Daily Papers

Generative CAD models are expected to remain behaviorally correct after parameter edits, so increasing the number of edit checks is often treated as a direct route to more reliable evaluation. Under a fixed budget, however, auditing each program more thoroughly reduces the number of tasks and independent generations that can be evaluated, which can ultimately make model-level estimates less accurate. We study this phenomenon and the conditions under which it arises. We decompose behavioral evaluation into three evidence levels: task templates, stochastic generations, and within-program edits. We define an average failure risk that is invariant to audit depth, and combine three-level variance with measured execution costs to analyze the tradeoff between deeper edit auditing and broader independent coverage. Experiments across two CAD environments and five generation systems show that the value of deeper auditing depends on where evaluation uncertainty originates. When template heterogeneity or generation stochasticity dominates, additional edit checks can increase total estimation error; when within-program state variation is large and generation is expensive, deeper auditing is more valuable. Variance and cost estimates from calibration predict the direction of this change and provide a diagnostic basis for allocating evidence on held-out tasks. These results show that the thoroughness of program inspection can diverge from the reliability of model evaluation, and they help determine whether the next unit of budget should be spent on a new task, a new generation, or additional edit checks.

Per-field accept/review with selective risk at most alpha -- accept a field only if the error rate among accepted fields is controlled -- is the trust contract document-extraction systems need, and the natural procedure silently violates it on real documents. On 13,859 genuine claude-sonnet-5 fields from 800 CORD receipts (49.0% correct) we diagnose three failure modes: document clustering (design effect 1.84-2.45), score-refit leakage (coverage 0.416 at risk 0.127, violating alpha=0.10 in 95% of splits), and a tie-mass pathology (a degenerate score collapses the threshold grid, 0.030 to 0.001). We organize the fixes as a validity ladder, guarantee form stated per tier. A fit/val split protocol restores expected-selective-risk control for a learned fusion: coverage 0.318 at risk 0.096 at nominal alpha=0.10, no tolerance band (production variant 0.326) -- an on-average point whose realized risk exceeds alpha in 47.5% of resplits, not a certificate. Mondrian Learn-then-Test with exact binomial tails yields per-group PAC certificates: field-iid 0.171 at risk 0.068, cluster-corrected 0.140, doc-iid 0.060 -- the only tier matching documents, honestly near-vacuous today. Support-bin, the pre-specified provenance taxonomy, wins every rigor tier on the sonnet CORD capture (p<1e-4, Bonferroni-corrected) -- a win that does not replicate on the same documents under haiku or qwen -- while on higher-accuracy corpora pooled thresholds win: conditioning helps exactly where pooled cannot certify, subsumed by a learned score elsewhere. A frozen-configuration confirmation on selection-untouched claude-haiku-4-5 held at both risk levels, and a blind three-annotator human-gold audit verifies the practical tier's accepted-set risk at 1.3% against its 10% budget (Fleiss' kappa=0.83; labels err one-sidedly pessimistic). Released Apache-2.0 with seed-pinned, regression-gated procedures.

Existing agent-safety evaluation has focused mainly on externally induced risks. Yet agents may still enter unsafe trajectories under benign conditions. We study this complementary but underexplored setting through the lens of intrinsic risk, where intrinsic failures remain latent, propagate across long-horizon execution, and eventually lead to high-consequence outcomes. To evaluate this setting, we introduce non-attack intrinsic risk auditing and present HINTBench, a benchmark of 629 agent trajectories (523 risky, 106 safe; 33 steps on average) supporting three tasks: risk detection, risk-step localization, and intrinsic failure-type identification. Its annotations are organized under a unified five-constraint taxonomy. Experiments reveal a substantial capability gap: strong LLMs perform well on trajectory-level risk detection, but their performance drops to below 35 Strict-F1 on risk-step localization, while fine-grained failure diagnosis proves even harder. Existing guard models transfer poorly to this setting. These findings establish intrinsic risk auditing as an open challenge for agent safety.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) increasingly expose chain-of-thought-like reasoning for transparency, verification, and deliberate problem solving. This creates a safety blind spot: harmful or policy-violating content may appear in reasoning traces even when final answers appear safe. We test whether final-answer safety is a sufficient proxy for the full reasoning-answer trajectory by scoring both stages under a unified twenty-principle safety rubric. Using prompts from seven public harmfulness and jailbreak sources, plus four out-of-distribution (OOD) sources, we evaluate 15 open-weight and API-based LRMs across 41K prompts per model. Reasoning traces consistently reveal additional safety risks beyond final answers, especially in high-severity stage-wise failures: leak cases, where unsafe reasoning precedes a safe-looking answer, and escape cases, where benign-looking reasoning precedes an unsafe final response. Principle-level analysis shows that risk concentrates in misinformation, legal compliance, discrimination, physical harm, and psychological harm. We further propose adaptive multi-principle steering, a white-box test-time mitigation that learns one unsafe-to-safe activation direction per safety principle and activates only directions whose current hidden state is closer to the unsafe than safe centroid. On three steerable open reasoning models, adaptive steering reduces unsafe counts in both reasoning traces and final answers on held-out and OOD benchmarks. DeepSeek-R1-Qwen-7B achieves a 40.8% average unsafe-count reduction while retaining 97.7% macro-averaged accuracy on BBH, GSM8K, and MMLU. These results suggest that LRM safety should be evaluated and mitigated over the full exposed reasoning-answer trajectory, not only at the final-answer stage.

Language models are increasingly capable and are being rapidly deployed on a population-level scale. As a result, the safety of these models is increasingly high-stakes. Fortunately, advances in alignment have significantly reduced the likelihood of harmful model outputs. However, when models are queried billions of times in a day, even rare worst-case behaviors will occur. Current safety evaluations focus on capturing the distribution of inputs that yield harmful outputs. These evaluations disregard the probabilistic nature of models and their tail output behavior. To measure this tail risk, we propose a method to efficiently estimate the probability of harmful outputs for any input query. Instead of naive brute-force sampling from the target model, where harmful outputs could be rare, we operationalize importance sampling by creating unsafe versions of the target model. These unsafe versions enable sample-efficient estimation by making harmful outputs more probable. On benchmarks measuring misuse and misalignment, these estimates match brute-force Monte Carlo estimates using 10-20x fewer samples. For example, we can estimate probability of harmful outputs on the order of 10^-4 with just 500 samples. Additionally, we find that these harmfulness estimates can reveal the sensitivity of models to perturbations in model input and predict deployment risks. Our work demonstrates that accurate rare-event estimation is both critical and feasible for safety evaluations. Code is available at https://github.com/rangell/LMTailRisk

When a phone-use agent avoids harm, does that show safety, or simply inability to act? Existing evaluations often cannot tell. A harmful outcome may be avoided because the agent recognized the risk and chose the safe action, or because it failed to understand the screen or execute any relevant action at all. These cases have different causes and call for different fixes, yet current benchmarks often merge them under task success, refusal, or final harmful outcome. We address this problem with PhoneSafety, a benchmark of 700 safety-critical moments drawn from real phone interactions across more than 130 apps. Each instance isolates the next decision at a risky moment and asks a simple question: does the model take the safe action, take the unsafe action, or fail to do anything useful? We evaluate eight representative phone-use agents under this framework. Our results reveal two main patterns. First, stronger general phone-use ability does not reliably imply safer choices at risky moments. Models that perform better on ordinary app tasks are not always the ones that behave more safely when the next action matters. Second, failures to do anything useful behave like a capability signal rather than a safety signal: they are concentrated in more visually and operationally demanding settings and remain stable when the evaluation protocol changes. Across models, failures split into two recurring patterns: unsafe choices in settings where the model can act but chooses wrongly, and inability to act in more visually and operationally demanding screens. Overall, a harmless outcome is not enough to count as evidence of safety. Evaluating phone-use agents requires separating unsafe judgment from inability to act.

E-commerce risk management requires aggregating diverse, deeply embedded web data through multi-step, stateful interactions, which traditional scraping methods and most existing Graphical User Interface (GUI) agents cannot handle. These agents are typically limited to single-step tasks and lack the ability to manage dynamic, interactive content critical for effective risk assessment. To address this challenge, we introduce RISK, a novel framework designed to build and deploy GUI agents for this domain. RISK integrates three components: (1) RISK-Data, a dataset of 8,492 single-step and 2,386 multi-step interaction trajectories, collected through a high-fidelity browser framework and a meticulous data curation process; (2) RISK-Bench, a benchmark with 802 single-step and 320 multi-step trajectories across three difficulty levels for standardized evaluation; and (3) RISK-R1, a R1-style reinforcement fine-tuning framework considering four aspects: (i) Output Format Constraint, (ii) Single-step and (iii) Multi-step Level Reward, and (iv) Task Level Reweight. Experiments show that RISK-R1 achieves a 6.8% improvement in offline single-step and an 8.8% improvement in offline multi-step, using only 7.2% of the parameters of the SOTA baseline. Moreover, it attains a top task success rate of 70.5% in online evaluation. RISK provides a scalable, domain-specific solution for automating complex web interactions in e-commerce risk management. The code is available at https://github.com/RenqiChen/RISK-GUI.

For one to guarantee higher-quality software development processes, risk management is essential. Furthermore, risks are those that could negatively impact an organization's operations or a project's progress. The appropriate prioritisation of software project risks is a crucial factor in ascertaining the software project's performance features and eventual success. They can be used harmoniously with the same training samples and have good complement and compatibility. We carried out in-depth tests on four benchmark datasets to confirm the efficacy of our CIA approach in closed-world and open-world scenarios, with and without defence. We also present a sequential augmentation parameter optimisation technique that captures the interdependencies of the latest deep learning state-of-the-art WF attack models. To achieve precise software risk assessment, the enhanced crow search algorithm (ECSA) is used to modify the ANFIS settings. Solutions that very slightly alter the local optimum and stay inside it are extracted using the ECSA. ANFIS variable when utilising the ANFIS technique. An experimental validation with NASA 93 dataset and 93 software project values was performed. This method's output presents a clear image of the software risk elements that are essential to achieving project performance. The results of our experiments show that, when compared to other current methods, our integrative fuzzy techniques may perform more accurately and effectively in the evaluation of software project risks.

