arXiv:2606. 09890v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents capable of executing multi-step action trajectories toward a given objective.
arXiv:2608. 05695v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As large language model (LLM) agents increasingly invoke external tools and interact with real-world systems, unsafe actions may cause irreversible consequences on external states, user data, and downstream services.
arXiv:2605.27690v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM agents increasingly operate through multi-turn tool use and environment interaction, where safety risks often emerge from intermediate st...
arXiv:2607. 26820v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) evolve from standalone assistants into autonomous agents, ensuring their safety requires shifting beyond pointwise risk assessment to understand how risks emerge and unfold over long-horizon trajectories.
arXiv:2609.06783v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents operate in workflows where unsafe actions can have real consequences. Existing safety evaluations often reduce behavior to a single score,...
arXiv:2606. 02423v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can serve as helpful assistants, yet they can equally function as harm amplifiers that enable malicious users to achieve harmful outcomes beyond their capabilities through extended interactions.
arXiv:2606. 05614v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are rigorously aligned to refuse harmful requests, a process that inherently cultivates a latent capacity to evaluate and recognize unsafe content.
PASTABench introduces a benchmark of 1,139 multi-turn trajectories to evaluate proactive safety monitoring in large language models. It formalizes three dimensions of intervention—whether, when, and what risk—to address gaps in step-level isolation and post-hoc trajectory assessment. The study finds that proactive intervention is largely unsolved, with the best model achieving only 40.74% optimal-timing interventions, and reveals that smaller models’ safety scores are often driven by lexical overfitting rather than true risk comprehension.
The paper introduces a counterfactually anchored evidence attribution approach for multi‑turn large language model safety failures. It presents a new dataset of 1,762 conversations, including adversarial, benign twins, and high‑risk vocabulary variants, and trains a lightweight hierarchical model that accurately predicts safety violations and attributes them to specific user turns and token spans. The model achieves high detection performance (F1 = 0.988) and significantly reduces adversarial confidence when top‑attributed tokens are removed, while maintaining low false‑positive rates on benign conversations.
arXiv:2509. 05367v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Model safety alignment predominantly operates on a binary assumption that requests are either safe or unsafe.
Large language models (LLMs) are rigorously aligned to refuse harmful requests, a process that inherently cultivates a latent capacity to evaluate and recognize unsafe content. In this work, we reveal that this advanced safety awareness inadvertently introduces a fatal vulnerability.
arXiv:2606. 05805v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-based guardrails typically safeguard agents by evaluating proposed actions or inputs before execution, producing safety signals such as binary allow/deny decisions, risk categories, and/or explanatory rationales about potential policy violations.
arXiv:2606. 08531v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evolving from simple text-based interaction systems into LLM agents that can maintain memory, use tools, access external environments, and execute tasks.