The paper introduces a black-box framework for evaluating agentic AI systems, focusing on multi-step vulnerabilities that standard single-turn tests miss. It presents a seven-domain taxonomy linking observable behaviors to risk categories, an automated SAGE-RT red-teaming process generating 120 adversarial scenarios per domain, and a human-validated evaluation using LLM judges. Empirical tests on CrewAI and AutoGen agents show significant governance, privacy, and behavior risks, demonstrating the framework’s ability to uncover critical architectural weaknesses without privileged access.
By Divyanshu Kumar, Nitin Aravind Birur, Tanay Baswa, Sahil Agarwal, Prashanth Harshangi
arXiv:2605. 28591v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The validity of AI safety evaluations depends on models behaving consistently across controlled and deployment settings.
By Katharina Deckenbach, Haritz Puerto, Jonas Geiping, Sahar Abdelnabi
arXiv:2606. 01441v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) excel in reasoning and knowledge-intensive tasks but remain vulnerable to prompt-level adversarial attacks that preserve intent while triggering commonsense hallucinations.
By Boxuan Wang, Zhuoyun Li, Xiaowei Huang, Yi Dong
arXiv:2602. 09305v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate transformative potential, yet their reasoning remains inconsistent and unreliable.
By Pei-Chi Pan, Yingbin Liang, Sen Lin
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly evaluated on their ability to use tools, plan multi-step tasks, coordinate with other agents, and operate over extended horizons. Reported benchmark gains often obscure recurring failure modes documented across otherwise unrelated evaluation efforts.
arXiv:2608.29596v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Autonomous large language model (LLM) agents increasingly face reliability, context consumption, and execution stability bottlenecks when deployed on c...
By Sanket Badhe, Deep Shah, Priyanka Tiwari, Nehal Kathrotia