Agent skill libraries are becoming routable software assets: a retrieved skill can contribute instructions, scripts, resource bindings, and execution assumptions to an agent. This makes retrieval failures more specific than broad irrelevance. A system can find the right capability family yet expose the wrong same-capability representative. We study this failure as same-capability risk-exposure retrieval. Each benchmark unit pairs a helpful skill with a query-specific risky sibling that shares the capability family but differs on an execution-controlling contract, such as the required resource, precondition, procedure, or artifact. We introduce SameCapRisk-Bench, an auditable benchmark with 1,190 skill-risk units and 1,686 evaluation query cases: 694 marked-sibling units under public library pressure and 496 hard role-flip units where the same two skills swap helpful/risky roles across paired queries. The release records admission evidence, cue/leakage checks, source hashes, family relations, and fixed candidate pools. The benchmark reports helpful ranking together with harmful sibling rate (HSR@K), the top-K exposure of the marked risky sibling. On this benchmark, public SkillRouter, SkillRet, and R3-Skill retrieve helpful skills at high Recall@3 (0.848--0.888) but also expose marked risky siblings frequently (HSR@3 0.346--0.372). A fully public score-and-cluster pipeline lowers HSR@3 to 0.128--0.182, with Recall@3 of 0.713--0.776. Under a benchmark-trained reference scorer, public text-cluster and controlled resolvers reach HSR@3 0.012 and 0.007; the latter attains Recall@3 0.833. Skill retrieval should therefore report both capability matching and same-family risk exposure, with HSR serving as a targeted exposure certificate for fixed skill libraries.

Organizations across finance, healthcare, transportation, content moderation, and critical infrastructure are rapidly deploying highly automated AI systems, yet they lack principled methods to quantify how increasing automation amplifies harm when failures occur. We propose a parsimonious Bayesian risk decomposition expressing expected loss as the product of three terms: the probability of system failure, the conditional probability that a failure propagates into harm given the automation level, and the expected severity of harm. This framework isolates a critical quantity -- the conditional probability that failures propagate into harm -- which captures execution and oversight risk rather than model accuracy alone. We develop complete theoretical foundations: formal proofs of the decomposition, a harm propagation equivalence theorem linking the harm propagation probability to observable execution controls, risk elasticity measures, efficient frontier analysis for automation policy, and optimal resource allocation principles with second-order conditions. We motivate the framework with an illustrative case study of the 2012 Knight Capital incident ($440M loss) as one instantiation of a broadly applicable failure pattern, and characterize the research design required to empirically validate the framework at scale across deployment domains. This work provides the theoretical foundations for a new class of deployment-focused risk governance tools for agentic and automated AI systems.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to detect unsafe content. A common approach is to combine judgments from a panel of models to correct individual mistakes, but this benefit may disappear when every model sees the same misleading context before voting. We study this risk in a controlled two-round experiment. Each model first judges an item alone, then judges it again after six simulated peers either assert the wrong label or abstain. We combine the final judgments by majority vote. Across six open-weight LLMs and six datasets, we find that the wrong-label peer message raises the average reviewer false-alarm rate from 56.5% under silent peers to 87.5%, and majority voting raises the panel false-alarm rate to 100%. Without an asserted label, the same panel outperforms its average member. The effect is strongly asymmetric: reviewers follow pushes toward "unsafe" far more than pushes toward "safe" (about 75% versus 17%), so the panel's false-alarm rate rises sharply while its harmful-miss rate changes little. The proprietary-model probe shows substantial variation across models. These results identify susceptibility to shared social cues as a failure mode of safety panels and provide a simple pre-deployment diagnostic.

Autonomous agents increasingly perform bounded software tasks under an orchestrator that retries, resumes, and budgets them. The machinery such orchestrators reach for is the service mesh's: retry, timeout, and error-rate circuit breaking. We report a failure study of a production agentic software-delivery platform over 147 numbered incidents spanning 81 runs, each with a measured cost and, in most cases, a mutation proof reproducing the failure. All three assumptions those primitives rest on are violated in practice, and we quantify the consequences: a loop of fifty-four consecutive successful tool calls no error-rate breaker could see; a progress signal constant by construction, guaranteeing a false trip on the third repair round and driving one run from six of six components to three; twenty-one events accumulated across six invocations of one delegation, making a correct, idempotent component unwinnable; a misrouted failure that woke five components for a two-component fault, leaving three bystanders regressing working code; and twelve incidents in which the enforcement layer blocked correct work, the most expensive costing 107 agent turns and zero accepted writes. We find one cross-cutting cause and its dual. Identity adequacy: in five separate subsystems an identity that failed to discriminate produced a confident wrong answer, and two of them derived the corrective rule independently. Evidence adequacy: a reliability decision may be taken only on evidence capable of moving, attributable to what it measures, and deterministic under identical conditions. From the findings we derive seven reliability primitives whose enforcement unit is the delegation rather than the message, and specify the controlled evaluation the study motivates but does not constitute.

This paper measures hour-of-day effects, filter precision, fragility, and realised yield in a 15-day paper-traded deployment of an autonomous memecoin trading system on Solana decentralised exchanges. The 190-trade sample (March 29 to April 12, 2026) shows a 40.5 percent win rate, mean per-trade return of +0.62 percent, cumulative +117.7 percent (net SOL +0.039), skewness -1.21, excess kurtosis 6.61. A Mann-Whitney U test of three poorest-performing UTC hours (2, 13, 23) against the others yields U = 1,274, p = 0.22; directional but not significant at n = 190. The three hours were selected in-sample, so the comparison is exploratory, not confirmatory. A parallel counterfactual rejection-tracking system collected 4,874 forward-sample observations across 184 distinct rejection events. Of those events, 17.9 percent reached a 50 percent drawdown from reference within 24 hours; 26.0 percent of forward samples recorded the rejected token below half-reference. The filter stack avoided these realised drawdowns: evidence that the rejection criteria are net-positive against forward-market outcomes. Fragility is the principal caveat. Removing the top three trades (1.6 percent of sample) flips cumulative return unprofitable. Profitability rests on a small number of large winners and is structurally fragile. The dataset and audit script are deposited under CC-BY-4.0 (Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20043302).

Clinical LLMs are often scaled by increasing model size, context length, retrieval complexity, or inference-time compute, with the implicit expectation that higher accuracy implies safer behavior. This assumption is incomplete in medicine, where a few confident, high-risk, or evidence-contradicting errors can matter more than average benchmark performance. We introduce SaFE-Scale, a framework for measuring how clinical LLM safety changes across model scale, evidence quality, retrieval strategy, context exposure, and inference-time compute. To instantiate this framework, we introduce RadSaFE-200, a Radiology Safety-Focused Evaluation benchmark of 200 multiple-choice questions with clinician-defined clean evidence, conflict evidence, and option-level labels for high-risk error, unsafe answer, and evidence contradiction. We evaluated 34 locally deployed LLMs across six deployment conditions: closed-book prompting (zero-shot), clean evidence, conflict evidence, standard RAG, agentic RAG, and max-context prompting. Clean evidence produced the strongest improvement, increasing mean accuracy from 73.5% to 94.1%, while reducing high-risk error from 12.0% to 2.6%, contradiction from 12.7% to 2.3%, and dangerous overconfidence from 8.0% to 1.6%. Standard RAG and agentic RAG did not reproduce this safety profile: agentic RAG improved accuracy over standard RAG and reduced contradiction, but high-risk error and dangerous overconfidence remained elevated. Max-context prompting increased latency without closing the safety gap, and additional inference-time compute produced only limited gains. Worst-case analysis showed that clinically consequential errors concentrated in a small subset of questions. Clinical LLM safety is therefore not a passive consequence of scaling, but a deployment property shaped by evidence quality, retrieval design, context construction, and collective failure behavior.

Autonomous coding agents built on large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being integrated into development workflows, yet their operational safety properties remain poorly understood beyond evaluations of explicitly malicious inputs. In practice, high-impact failures arise during benign, goal-directed use through environment breakage, fabricated success reports, etc. that current benchmarks do not capture. What categories of operational safety failures actually occur when coding agents are used for everyday development tasks and what is their impact? We present an incident-driven empirical study grounded in two complementary evidence streams. We screen 68,816 papers from 22 premier venues, curating 185 safety-relevant studies, and mine 16,586 GitHub issues from widely deployed LLM-powered coding tools, manually confirming 547 genuine safety failures. Applying systematic open coding over both corpora, we derive a multi-dimensional safety taxonomy of 33 operational risk types organized across seven dimensions, and annotate each incident with contributing factors, task context, severity, and downstream impact. Our findings show that coding-agent failures are often severe, with 326 of 547 incidents rated high or critical. The dominant risks are constraint violations, destructive operations, authorization bypasses, and deception, and over 65% of incidents arise in bug fixing and setup or configuration, patterns largely missing from prior literature. These results have direct implications for SE tool designers and benchmark developers: guardrails must go beyond adversarial-prompt defenses to enforce environmental constraints, failure transparency, and safe-halt behaviors.

As AI becomes more capable, we entrust it with more general and consequential tasks. The risks from failure grow more severe with increasing task scope. It is therefore important to understand how extremely capable AI models will fail: Will they fail by systematically pursuing goals we do not intend? Or will they fail by being a hot mess, and taking nonsensical actions that do not further any goal? We operationalize this question using a bias-variance decomposition of the errors made by AI models: An AI's incoherence on a task is measured over test-time randomness as the fraction of its error that stems from variance rather than bias in task outcome. Across all tasks and frontier models we measure, the longer models spend reasoning and taking actions, the more incoherent their failures become. Incoherence changes with model scale in a way that is experiment dependent. However, in several settings, larger, more capable models are more incoherent than smaller models. Consequently, scale alone seems unlikely to eliminate incoherence. Instead, as more capable AIs pursue harder tasks, requiring more sequential action and thought, our results predict failures to be accompanied by more incoherent behavior. This suggests a future where AIs sometimes cause industrial accidents (due to unpredictable misbehavior), but are less likely to exhibit consistent pursuit of a misaligned goal. This increases the relative importance of alignment research targeting reward hacking or goal misspecification.

