One approach to accelerating progress on AI alignment is to automate parts of alignment research itself. Doing so requires systems that can perform reliably on hard-to-supervise research tasks, including identifying flaws in research proposals and evaluating whether a proposed experiment supports its intended claim. To evaluate this capability, we introduce **Tampered ML**, a benchmark of 1,858 item-pairs, each consisting of an experiment proposal reconstructed from a published machine learning paper and a minimally edited counterfactual that introduces a targeted methodological flaw. Models must identify the more methodologically sound proposal in both presentation orders. A human validation study on a stratified sample estimates that 80-90% of items are valid. Frontier models perform above chance but remain far from reliable (with Opus 5 achieving 77.9% accuracy). They are highly sensitive to the order of presentation and favor flawed designs that appear more specific, transparent, or conventional.

We present substantial evidence demonstrating the benefits of integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) with a Contextual Multi-Armed Bandit framework. Contextual bandits have been widely used in recommendation systems to generate personalized suggestions based on user-specific contexts. We show that LLMs, pre-trained on extensive corpora rich in human knowledge and preferences, can simulate human behaviours well enough to jump-start contextual multi-armed bandits to reduce online learning regret. We propose an initialization algorithm for contextual bandits by prompting LLMs to produce a pre-training dataset of approximate human preferences for the bandit. This significantly reduces online learning regret and data-gathering costs for training such models. Our approach is validated empirically through two sets of experiments with different bandit setups: one which utilizes LLMs to serve as an oracle and a real-world experiment utilizing data from a conjoint survey experiment.