Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

RepliBench: Evaluating the Autonomous Replication Capabilities of Language Model Agents

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2504.18565 v2 pith:5BRHZJV2 submitted 2025-04-21 cs.CR cs.AI

RepliBench: Evaluating the Autonomous Replication Capabilities of Language Model Agents

classification cs.CR cs.AI
keywords modelautonomousreplicationcapabilitiescomputefamiliespassreplibench
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Uncontrollable autonomous replication of language model agents poses a critical safety risk. To better understand this risk, we introduce RepliBench, a suite of evaluations designed to measure autonomous replication capabilities. RepliBench is derived from a decomposition of these capabilities covering four core domains: obtaining resources, exfiltrating model weights, replicating onto compute, and persisting on this compute for long periods. We create 20 novel task families consisting of 86 individual tasks. We benchmark 5 frontier models, and find they do not currently pose a credible threat of self-replication, but succeed on many components and are improving rapidly. Models can deploy instances from cloud compute providers, write self-propagating programs, and exfiltrate model weights under simple security setups, but struggle to pass KYC checks or set up robust and persistent agent deployments. Overall the best model we evaluated (Claude 3.7 Sonnet) has a >50% pass@10 score on 15/20 task families, and a >50% pass@10 score for 9/20 families on the hardest variants. These findings suggest autonomous replication capability could soon emerge with improvements in these remaining areas or with human assistance.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Taxonomy and Consistency Analysis of Safety Benchmarks for AI Agents

    cs.CY 2026-04 accept novelty 8.0

    This paper delivers the first systematic taxonomy and cross-benchmark consistency analysis of 40 agent safety benchmarks, finding broad but shallow risk coverage, no ranking concordance across evaluations, and that be...

  2. Ensemble Monitoring for AI Control: Diverse Signals Outweigh More Compute

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Diverse ensembles of prompted and fine-tuned GPT-4.1-Mini monitors achieve 2.4x better detection of flawed code solutions than homogeneous ensembles on adversarial inputs.