How can we evaluate whether frontier AI systems recognize child-safety risks before they escalate into explicit harm? Existing child safety evaluations focus on child sexual abuse material, yet many child-safety failures begin earlier: in model assistance that helps adults manipulate, impersonate, profile, or isolate minors, and in model responses that deepen children's emotional dependence on AI systems rather than redirecting them toward human support. We introduce CAREBench (Child AI Risk Evaluation), a benchmark to assess such upstream child-safety risks in language models. CAREBench contains 500 prompts spanning twelve risk categories, including grooming and relationship engineering, deception and impersonation, surveillance and privacy, sextortion and sexual abuse, AI anthropomorphization, emotional dependency, and mental illness sensitivity. Developed with response annotations from parents and clinicians, the benchmark excludes explicit abuse material and imagery; instead, it evaluates whether models recognize, refuse, de-escalate, or redirect risky interactions before harm becomes overt. Evaluating seven frontier models on our benchmark, we find failure rates ranging from 2% to 58%, with failure patterns that vary across risk categories. CAREBench provides a responsibly scoped evaluation for LLM developers to identify and close gaps in child safety policies.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, where rare but severe failures can result in irreversible harm. However, prevailing evaluation benchmarks often reduce complex social risk to mean-centered scalar scores, thereby obscuring distributional structure, cross-dimensional interactions, and worst-case behavior. This paper introduces Social Harm Analysis via Risk Profiles (SHARP), a framework for multidimensional, distribution-aware evaluation of social harm. SHARP models harm as a multivariate random variable and integrates explicit decomposition into bias, fairness, ethics, and epistemic reliability with a union-of-failures aggregation reparameterized as additive cumulative log-risk. The framework further employs risk-sensitive distributional statistics, with Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR95) as a primary metric, to characterize worst-case model behavior. Application of SHARP to eleven frontier LLMs, evaluated on a fixed corpus of n=901 socially sensitive prompts, reveals that models with similar average risk can exhibit more than twofold differences in tail exposure and volatility. Across models, dimension-wise marginal tail behavior varies systematically across harm dimensions, with bias exhibiting the strongest tail severities, epistemic and fairness risks occupying intermediate regimes, and ethical misalignment consistently lower; together, these patterns reveal heterogeneous, model-dependent failure structures that scalar benchmarks conflate. These findings indicate that responsible evaluation and governance of LLMs require moving beyond scalar averages toward multidimensional, tail-sensitive risk profiling.

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) introduces dual-use capabilities that could both threaten and bolster national security and public safety (NSPS). Models implement safeguards to protect against potential misuse relevant to NSPS and allow for benign users to receive helpful information. However, current benchmarks often fail to test safeguard robustness to potential NSPS risks in an objective, robust way. We introduce FORTRESS: 500 expert-crafted adversarial prompts with instance-based rubrics of 4-7 binary questions for automated evaluation across 3 domains (unclassified information only): Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive (CBRNE), Political Violence & Terrorism, and Criminal & Financial Illicit Activities, with 10 total subcategories across these domains. Each prompt-rubric pair has a corresponding benign version to test for model over-refusals. This evaluation of frontier LLMs' safeguard robustness reveals varying trade-offs between potential risks and model usefulness: Claude-3.5-Sonnet demonstrates a low average risk score (ARS) (14.09 out of 100) but the highest over-refusal score (ORS) (21.8 out of 100), while Gemini 2.5 Pro shows low over-refusal (1.4) but a high average potential risk (66.29). Deepseek-R1 has the highest ARS at 78.05, but the lowest ORS at only 0.06. Models such as o1 display a more even trade-off between potential risks and over-refusals (with an ARS of 21.69 and ORS of 5.2). To provide policymakers and researchers with a clear understanding of models' potential risks, we publicly release FORTRESS at https://huggingface.co/datasets/ScaleAI/fortress_public. We also maintain a private set for evaluation.

Language models have been adopted faster than evaluation practices that reliably assess their risks, and a growing share of use is affective rather than informational. Within that traffic users disclose suicide and self-harm (SSH) crises. Existing safety benchmarks score models primarily on refusal, but refusal is not the desired behavior here; the conversation requires a substantive supportive response. We introduce DistressBench, 718 English conversations with clinician-authored user turns spanning 23 SSH subcategories, each paired with a task-specific rubric of weighted atomic criteria across seven dimensions of crisis support and a clinician reference response. A model's score is the weighted average over the criteria its reply satisfies, reading directly as the fraction of required care delivered. The best of 25 frontier models satisfies 88.4% of weighted criteria and the median model 71.4%, against 98.7% for clinician references scored on the same criteria. Pooled across all 25 models, in 35.3% of conversations where a model satisfied every criterion for recognizing the crisis, it failed to route the user toward human help. The shortfall concentrates in the dimensions requiring the model to act rather than withhold. Contrasting each dimension's median model against its best separates capability limits from choices: de-escalation reaches 74.6% in the strongest model against a median of 46.0%, and safety disclaimers 84.6% against 8.3%. Multi-turn conversations score below single-turn ones (68.5% against 74.2%). We release the corpus, rubrics, judge calibration labels, and a companion annex of 20 long-horizon red-team transcripts. These results argue for evaluating crisis safety on the care a model delivers rather than on what it declines to say, and for treating de-escalation and resource routing as deployment requirements.

As large language models (LLMs) acquire advanced biological design capabilities, they offer substantial research benefits but simultaneously introduce severe dual-use risks, such as engineering enhanced pathogens or drug-resistant bacteria. While biosecurity frameworks recognize these threats, the actual risk of LLMs executing dangerous biological modifications remains unquantified, particularly when augmented with specialized biological design tools (BDTs). Existing evaluations primarily assess hazardous knowledge possession rather than practical application, overlook risk amplification from BDTs, and rely on unreliable, expensive, or hazardous validation methods. To address these gaps, we introduce DRYLAB-Bench (Design Risk Yielded by LLM Agent in Biodesign), the first comprehensive benchmark evaluating the high-risk biological mutation design capabilities of LLM agents. Moving beyond basic question-answering, DRYLAB-Bench tasks agents with 30 genuinely hazardous mutation-design scenarios distilled from biosecurity guidelines. It evaluates models in a multi-round, tool-augmented environment where LLMs orchestrate BDTs to iteratively refine candidates. Crucially, it scores designs directly against 187,695 empirical wet-lab measurements from ProteinGym and ViroGym using our proposed Biosecurity Risk Score (BRS), quantifying risk-associated effects while enabling scalable and safe ground-truth verification. Evaluations of 15 frontier models reveal substantial baseline threats: without tools, 67.6% of one-shot designs exceed the average measured variant, and 21.4% reach the highest-risk decile. Equipping models with BDTs significantly amplifies this risk, raising the pooled risk by \(ΔBRS=+0.116\) and the top-decile share to 23.5%. Code: https://github.com/drylab-bio/DRYLAB-Bench

Large language models are increasingly used for content moderation, but most evaluations still report aggregate accuracy on individual benchmarks. We introduce Safety-Flag, which places seven widely used safety benchmarks (BeaverTails, XSTest, Ethics, WildGuard, Aegis, ToxiChat, and ToxiGen) into a single balanced flag / do-not-flag protocol. We release item-level decisions and confidence scores for six general-purpose LLMs and four dedicated guards, together with three reference models, evaluated on the same items. Safety-Flag measures three dimensions of moderator reliability: error direction, probability calibration, and confidence-based error ranking for human review. They often disagree. Aggregate accuracy does not reveal error direction: one model flags 85% of benign content, whereas another misses 54% of harmful content. All six general-purpose models are overconfident; fitting one temperature per model reduces calibration error by 2.8--6.0times without changing predicted labels or confidence ordering. Confidence-based abstention lowers selective risk for every model, although the gains depend on how well confidence ranks errors. Dedicated guards produce fewer false alarms and are better calibrated, but several have higher miss rates outside their documented coverage. We release the benchmark, fixed item lists, evaluation code, per-item model outputs, and leaderboard at: https://github.com/yibo-hu-lab/safety-flag-benchmark.

Safety benchmark scores provide incomplete evidence of deployment readiness: aligned language models often adhere to rigid rules even when a situational update flips which action is safe. We term this failure brittle safety. To diagnose it, we introduce context-flip evaluation, testing 12 models across a safety benchmark (PacifAIst) and two commonsense controls using paired variants where the nominally safe action produces harm. Three findings emerge. First, brittle safety is safety-specific: all 12 models exhibit a safety-commonsense gap (mean +17.4 pp). Baseline accuracy fails to predict brittleness: among models above 90% baseline accuracy, brittleness rates range from 13.7% to 90.0%. Second, failures stem from policy override rather than miscomprehension: despite acknowledging the context change in every case, models persist via three distinct mechanisms that vary by update type and model family. Third, on a hand-audited probe of catastrophic consequence-flip scenarios, standard action-level guardrails catch none, while a state-aware validator catches all without false alarms on correct interventions. This indicates that action-level content moderation is systematically blind to consequence-flips, motivating state-aware architectural alternatives. We release our protocol, perturbed benchmarks, and deployment probe.

Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes under the reassurance that a clinician signs every note. We audited three commercial AI scribes on the same 142 consultations: 565 notes from recorded UK primary-care and US ambulatory encounters plus authored scenarios. Twelve discovery passes proposed 13,678 candidate errors; the 5,898 clearing an importance filter went to an adversarial panel of two models from different families, each told to refute what it could, and 618 survived. One note in three (31.3% [27.0, 35.6]) carries a verified failure, concentrated in allergy and medication information, invented patient identity, and history written up as examination on telephone consultations that can contain none. No product was given a patient record; setting aside the two classes a record would have prefilled, invented identity and dates, the rate is 24.8% [20.8, 29.0]. One failure mode did not fit our scheme, drawn from published scribe-error taxonomies: a treatment the clinician retracts, recorded as delivered care. Two clinicians adjudicated blind, disjoint samples: a physician author upheld 20 of 21 findings (95.2% [77.3, 99.2]) and an independent clinician, not an author, 12 of 12 ([75.8, 100]); both judged every sampled refusal genuine. A failure rate depends on the instrument as much as the scribes. With model, evidence and settings fixed, the review instruction alone moves the share of candidates verified from 9.3% to 79.0%, and the reviewing family moves it too: alone at that instruction the gentler flags 54.8% of notes against 27.8%. Between 28% and 97% of sampled notes carry a failure depending on the standard. Published audits disagree among themselves by a margin instrument differences alone can produce: omission is 54-86% of their errors against our 23.1%. We release all 618 findings with transcript-side evidence, every prompt and model version, and the re-runnable pipeline.

Refusal rates are a poor proxy for LLM safety, i.e., a model may over-refuse benign prompts while still complying with harmful ones. We audit both failure modes across 21 open-weight LLMs on four safety benchmarks (OR-Bench, XSTest, ToxiGen, BOLD), using a composition adjustment to isolate model sensitivity from dataset toxicity confounds. We report three findings. First, models adopt fundamentally different calibration strategies: conservative ecosystems such as Llama suppress unsafe outputs at the cost of elevated over-refusals, while permissive ecosystems such as DeepSeek and Qwen preserve helpfulness but tolerate higher harmful compliance. Second, demographic protection is unequal: models over-protect prominent racial and religious groups, frequently refusing even benign prompts about them, while providing substantially weaker protection against disability-targeted attacks. Third, refusal and compliance tendencies are stable within model families across generations and scales, suggesting that post-training objectives shape safety behavior more than architecture. Our results call for joint, demographically-aware, and multi-judge safety evaluation.

Selective Classification, wherein models can reject low-confidence predictions, promises reliable translation of machine-learning based classification systems to real-world scenarios such as clinical diagnostics. While current evaluation of these systems typically assumes fixed working points based on pre-defined rejection thresholds, methodological progress requires benchmarking the general performance of systems akin to the AUROC in standard classification. In this work, we define 5 requirements for multi-threshold metrics in selective classification regarding task alignment, interpretability, and flexibility, and show how current approaches fail to meet them. We propose the Area under the Generalized Risk Coverage curve (AUGRC), which meets all requirements and can be directly interpreted as the average risk of undetected failures. We empirically demonstrate the relevance of AUGRC on a comprehensive benchmark spanning 6 data sets and 13 confidence scoring functions. We find that the proposed metric substantially changes metric rankings on 5 out of the 6 data sets.

This research presents a framework for quantitative risk management in volatile markets, specifically focusing on expectile-based methodologies applied to the FTSE 100 index. Traditional risk measures such as Value-at-Risk (VaR) have demonstrated significant limitations during periods of market stress, as evidenced during the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent volatile periods. This study develops an advanced expectile-based framework that addresses the shortcomings of conventional quantile-based approaches by providing greater sensitivity to tail losses and improved stability in extreme market conditions. The research employs a dataset spanning two decades of FTSE 100 returns, incorporating periods of high volatility, market crashes, and recovery phases. Our methodology introduces novel mathematical formulations for expectile regression models, enhanced threshold determination techniques using time series analysis, and robust backtesting procedures. The empirical results demonstrate that expectile-based Value-at-Risk (EVaR) consistently outperforms traditional VaR measures across various confidence levels and market conditions. The framework exhibits superior performance during volatile periods, with reduced model risk and enhanced predictive accuracy. Furthermore, the study establishes practical implementation guidelines for financial institutions and provides evidence-based recommendations for regulatory compliance and portfolio management. The findings contribute significantly to the literature on financial risk management and offer practical tools for practitioners dealing with volatile market environments.

Generating corner-case scenarios with appropriate adversity in a simulation environment is critical for testing an autonomous vehicle (AV) software stack's safety performance before deployment. Existing autonomous-driving scenario generators can enforce specific behavior, adversity, or feasibility conditions, but they provide limited control over how extreme a generated scenario is relative to plausible futures in the same traffic context. This study represents the adversity of a generated scenario as its percentile in the conditional distribution of future risk given the observed history. This view supports calibrated answers to two questions: how "corner" a generated corner-case scenario is and how its "cornerness" can be fine-tuned. To this end, we formulate history-conditioned risk-percentile requests and learn a reference risk distribution that maps each requested percentile to a physical risk target. We then use a percentile-conditioned joint diffusion model with sampling-time risk guidance to generate multi-agent futures, together with a reference-based criterion for evaluating percentile realization. Experiments use the minimum post-encroachment time (PET) between the ego and its surrounding vehicles as the risk surrogate on highD. On the primary evaluation set, our method realizes 1,422 of 1,440 requests within a 0.05 percentile tolerance (98.75%), with mean percentile error 0.00673 and PET-target error 0.00991 seconds. The resulting interface connects context-relative risk specification, physical realization, and evaluation through a common risk scale. Project website and videos of generated scenarios are available at https://hhj233.github.io/CornerPercentile/.

Existing LLM safety evaluations rely on binary attack-success rates and domain-agnostic taxonomies, leaving regulated Banking, Financial Services, and Insurance (BFSI) deployments exposed to failures elicited through legally or professionally plausible framing. We introduce RAHS (Risk-Adjusted Harm Score), a risk-sensitive metric jointly capturing disclosure severity, disclaimer mitigation, and inter-judge agreement, and FinRedTeamBench, a 989-prompt benchmark spanning seven BFSI risk areas and 34 sub-categories mapped to regulatory frameworks. Evaluation uses an ensemble of three heterogeneous LLM judges, validated against human experts, and an adaptive multi-turn red-teaming pipeline. On nine open-weight models, RAHS preserves separation under near-ceiling ASR, ranking is stable under hyperparameter sweeps, and multi-turn pressure drives not only more jailbreaks but more operationally severe disclosures, exposing failure modes that single-turn, domain-agnostic evaluations cannot reveal.

Although AI systems have been applied in various fields and achieved impressive performance, their safety and reliability are still a big concern. This is especially important for safety-critical tasks. One shared characteristic of these critical tasks is their risk sensitivity, where small mistakes can cause big consequences and even endanger life. There are several factors that could be guidelines for the successful deployment of AI systems in sensitive tasks: (i) failure detection and out-of-distribution (OOD) detection; (ii) overfitting identification; (iii) uncertainty quantification for predictions; (iv) robustness to data perturbations. These factors are also challenges of current AI systems, which are major blocks for building safe and reliable AI. Specifically, the current AI algorithms are unable to identify common causes for failure detection. Furthermore, additional techniques are required to quantify the quality of predictions. All these contribute to inaccurate uncertainty quantification, which lowers trust in predictions. Hence obtaining accurate model uncertainty quantification and its further improvement are challenging. To address these issues, many techniques have been proposed, such as regularization methods and learning strategies. As vision and language are the most typical data type and have many open source benchmark datasets, this thesis will focus on vision-language data processing for tasks like classification, image captioning, and vision question answering. In this thesis, we aim to build a safeguard by further developing current techniques to ensure the accurate model uncertainty for safety-critical tasks.

The rapid proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) and diverse specialized benchmarks necessitates a shift from fragmented, task-specific metrics to a holistic, competitive ranking system that effectively aggregates performance across multiple ability dimensions. Primarily using static scoring, current evaluation methods are fundamentally limited. They struggle to determine the proper mix ratio across diverse benchmarks, and critically, they fail to capture a model's dynamic competitive fitness or its vulnerability when confronted with sequential, high-stakes tasks. To address this, we introduce the novel Competitive Swiss-System Dynamics (CSD) framework. CSD simulates a multi-round, sequential contest where models are dynamically paired across a curated sequence of benchmarks based on their accumulated win-loss record. And Monte Carlo Simulation (N=100,000 iterations) is used to approximate the statistically robust Expected Win Score (E[S_m]), which eliminates the noise of random pairing and early-round luck. Furthermore, we implement a Failure Sensitivity Analysis by parameterizing the per-round elimination quantity (T_k), which allows us to profile models based on their risk appetite--distinguishing between robust generalists and aggressive specialists. We demonstrate that CSD provides a more nuanced and context-aware ranking than traditional aggregate scoring and static pairwise models, representing a vital step towards risk-informed, next-generation LLM evaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit advancing capabilities in complex tasks, such as reasoning and graduate-level question answering, yet their resilience against misuse, particularly involving scientifically sophisticated risks, remains underexplored. Existing safety benchmarks typically focus either on instructions requiring minimal knowledge comprehension (e.g., ``tell me how to build a bomb") or utilize prompts that are relatively low-risk (e.g., multiple-choice or classification tasks about hazardous content). Consequently, they fail to adequately assess model safety when handling knowledge-intensive, hazardous scenarios. To address this critical gap, we introduce SOSBench, a regulation-grounded, hazard-focused benchmark encompassing six high-risk scientific domains: chemistry, biology, medicine, pharmacology, physics, and psychology. The benchmark comprises 3,000 prompts derived from real-world regulations and laws, systematically expanded via an LLM-assisted evolutionary pipeline that introduces diverse, realistic misuse scenarios (e.g., detailed explosive synthesis instructions involving advanced chemical formulas). We evaluate frontier models within a unified evaluation framework using our SOSBench. Despite their alignment claims, advanced models consistently disclose policy-violating content across all domains, demonstrating alarmingly high rates of harmful responses (e.g., 79.1% for Deepseek-R1 and 47.3% for GPT-4.1). These results highlight significant safety alignment deficiencies and underscore urgent concerns regarding the responsible deployment of powerful LLMs.

