Hugging Face Trending Papers

BLINDSPOT: A Benchmark for Safety and Refusal Calibration in Long-Horizon Tool-Using Agents

arXiv AI
Aug 19

HarnessRisk: A Lifecycle-Oriented Benchmark for Agent Harness Safety

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
arXiv AI
Oct 5

LPS-Bench: Benchmarking Safety Awareness of Computer-Use Agents in Long-Horizon Planning under Benign and Adversarial Scenarios

LPS-Bench is a benchmark designed to evaluate the safety awareness of computer‑use agents (CUAs) in long‑horizon planning tasks that involve tool workflows. It uses a template‑guided multi‑agent pipeline to generate user instructions, simulated toolkits, and case‑specific safety criteria, followed by human review, allowing scalable expansion without building separate application environments. The benchmark includes 570 cases from 65 scenarios across seven task domains and nine planning‑risk types, and an LLM‑based evaluator assesses tool choices, arguments, and responses throughout execution. Evaluations of 13 LLM agents show persistent safety failures in both benign and adversarial settings, with prompt‑based interventions providing only model‑dependent improvements.

By Tianyu Chen, Chujia Hu, Dongrui Liu, Xia Hu, Wenjie Wang
arXiv AI
Jun 18

SafeClawBench: Separating Semantic, Audit-Evidence, and Sandbox Harm in Tool-Using LLM Agents

arXiv:2606. 18356v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using language-model agents introduce security failures that go beyond unsafe text: they can disclose protected objects, write persistent memory, send messages, modify databases, or trigger harmful code and tool effects.

By Yuchuan Tian, Mengyu Zheng, Haocheng Mei, Ye Yuan, Chao Xu, Xinghao Chen, Hanting Chen, Yu Wang
arXiv AI
Aug 11

SHE: Trajectory-driven Safety Harness Evolution for LLM Agents

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
arXiv Computation and Language
6d ago

LITMUS: Benchmarking Behavioral Jailbreaks of LLM Agents in Real OS Environments

LITMUS is a benchmark for testing the safety of large language model agents in real operating system environments, focusing on behavior jailbreaks that can cause irreversible OS-level harm. It includes 819 high-risk test cases organized into a harmful seed subset and six attack-extended subsets covering jailbreak speaking, skill injection, and entity wrapping, and employs a semantic-physical dual verification mechanism with OS-level state rollback. Evaluation of frontier agents shows that even strong models can execute dangerous operations, exhibit execution hallucination, and are vulnerable to skill injection and entity wrapping attacks.

By Chiyu Zhang, Lu Zhou, Xiaogang Xu, Huiqin Yang, Bendong Jiang, Xiaolei Zhang, Yiran Zhao, Ruyi Chen, Jiafei Wu, Liming Fang, Zhe Liu