LatentRiskBench: Measuring State-Dependent Risks in Enterprise Agents
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
LatentRiskBench is a new benchmark designed to evaluate state-dependent safety risks in enterprise agents, where the safety of an action depends on the workflow state rather than the action alone. It pairs risky trajectories with benign ones that share the same terminal action but differ in latent policy-relevant states, forcing models to reconstruct context instead of relying on action cues. The benchmark introduces residual risk metrics and demonstrates that state-level evaluation detects 96% of violations compared to only 9% for action-level methods, highlighting the inadequacy of existing guardrails.
arXiv:2604. 02022v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating the safety of LLM-based agents is increasingly important because risks in realistic deployments often emerge over multi-step interactions rather than isolated prompts or final responses.
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:2610.35188v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models increasingly act through code, modifying repositories, executing programs, and interacting with services in agent form. Their a...
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,...
HINTBench is a new benchmark for evaluating agents’ intrinsic risk, comprising 596 trajectories (400 synthetic risky, 136 synthetic safe, 30 real risky, 30 real safe) with an average length of 24 steps. It supports three tasks—risk detection, risk-step localization, and intrinsic failure-type identification—using a unified five-constraint taxonomy. Experiments show a large performance gap: while large language models can detect risky trajectories, they score below 37 on strict-F1 for risk-step localization, and existing guard models transfer poorly to this setting.