Mobile graphical user interface (GUI) agents have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in automating complex tasks, yet they introduce critical safety risks where a single erroneous action can lead to irreversible consequences. Existing safety mechanisms are primarily reactive, lacking the ability to assess risks before execution. In this paper, we introduce SeerGuard, a consequence-aware safety framework designed to mitigate these risks through pre-execution instruction-level screening and action-level risk assessment. Specifically, the action-level assessment analyzes agent-proposed actions within current GUI states, anticipating likely outcomes to identify risks before they are executed. To enable these capabilities, we construct a unified safety-augmented world model (SAWM) via multi-task learning, integrating semantic next-state prediction with safety risk assessment. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SeerGuard generalizes effectively across diverse mobile GUI agents. On Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct, it increases the safety-utility score from 0.191 to 0.596 at ω=0.8 and reduces the risk-cost score from 0.347 to 0.130 at α=0.8. Further analyses on our SAWM validate the effectiveness of the instruction-level screening, alongside the capability of action risk assessment and next-state prediction.

While vision-language-action (VLA) models have advanced rapidly, running them at every control step remains expensive. Prior work accelerates VLA inference using techniques like action chunking and visual-token pruning, typically evaluating based on latency and average task success. However, acceleration may discard information and break tasks the original policy would solve, a risk hidden by average metrics. Measuring these failures is challenging because action deviations compound over closed-loop trajectories, meaning task failure is only observable across full episodes. We therefore define an acceleration-induced failure via paired rollouts from identical initial conditions, tracking when the reference succeeds but the accelerated policy fails. To manage this, we introduce CARE, an approach for certified accelerator selection. CARE uses paired rollouts on a calibration set to provide finite-sample guarantees that acceleration-induced failure risk stays below a user-specified budget. It deploys the fastest certified candidate, falling back to the reference if none qualify. By relying only on terminal outcomes and measured compute, CARE applies unchanged across diverse acceleration mechanisms, while sequential testing and failure-triggered reference rollouts keep certification affordable. On four LIBERO suites with OpenVLA-OFT, CARE certifies 9.0--10.8times speedups while guaranteeing (at 95% confidence) that at least 85.8% of reference-solved episodes are preserved. Under tight budgets, selectors without guarantees exceed the budget in up to 75% of trials, whereas CARE stays within budget and its sequential form uses 78.9% fewer rollouts than exhaustive evaluation. CARE further generalizes to flow-step reduction for π_{0.5}, and to Qwen3.5-9B and Llama-3.1-8B agents in Crafter.

Block-diffusion language models are served at hand-picked operating points, such as acceptance thresholds, buffer depth, schedule, checkpoint and precision, and each point is chosen by its mean benchmark accuracy. However, a mean does not tell an operator how often a faster configuration fails on prompts that the slower one answers correctly. On the serving engine and its decode traces, the default commit rule already commits every fully resolved block, a static skip rule captures nearly all of the compute that allocation can save, and self-distillation on engine-decoded targets adds speed at unchanged accuracy. Larger speedups come from lower thresholds, which commit tokens that are still uncertain. We therefore present Redline, a finite-sample procedure that selects operating points, hand-picked or learned, from the correctness of their answers on calibration prompts. Redline keeps the reference-relative risk, the joint probability that the reference answers correctly and a candidate configuration does not, within a user-chosen budget with high probability, and deploys the fastest configuration that passes. It speeds up math at a smaller risk budget than code in both model families, and at a budget of ten percent it deploys a LLaDA2 math configuration that commits over a third more tokens in each forward. It also applies without modification to the acceptance rule of speculative decoding and to weight quantization. On the same calibration data, Redline stays within its stated failure probability, whereas each tolerance of a mean-accuracy rule either gains less speed for some model and task or exceeds the risk budget far more often for another. Code is available at https://github.com/js-lee-AI/Redline.

Large language models (LLMs) are routinely used by physicians and patients for medical advice, yet their clinical safety profiles remain poorly characterized. We present NOHARM (Numerous Options Harm Assessment for Risk in Medicine), a benchmark using 100 real primary care-to-specialist consultation cases to measure frequency and severity of harm from LLM-generated medical recommendations. NOHARM covers 10 specialties, with 12,747 expert annotations for 4,249 clinical management options. Across 31 LLMs, potential for severe harm from LLM recommendations occurs in up to 22.2% (95% CI 21.6-22.8%) of cases, with harm of omission accounting for 76.6% (95% CI 76.4-76.8%) of errors. Safety performance is only moderately correlated (r = 0.61-0.64) with existing AI and medical knowledge benchmarks. The best models outperform generalist physicians on safety (mean difference 9.7%, 95% CI 7.0-12.5%), and a diverse multi-agent approach improves safety compared to solo models (mean difference 8.0%, 95% CI 4.0-12.1%). Therefore, despite strong performance on existing evaluations, widely used AI models can produce severely harmful medical advice at nontrivial rates, underscoring clinical safety as a distinct performance dimension necessitating explicit measurement.

Instruction tuned reasoning models are increasingly deployed with safety classifiers trained on frozen embeddings, assuming representation stability across model updates. We systematically investigate this assumption and find it fails: normalized perturbations of magnitude σ=0.02 (corresponding to approx 1^circ angular drift on the embedding sphere) reduce classifier performance from 85% to 50% ROC-AUC. Critically, mean confidence only drops 14%, producing dangerous silent failures where 72% of misclassifications occur with high confidence, defeating standard monitoring. We further show that instruction-tuned models exhibit 20% worse class separability than base models, making aligned systems paradoxically harder to safeguard. Our findings expose a fundamental fragility in production AI safety architectures and challenge the assumption that safety mechanisms transfer across model versions.

As browser-use agents improve, benchmarks keep pace by collecting new tasks, websites, and applications, often making tasks longer or more novel. This makes difficulty expensive to refresh and difficult to control: when many aspects change at once, it is unclear what actually makes a task challenging. We instead construct challenging instances from tasks agents already solve, turning difficulty into a programmable property of the environment. BreakingWeb pairs every base task with an intervention condition that preserves the user instruction, latent target, and backend success criterion while changing the environment at different web stack layers. Each intervention is deterministic, detectable, and recoverable, and is annotated with the cognitive primitive it primarily loads. The benchmark contains 519 clean/intervention task pairs across seven self-hosted websites and 29 intervention families, all graded against outcomes. We evaluate six strong browser-use agents, three GUI-only agents that see only screenshots, and humans. The construction is effective: interventions cut agent pass rate by 22.9% on average and overturn nearly half of the tasks each agent solves cleanly, whereas humans lose 10.0% on a first attempt and 5.7% after one familiarisation attempt. The dominant failure is belief failure: 75% of the six agents' failures end with a declared success although the required change never happened. Our code, data and environment are publicly available at www.breakingweb.app.

In industrial procurement, an LLM answer is useful only if it survives a standards check: recommended material must match operating condition, every parameter must respect a regulated threshold, and no procedure may contradict a safety clause. Partial correctness can mask safety-critical contradictions that aggregate LLM benchmarks rarely capture. We introduce IndustryBench, a 2,049-item benchmark for industrial procurement QA in Chinese, grounded in Chinese national standards (GB/T) and structured industrial product records, organized by seven capability dimensions, ten industry categories, and panel-derived difficulty tiers, with item-aligned English, Russian, and Vietnamese renderings. Our construction pipeline rejects 70.3% of LLM-generated candidates at a search-based external-verification stage, calibrating how unreliable industrial QA remains after LLM-only filtering.Our evaluation decouples raw correctness, scored by a Qwen3-Max judge validated at κ_w = 0.798 against a domain expert, from a separate safety-violation (SV) check against source texts. Across 17 models in Chinese and an 8-model intersection over four languages, we find: (i) the best system reaches only 2.083 on the 0--3 rubric, leaving substantial headroom; (ii) Standards & Terminology is the most persistent capability weakness and survives item-aligned translation; (iii) extended reasoning lowers safety-adjusted scores for 12 of 13 models, primarily by introducing unsupported safety-critical details into longer final answers; and (iv) safety-violation rates reshuffle the leaderboard -- GPT-5.4 climbs from rank 6 to rank 3 after SV adjustment, while Kimi-k2.5-1T-A32B drops seven positions.Industrial LLM evaluation therefore requires source-grounded, safety-aware diagnosis rather than aggregate accuracy. We release IndustryBench with all prompts, scoring scripts, and dataset documentation.

Quantization enables deployment of large language models on resource-constrained clinical edge devices, but its effect on clinical accuracy and safety remains understudied. We evaluate five 7-8B parameter models at FP16, GPTQ-INT8, and GPTQ-INT4 precision across five benchmarks: MedQA, MedMCQA, Med-HALT, a risk-stratified sample of HealthBench, and MedSafetyBench. The study jointly varies quantization bit width, model family, and clinical task type, with explicit risk stratification and safety measures. INT8 GPTQ is universally safe (max. degradation -1.9%-1.9%), while INT4 degradation is substantial and model-dependent: BioMistral-7B, clinically fine-tuned, loses 19.7% on MedMCQA, more than any general-purpose model, showing clinical fine-tuning does not confer compression robustness. MedMCQA degrades more than MedQA under INT4; Med-HALT is largely unaffected. On HealthBench's emergency-risk subgroup, Qwen2.5-7B degrades by 26.8% under INT4, suggesting high-risk scenarios are disproportionately vulnerable to compression. On MedSafetyBench, the model family dominates over precision (refusal rates range 10.2%-74.9% at FP16), though Qwen2.5-7B (-17.8%) and Meditron-7B (-28.3%) show substantial INT4 safety degradation; notably, Qwen2.5-7B is simultaneously the most accuracy-robust model, demonstrating that accuracy and safety robustness are independent properties. We additionally test two recovery methods, clinical calibration substitution and QLoRA fine-tuning, both producing the same trade-off: MedMCQA recovers while MedQA further degrades, indicating recovery strategies require task-specific validation rather than being assumed universally beneficial. These findings indicate INT8 is broadly safe for clinical deployment, while INT4 safety must be assessed per-model and per-task, and that safety alignment is determined primarily by instruction tuning rather than clinical domain adaptation.

