The performance of LLM-based agents is jointly shaped by the base model and the harness used when interacting with the environment. This exposes them to safety risks in both harmful final responses an...
arXiv:2608. 09885v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The safety of large language model (LLM) agents depends not only on model weights but also on the agent harness that manages context, memory, tools, permissions, and runtime control.
By Wanying Qu, Qinghua Mao, Yu Li, Jiyao Liu, Xin Zhang, Dadi Guo, Yanxu Zhu, Qingyu Liu, Leitao Yuan, Xi Lin, Shanfeng Zhu, Yanwei Fu, Jing Shao, Xia Hu, Dongrui Liu
The paper investigates whether tool‑calling large language model agents maintain consistent safety throughout a conversation. It finds that agents are most vulnerable at the very start of a session, with safety improving significantly after completing a few regular agentic tasks—a phenomenon termed the cold‑start safety gap. The authors introduce the Safety Over Depth for Agents (SODA) benchmark to systematically study this effect, evaluate multiple models, and demonstrate that warming up agents with regular tasks before deployment enhances safety while preserving utility.
By Chung-En Sun, Linbo Liu, Tsui-Wei Weng
arXiv:2607. 16247v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have empowered embodied agents to execute complex household tasks, they struggle to proactively handle dynamically emerging hazards during closed-loop interactions.
By Bingrui Sima, Lizhong Wang, Xiaoya Lu, Kun He, Xiao Yang
arXiv:2608. 02683v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Model (LLM) agents rely on multi-stage agentic workflows, with stages such as memory, planning, and tool execution, to accomplish complex tasks.
By Zibo Xiao, Haoyu Wang, Jun Sun
arXiv:2608. 12851v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Self-improving LLM agents convert successful trajectories into persistent cross-task state.
By Xutao Mao, Liangjie Zhao, Xiang Zheng, Cong Wang
arXiv:2607. 19913v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent safety is moving from content moderation toward preventing operational failures before tool-using agents act.
By Yuan Xiong, Linji Hao, Shizhu He, Yequan Wang, Lijun Li
arXiv:2608. 19729v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-language-model-based embodied agents can complete instructed tasks but often violate safety constraints in the process, a problem recently framed as interactive safety.
By Hyunse Lee, Jiwoo Jeong, Haneul Lee, Kyochul Jang, Youngjae Yu, Woojin Lee
arXiv:2607. 01793v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents increasingly perform autonomous actions through external tools, leading to complex and evolving safety risks.
By Yunhao Feng, Ruixiao Lin, Ming Wen, Qinqin He, Yanming Guo, Yifan Ding, Yutao Wu, Jialuo Chen, Yunhao Chen, Xiaohu Du, Jianan Ma, Zixing Chen, Zhuoer Xu, Xingjun Ma, Xinhao Deng
arXiv:2606. 22686v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Modern Large Language Models (LLMs) rely on extensive safety alignment, yet the mechanistic basis of refusal remains opaque.
By Shivam Ratnakar, Kartikeya Vats
Vision-language-model-based embodied agents can complete instructed tasks but often violate safety constraints in the process, a problem recently framed as interactive safety. Training such agents to act safely is difficult, since safety and task success are distinct objectives, and safety arises only at a small number of safety-critical steps within a trajectory.
HarnessRisk is a lifecycle-oriented benchmark for evaluating safety in agent harnesses that manage tools, extensions, state, permissions, and external actions. It defines six operational phases—Harness Configuration, Capability Extension, Runtime Operation, State Persistence, Action Control, and Incident Recovery—and includes 128 sandboxed cases pairing benign user objectives with adversarial instructions. Across three harnesses, six language models, and 14 configurations, attack success rates vary from 12.6% to 80.9%, with the most vulnerable phase being Harness Configuration.
"whyItMatters":"The benchmark demonstrates that safety failures can arise in multiple harness responsibilities and that even explicit risk detection does not guarantee safe action, underscoring the need for comprehensive evaluation across model and harness configurations."
By Yajing Bai, Jinhao Duan, Jie Peng, Xianfeng Wu, Sijia Liu, Song Wang, Tianlong Chen