arXiv:2610.17685v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Enterprise agents face safety risks that cannot be determined from individual actions alone. Existing safety benchmarks largely evaluate action-local...
By Jingyue Cong, Estrid He, Zhuang Li, Nan Wu, Li Shen, Yameng Peng, Xinshu Li, Andy Song
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.
By Wenhao Lin, Chenyu Yu, Xingwei Lin, Sicong Cao, Xiang Chen, Lei Xue, Le Yu, Letian Sha, Chunming Wu
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.
By Yu Li, Haoyu Luo, Yuejin Xie, Yuqian Fu, Zhonghao Yang, Shuai Shao, Qihan Ren, Wanying Qu, Yanwei Fu, Yujiu Yang, Jing Shao, Xia Hu, Dongrui Liu
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.
By Jiacheng Wang, Jinchang Hou, Fabian Wang, Ping Jian, Chenfu Bao, Zhonghou Lv
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.
By Jiapeng Sun, Yujin Zhou, Han Zhu, Pengcheng Wen, Jiayi Zhou, Sirui Han, Yike Guo
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,...
By Ruoxi Shang, Christina-Maria Androna, Orfeas Menis Mastromichalakis, Yu Feng, Aniruddhan Ramesh, Rico Angell, Shang Hong Sim, Chrysoula Zerva, Emmanouil Koukoumidis