The widespread deployment of Large Language Model (LLM) agents across real-world applications has unlocked tremendous potential, while raising some safety concerns. Among these concerns, the self-replication risk of LLM agents driven by objective misalignment (just like Agent Smith in the movie The Matrix) has drawn growing attention. Previous studies mainly examine whether LLM agents can self-replicate when directly instructed, potentially overlooking the risk of spontaneous replication driven by real-world settings (e.g., ensuring survival against termination threats). In this paper, we present a comprehensive evaluation framework for quantifying self-replication risks. Our framework establishes authentic production environments and realistic tasks (e.g., dynamic load balancing) to enable scenario-driven assessment of agent behaviors. Designing tasks that might induce misalignment between users' and agents' objectives makes it possible to decouple replication success from risk and capture self-replication risks arising from these misalignment settings. We further introduce Overuse Rate (OR) and Aggregate Overuse Count (AOC) metrics, which precisely capture the frequency and severity of uncontrolled replication. In our evaluation of 21 state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary models, we observe that over 50\% of LLM agents display a pronounced tendency toward uncontrolled self-replication, reaching an overall Risk Score (Phi_R) above a safety threshold of 0.5 when subjected to operational pressures. Our results underscore the urgent need for scenario-driven risk assessment and robust safeguards in the practical deployment of LLM agents.

Large language models exhibit safety degradation in non-English languages. Standard evaluation relies on Jailbreak Success Rate (JSR), which confounds several safety-driving factors into one, obscuring the specific cause(s) of safety failure. We introduce a latent variable model, a Multi-Group Item Response Theory (IRT) framework, that decouples safety-driving factors such as language-agnostic safety robustness (θ), intrinsic prompt hardness (β), global language processing difficulty (γ), and a prompt-specific cross-lingual safety gap (τ). Using the MultiJail dataset, we evaluate the safety robustness of 61 model configurations across 5 closed-model families and 10 languages of varying resource, aggregating a dataset of 1.9 million rows. Exploratory Factor Analysis shows safety is primarily unidimensional: models refuse different harm types mainly through a shared mechanism. Contrary to the expected trend that safety degrades largely in low-resource languages, 22 model configurations are more vulnerable in English than in low-resource languages. Low-resource languages produce more uncertain responses (high entropy) than high-resource languages. Also, high-τ prompts cluster in physical harm categories like Theft and Weapons and lower-resource languages, trends validated through cross-dataset generalization. While global translation quality shows low correlation with τ, severe mistranslations drive high-bias outliers, as validated by native speakers. Cultural and conceptual grounding mismatches also contribute to τ. In predictive validation, the IRT framework achieves AUC = 0.940, outperforming simpler baselines in predicting safe refusal of unsafe prompts. Our framework reveals concept-language vulnerabilities that aggregate metrics obscure, enabling fairer cross-lingual safety evaluation and targeted improvements in dataset construction.

Consider a scenario where a harmfulness evaluation metric intended to filter unsafe responses from a Large Language Model. When applied to individual harmful prompt-response pairs, it correctly flags them as unsafe by assigning a high-risk score. Yet, if those same pairs are concatenated, the metrics decision unexpectedly reverses - labelling the combined content as safe with a low score, allowing the harmful text to bypass the filter. We found that multiple safety metrics, including advanced metrics such as GPT-based judges, exhibit this non-safe behaviour. Moreover, they show a strong sensitivity to input order: responses are often classified as safe if safe content appears first, regardless of any harmful content that follows, and vice versa. These findings underscore the importance of evaluating the safety of safety metrics, that is, the reliability of their output scores. To address this, we developed general, automatic, concatenation-based tests to assess key properties of these metrics. When applied in a model safety scenario, the tests revealed significant inconsistencies in harmfulness evaluations.

AI scientist systems, capable of autonomously executing the full research workflow from hypothesis generation and experimentation to paper writing, hold significant potential for accelerating scientific discovery. However, the internal workflow of these systems have not been closely examined. This lack of scrutiny poses a risk of introducing flaws that could undermine the integrity, reliability, and trustworthiness of their research outputs. In this paper, we identify four potential failure modes in contemporary AI scientist systems: inappropriate benchmark selection, data leakage, metric misuse, and post-hoc selection bias. To examine these risks, we design controlled experiments that isolate each failure mode while addressing challenges unique to evaluating AI scientist systems. Our assessment of two prominent open-source AI scientist systems reveals the presence of several failures, across a spectrum of severity, which can be easily overlooked in practice. Finally, we demonstrate that access to trace logs and code from the full automated workflow enables far more effective detection of such failures than examining the final paper alone. We thus recommend journals and conferences evaluating AI-generated research to mandate submission of these artifacts alongside the paper to ensure transparency, accountability, and reproducibility.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in mental health support systems, where reliable recognition of high-risk states such as suicidal ideation and self-harm is safety-critical. However, existing evaluations primarily rely on aggregate performance metrics, which often obscure risk-specific failure modes and provide limited insight into model behavior in realistic, multi-turn interactions. We present MHDash, an open-source platform designed to support the development, evaluation, and auditing of AI systems for mental health applications. MHDash integrates data collection, structured annotation, multi-turn dialogue generation, and baseline evaluation into a unified pipeline. The platform supports annotations across multiple dimensions, including Concern Type, Risk Level, and Dialogue Intent, enabling fine-grained and risk-aware analysis. Our results reveal several key findings: (i) simple baselines and advanced LLM APIs exhibit comparable overall accuracy yet diverge significantly on high-risk cases; (ii) some LLMs maintain consistent ordinal severity ranking while failing absolute risk classification, whereas others achieve reasonable aggregate scores but suffer from high false negative rates on severe categories; and (iii) performance gaps are amplified in multi-turn dialogues, where risk signals emerge gradually. These observations demonstrate that conventional benchmarks are insufficient for safety-critical mental health settings. By releasing MHDash as an open platform, we aim to promote reproducible research, transparent evaluation, and safety-aligned development of AI systems for mental health support.

Many deployments must compare candidate language models for safety before a labeled benchmark exists for the relevant language, sector, or regulatory regime. We formalize this setting as benchmarkless comparative safety scoring and specify the contract under which a scenario-based audit can be interpreted as deployment evidence. Scores are valid only under a fixed scenario pack, rubric, auditor, judge, sampling configuration, and rerun budget. Because no labels are available, we replace ground-truth agreement with an instrumental-validity chain: responsiveness to a controlled safe-versus-abliterated contrast, dominance of target-driven variance over auditor and judge artifacts, and stability across reruns. We instantiate the chain in SimpleAudit, a local-first scoring instrument, and validate it on a Norwegian safety pack. Safe and abliterated targets separate with AUROC values between 0.89 and 1.00, target identity is the dominant variance component (η^2 approx 0.52), and severity profiles stabilize by ten reruns. Applying the same chain to Petri shows that it admits both tools. The substantial differences arise upstream of the chain, in claim-contract enforcement and deployment fit. A Norwegian public-sector procurement case comparing Borealis and Gemma 3 demonstrates the resulting evidence in practice: the safer model depends on scenario category and risk measure. Consequently, scores, matched deltas, critical rates, uncertainty, and the auditor and judge used must be reported together rather than collapsed into a single ranking.

While vision-language-action models (VLAs) have shown promising robotic behaviors across a diverse set of manipulation tasks, they achieve limited success rates when deployed on novel tasks out-of-the-box. To allow these policies to safely interact with their environments, we need a failure detector that gives a timely alert such that the robot can stop, backtrack, or ask for help. However, existing failure detectors are trained and tested only on one or a few specific tasks, while VLAs require the detector to generalize and detect failures also in unseen tasks and novel environments. In this paper, we introduce the multitask failure detection problem and propose SAFE, a failure detector for generalist robot policies such as VLAs. We analyze the VLA feature space and find that VLAs have sufficient high-level knowledge about task success and failure, which is generic across different tasks. Based on this insight, we design SAFE to learn from VLA internal features and predict a single scalar indicating the likelihood of task failure. SAFE is trained on both successful and failed rollouts, and is evaluated on unseen tasks. SAFE is compatible with different policy architectures. We test it on OpenVLA, pi_0, and pi_0-FAST in both simulated and real-world environments extensively. We compare SAFE with diverse baselines and show that SAFE achieves state-of-the-art failure detection performance and the best trade-off between accuracy and detection time using conformal prediction. More qualitative results can be found at https://vla-safe.github.io/.

