arXiv AI
BLINDSPOT: A Benchmark for Safety and Refusal Calibration in Long-Horizon Tool-Using Agents
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 14
BLINDSPOT: A Benchmark for Safety and Refusal Calibration in Long-Horizon Tool-Using Agents
Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly operate over long-horizon interactions involving tool use, persistent state, evolving authorization, and external environment feedback. In such settings,...
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."
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.
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.
arXiv AI
Aug 3
Tool Specifications Matter: Uncovering and Mitigating Safety Risks in AI Agents
arXiv:2607. 29254v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI agents extend large language models (LLMs) with external tools, enabling them to perform complex tasks and translate model outputs into consequential real-world actions.
arXiv AI
Jul 3
Safety Testing LLM Agents at Scale: From Risk Discovery to Evidence-Grounded Verification
arXiv:2607. 01793v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents increasingly perform autonomous actions through external tools, leading to complex and evolving safety risks.