompt can induce high scheming rates, snippets used in real agent scaffolds rarely do. Surprisingly, in model organisms (Hubinger et al., 2023) built with these snippets, scheming behavior is remarkably brittle: removing a single tool can drop the scheming rate from 59% to 3%, and increasing oversight can raise rather than deter scheming by up to 25%. Our incentive decomposition enables systematic measurement of scheming propensity in settings relevant for deployment, which is necessary as agents are entrusted with increasingly consequential tasks.