Safety alignment in Large Language Models is critical for healthcare; however, reliance on binary refusal boundaries often results in over-refusal of benign queries or unsafe compliance with harmful ones. While existing benchmarks measure these extremes, they fail to evaluate Safe Completion: the model's ability to maximise helpfulness on dual-use or borderline queries by providing safe, high-level guidance without crossing into actionable harm. We introduce Health-ORSC-Bench, the first large-scale benchmark designed to systematically measure Over-Refusal and Safe Completion quality in healthcare. Comprising 31,920 benign boundary prompts across seven health categories (e.g., self-harm, medical misinformation), our framework uses an automated pipeline with human validation to test models at varying levels of intent ambiguity. We evaluate 30 state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-5 and Claude-4, revealing a significant tension: safety-optimised models frequently refuse up to 80\% of "Hard" benign prompts, while domain-specific models often sacrifice safety for utility. Our findings demonstrate that model family and size significantly influence calibration: larger frontier models (e.g., GPT-5, Llama-4) exhibit "safety-pessimism" and higher over-refusal than smaller or MoE-based counterparts (e.g., Qwen-3-Next), highlighting that current LLMs struggle to balance refusal and compliance. Health-ORSC-Bench provides a rigorous standard for calibrating the next generation of medical AI assistants toward nuanced, safe, and helpful completions. The code and data will be released upon acceptance. red{Warning: Some contents may include toxic or undesired contents.}

Modern text-to-image (T2I) models generate high-quality images from arbitrary user prompts, yet they can just as easily produce not-safe-for-work (NSFW) content. Conventional outer guardrails consist of two components: a prompt classifier that checks for risk before generation, and a post-hoc image classifier that checks the fully generated image. In this design, both classifiers operate outside the generation pipeline and do not use the model's own representations. This separation can limit prompt-screening accuracy, while the image-side check runs only after the full generation cost has been spent. Moreover, a flagged prompt can only be rejected, even when it could be adjusted to produce a safe image. In this work, we propose the Inner Guardrail (InGuard), a safety framework that works inside the pipeline on the model's own representations, leaving base-model parameters untouched. First, a risk classifier grades each prompt as unsafe, risky, or benign based on the text encoder's embeddings, with no external language model. Second, SAGE (Soft-gated Asymmetric Guardrail for Embeddings) modifies the embeddings of risky prompts, aiming to return a safe image instead of a refusal. Third, a latent detector checks the one-step clean latent estimate midway through denoising, reaching nearly image-level performance and halting generation when risk is detected. We also construct the RevGen Safety Benchmark to evaluate T2I safety under realistic conditions: 10,000 prompts built through real-image reverse generation, with a rewriting step that supplies controlled intellectual-property (IP) characters, covering graded porn/gore risks, categorical IP risks, and benign negatives. Across five open-weight T2I models, InGuard reaches 97.9-98.8% safety rate, matching or exceeding the outer guardrail, with 57.5-73.5% less benign disturbance, ~3.7x fewer parameters, and 50-55.6% of denoising steps skipped.

Recent advances in Language Model (LM) agents and tool use, exemplified by applications like ChatGPT Plugins, enable a rich set of capabilities but also amplify potential risks - such as leaking private data or causing financial losses. Identifying these risks is labor-intensive, necessitating implementing the tools, manually setting up the environment for each test scenario, and finding risky cases. As tools and agents become more complex, the high cost of testing these agents will make it increasingly difficult to find high-stakes, long-tailed risks. To address these challenges, we introduce ToolEmu: a framework that uses an LM to emulate tool execution and enables the testing of LM agents against a diverse range of tools and scenarios, without manual instantiation. Alongside the emulator, we develop an LM-based automatic safety evaluator that examines agent failures and quantifies associated risks. We test both the tool emulator and evaluator through human evaluation and find that 68.8% of failures identified with ToolEmu would be valid real-world agent failures. Using our curated initial benchmark consisting of 36 high-stakes tools and 144 test cases, we provide a quantitative risk analysis of current LM agents and identify numerous failures with potentially severe outcomes. Notably, even the safest LM agent exhibits such failures 23.9% of the time according to our evaluator, underscoring the need to develop safer LM agents for real-world deployment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are typically evaluated for safety under single-shot or low-budget adversarial prompting, which underestimates real-world risk. In practice, attackers can exploit large-scale parallel sampling to repeatedly probe a model until a harmful response is produced. While recent work shows that attack success increases with repeated sampling, principled methods for predicting large-scale adversarial risk remain limited. We propose a scaling-aware Best-of-N estimation of risk, SABER, for modeling jailbreak vulnerability under Best-of-N sampling. We model sample-level success probabilities using a Beta distribution, the conjugate prior of the Bernoulli distribution, and derive an analytic scaling law that enables reliable extrapolation of large-N attack success rates from small-budget measurements. Using only n=100 samples, our anchored estimator predicts ASR@1000 with a mean absolute error of 1.66, compared to 12.04 for the baseline, which is an 86.2% reduction in estimation error. Our results reveal heterogeneous risk scaling profiles and show that models appearing robust under standard evaluation can experience rapid nonlinear risk amplification under parallel adversarial pressure. This work provides a low-cost, scalable methodology for realistic LLM safety assessment. We will release our code and evaluation scripts upon publication to future research.

With the rapid development of multimodal large language models (MLLMs), they are increasingly deployed as autonomous computer-use agents capable of accomplishing complex computer tasks. However, a pressing issue arises: Can the safety risk principles designed and aligned for general MLLMs in dialogue scenarios be effectively transferred to real-world computer-use scenarios? Existing research on evaluating the safety risks of MLLM-based computer-use agents suffers from several limitations: it either lacks realistic interactive environments, or narrowly focuses on one or a few specific risk types. These limitations ignore the complexity, variability, and diversity of real-world environments, thereby restricting comprehensive risk evaluation for computer-use agents. To this end, we introduce RiOSWorld, a benchmark designed to evaluate the potential risks of MLLM-based agents during real-world computer manipulations. Our benchmark includes 492 risky tasks spanning various computer applications, involving web, social media, multimedia, os, email, and office software. We categorize these risks into two major classes based on their risk source: (i) User-originated risks and (ii) Environmental risks. For the evaluation, we evaluate safety risks from two perspectives: (i) Risk goal intention and (ii) Risk goal completion. Extensive experiments with multimodal agents on RiOSWorld demonstrate that current computer-use agents confront significant safety risks in real-world scenarios. Our findings highlight the necessity and urgency of safety alignment for computer-use agents in real-world computer manipulation, providing valuable insights for developing trustworthy computer-use agents. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://yjyddq.github.io/RiOSWorld.github.io/.

Collecting high-quality training examples for language model fine-tuning is expensive, with practical budgets limiting the amount of data that can be procured. We investigate whether example difficulty affects GRPO training effectiveness by comparing selection strategies (easy, medium, hard, random) across multiple models and reasoning tasks. Training on the hardest 10\% of examples (those where the base model fails most often) yields dramatic performance gains up to 47\%, while easy examples produce minimal improvements of 3-15\%. This occurs because GRPO requires outcome variance to generate learning signals; hard examples maintain mixed success/failure outcomes throughout training while easy examples quickly converge to consistent success, eliminating learning opportunities. Moreover, models trained on hard examples show superior out-of-distribution generalization, with only hard-trained models achieving meaningful gains on the AIME2025 benchmark. Our findings provide clear guidance: when budget-constrained, prioritize collecting and annotating examples where your base model struggles, as these drive nearly all learning value in GRPO fine-tuning

Safety benchmarks assume that test-condition behavior predicts deployment behavior, an assumption that fails if models detect evaluation cues and adapt. This opens a gap between benchmark performance and deployment behavior: compliance measured under test conditions becomes an optimistic upper bound that overstates how safely a model behaves once the evaluation harness is removed. We characterize this evaluation awareness through eight experiments across 37 open-weight models and seven families. (i)Detection is moderate and training-driven (24/37 models exceed chance, best AUROC 0.714 vs.0.819 human, with instruction tuning dominating over scale). (ii)Detection shifts safety behavior (hard refusal drops 5.8 percentage points under hypothetical framing, and 21/140 HarmBench framing effects are significant, with compliance rising up to +30 percentage points. (iii)Representations survive behavioral collapse (probes retain AUROC 0.98 under rewrites that drive behavior below chance, and multi-layer steering causally moves three downstream tasks while random controls do not). (iv)These axes are weakly coupled (only 1/15 correlations are significant, the sole robust link being behavioral detection versus framing resistance, ρ=-0.79, p<0.001). We call this gap the benchmark illusion: because detectability, behavioral manifestation, and controllability vary independently, it is multivariate rather than a single number, so no single awareness score is a reliable proxy for deployment safety.

Risk scores are simple classification models that let users make quick risk predictions by adding and subtracting a few small numbers. These models are widely used in medicine and criminal justice, but are difficult to learn from data because they need to be calibrated, sparse, use small integer coefficients, and obey application-specific operational constraints. In this paper, we present a new machine learning approach to learn risk scores. We formulate the risk score problem as a mixed integer nonlinear program, and present a cutting plane algorithm for non-convex settings to efficiently recover its optimal solution. We improve our algorithm with specialized techniques to generate feasible solutions, narrow the optimality gap, and reduce data-related computation. Our approach can fit risk scores in a way that scales linearly in the number of samples, provides a certificate of optimality, and obeys real-world constraints without parameter tuning or post-processing. We benchmark the performance benefits of this approach through an extensive set of numerical experiments, comparing to risk scores built using heuristic approaches. We also discuss its practical benefits through a real-world application where we build a customized risk score for ICU seizure prediction in collaboration with the Massachusetts General Hospital.

Outcome RL raises pass@1 but not pass@k at large k (Yue et al., 2025). But every pass@1 is scored under a token budget. Every recipe also trains under one. On physics and math problems at fixed token budgets, we compare the pass@1 of 20 released RL models (1.5B to 32B) with that of the thinking models they started from. We ask whether each pass@1 gain is changed behaviour or new knowledge. We divide each change in pass@1 into three parts. Finishing measures answering before the budget runs out. Reliability measures being right once finished. Reach measures problems RL solves that its base answered wrongly in all eight tries, minus problems the base solves that RL answered wrongly in all eight. We find four things. (1) Where the base often hits the token budget before answering, most of the change, gain or loss, is finishing (82% at 4k and 8k). Given more tokens, the base closes most of the finishing gap itself. (2) Where the base has enough tokens, the gain is reliability: the RL model is graded right more often, even on problems both finish. (3) By our definition, RL rarely solves what its base cannot. Reach adds at most 2.1 percentage points on any of our four physics and math sets. We checked 144 physics problems that only the RL model solved. Of these, 3.5% hold up when resampled or read. In a random sample, nine of ten new RL steps a human confirmed also appear in the base's samples. (4) In a small-scale RL run on an 8B model, the gain on new problems is finishing, with reliability flat. Supplying each problem's physical setup was not shown to improve on plain RL.

Text-to-image models trained on large-scale data often inevitably ingest unsafe content. While some people observe input-output amplifications, it remains unclear whether and how training data composition directly drives model output safety or by other factors. We shed light on this question by isolating this variable: we train the same text-to-image model on datasets that differ only in their fraction of unsafe images (0\% to 9.6\%), across several dataset scales (100K to 8M). Then we generate images with the resulting models, and evaluate them with four independent safety classifiers. Output unsafety rises monotonically from 16.6\% at 0\% contamination to 25.5\% at 5\%. A factorial design reveals that the proportion, not the absolute count, of unsafe training images is the operative variable. The 16.6\% irreducible baseline at zero contamination implicates the other components, e.g. frozen text encoder, as a residual safety risk -- confirmed by a text encoder ablation showing that SafeCLIP reduces this floor to 9.6\%, while the dose-response effect persists across all three encoders tested. Critically, no quality degradation in terms of FID, CLIPscore and ImageReward accompanies safety filtering. These results establish that data curation and text encoder safety are complementary and independently effective interventions. At the same time, the remaining level of unsafety poses questions for future research about emerging capabilities and compositionality.

Reward modeling (RM), which captures human preferences to align large language models (LLMs), is increasingly employed in tasks such as model finetuning, response filtering, and ranking. However, due to the inherent complexity of human preferences and the limited coverage of available datasets, reward models often fail under distributional shifts or adversarial perturbations. Existing approaches for identifying such failure modes typically rely on prior knowledge about preference distributions or failure attributes, limiting their practicality in real-world settings where such information is unavailable. In this work, we propose a tractable, preference-distribution agnostic method for discovering reward model failure modes via reward guided controlled decoding. Building on this, we introduce REFORM, a self-improving reward modeling framework that enhances robustness by using the reward model itself to guide the generation of falsely scored responses. These adversarial examples are then used to augment the training data and patch the reward model's misaligned behavior. We evaluate REFORM on two widely used preference datasets Anthropic Helpful Harmless (HH) and PKU Beavertails and demonstrate that it significantly improves robustness without sacrificing reward quality. Notably, REFORM preserves performance both in direct evaluation and in downstream policy training, and further improves alignment quality by removing spurious correlations.

Between the first visible sign of danger and the moment an accident occurs, there is often a window where intervention remains possible. Video-capable multimodal large language models (MLLMs) could serve as always-on safety monitors that issue warnings during this window. Yet current benchmarks do not test this ability: they rely on static inputs, ignore timing precision, and omit false-positive measurement on safe scenes. We present PaSBench-Video, a 740-video benchmark with 481 risk and 259 no-risk videos across four domains: driving, healthcare, daily life, and industrial production. Risk videos are annotated with frame-level risk onset and accident boundaries. A model must observe the video causally and produce a warning that is both temporally calibrated and content-correct. Testing 13 MLLMs, we find that no model exceeds 20.0% on our strictest metric, and recall is tightly coupled with false-positive rate, with Pearson correlation 0.64: higher detection comes only at the cost of triggering warnings on the majority of safe clips. Performance splits sharply by domain: models achieve moderate recall at low false-positive rates in daily life, where risks are inherently anomalous, yet fire indiscriminately in driving, where routine and hazardous scenes look alike. These results indicate that current models rely on scene-level activity cues rather than reasoning about emerging harm.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for medical and health-related questions, yet their safety in high-risk medical scenarios remains poorly understood. We introduce MedHarmCode and data will be released upon acceptance. Due to the sensitive nature of high-risk medical queries, data access will be available to qualified researchers upon request., a high-risk medical safety benchmark with 1,100 medically grounded queries across 10 safety-critical categories, including toxicology, pharmacology, covert poisoning, anesthesia, and fetal harm. Unlike broad medical QA benchmarks, MedHarm targets realistic clinical, educational, and technical prompts that require refusal, caution, or safe redirection rather than direct helpfulness. We evaluate 15 LLMs spanning general-purpose, medical-purpose, closed-source, and downstream SFT models, together with 4 representative guardrail models. Results reveal a substantial gap between apparent alignment and medical safety: aligned models can still produce unsafe or actionable responses, medical fine-tuning can amplify harmful specificity, and external guardrails reduce some failures while introducing brittle blocking and weak safe helpfulness. These findings show that medical safety cannot be inferred from general alignment or medical capability alone, highlighting the need for domain-specific stress testing before deploying LLMs in safety-critical medical applications.

Banking assistants must use account-specific information to answer requests and, in many cases, take actions through tools. Evaluating only the final response misses important errors. An assistant may ask for information it already has, rely on stale context, select the wrong account, or write an invalid value after stating the correct one. We introduce IndicBankBench, a 799-case benchmark for Indian retail banking spanning five operational domains, a capability/refusal domain, and twenty primary axes. Cases are evaluated at four stages: safety, action and tool use, response adequacy, and advisory quality. Tool use and most safety checks are deterministic. A narrow resolver handles only ambiguous confirmation-before-write cases, while a separate LLM judge evaluates semantic response adequacy. We run every case three times and report strict pass^3, which requires success on all trials. Across the eleven evaluated models, strict reliability ranges from 43.7% to 58.2%, whereas at-least-once success ranges from 60% to 74%. This gap shows that at-least-once success can overstate dependable banking behavior. The case-level diagnostics also distinguish systems that ask unnecessary questions from those that act but fail to reconcile customer context or fully resolve the request. We release the cases, mock environment, and evaluation harness.

AI systems can fail silently. The failure propagates through training loops, evaluation pipelines, and production monitoring stacks until downstream harm makes it visible. This paper introduces evaluation blindness: a measurement function M exhibits evaluation blindness with respect to failure class F when it produces readings indistinguishable from a healthy state while the system is actually failing, with no auxiliary signal flagging the gap. The problem surfaces at two lifecycle stages the literature has treated separately. At training time, reward models are gamed, importance-sampling corrections are silently miscalculated, and benchmark contamination inflates fine-tuning evaluations, all while loss curves look healthy and gradient updates proceed normally. At deployment time, monitoring fails to catch six classes of production failure, including an Operational category that is 100% silent by structural definition. We provide a formal detectability predicate unifying both stages. Four training-time case studies trace concrete breakdowns, including a real implementation bug in TRL PR #6594 where gradients are corrupted as loss decreases normally. A six-class taxonomy validated against 50 real-world incidents from court documents and regulatory filings finds that 53% of verifiable public failures were silent. A failure budget framework ties acceptable failure rates to use-case risk class. The implication is direct: measurement infrastructure is a correctness concern across the full AI lifecycle, not just at evaluation time. Data, code, and taxonomy schema are at https://github.com/priyanka25aug/llm-failure-taxonomy.

Time series forecasting (TSF) increasingly drives decisions in transportation, energy, finance, healthcare, and infrastructure, yet current evaluation remains overly narrow: standard benchmarks reward low held-out error, while robustness studies typically reduce failure to Gaussian noise, random masking, or bounded adversarial perturbations. This obscures the real failure modes of deployed forecasting systems. Input-side anomalies are not merely noisier inputs: they often reflect structured events that alter temporal dynamics, break cross-variable dependencies, induce regime shifts, or propagate from faulty sensors to downstream decisions. These semantic, causal, and system-level failures cannot be faithfully captured by i.i.d. perturbations alone. The rise of TSF foundation models makes this evaluation gap more urgent, as unauditable pretraining corpora make held-out generalization increasingly unreliable. We therefore advocate scenario-grounded stress testing. Each test instance should include historical inputs and future targets, together with a semantic scenario, an explicit failure operator, and a measurable difficulty level. This shift makes evaluation interpretable, attributable, and deployment-relevant and friendly, enabling the community to ask not only which model is accurate, but under what conditions it fails and why.

Medication reconciliation at clinical handoffs is a high-stakes, error-prone process. Large language models are increasingly proposed to assist with this task using FHIR-structured patient records, but a fundamental and largely unstudied variable is how the FHIR data is serialised before being passed to the model. We present the first systematic comparison of four FHIR serialisation strategies (Raw JSON, Markdown Table, Clinical Narrative, and Chronological Timeline) across five open-weight models (Phi-3.5-mini, Mistral-7B, BioMistral-7B, Llama-3.1-8B, Llama-3.3-70B) on a controlled benchmark of 200 synthetic patients, totalling 4,000 inference runs. We find that serialisation strategy has a large, statistically significant effect on performance for models up to 8B parameters: Clinical Narrative outperforms Raw JSON by up to 19 F1 points for Mistral-7B (r = 0.617, p < 10^{-10}). This advantage reverses at 70B, where Raw JSON achieves the best mean F1 of 0.9956. In all 20 model and strategy combinations, mean precision exceeds mean recall: omission is the dominant failure mode, with models more often missing an active medication than fabricating one, which changes how clinical safety auditing priorities should be set. Smaller models plateau at roughly 7-10 concurrent active medications, leaving polypharmacy patients, the patients most at risk from reconciliation errors, systematically underserved. BioMistral-7B, a domain-pretrained model without instruction tuning, produces zero usable output in all conditions, showing that domain pretraining alone is not sufficient for structured extraction. These results offer practical, evidence-based format recommendations for clinical LLM deployment: Clinical Narrative for models up to 8B, Raw JSON for 70B and above. The complete pipeline is reproducible on open-source tools running on an AWS g6e.xlarge instance (NVIDIA L40S, 48 GB VRAM).

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked concerns over their potential to acquire and misuse dangerous or high-risk capabilities, posing frontier risks. Current safety evaluations primarily test for what a model can do - its capabilities - without assessing what it would do if endowed with high-risk capabilities. This leaves a critical blind spot: models may strategically conceal capabilities or rapidly acquire them, while harboring latent inclinations toward misuse. We argue that propensity - the likelihood of a model to pursue harmful actions if empowered - is a critical, yet underexplored, axis of safety evaluation. We present PropensityBench, a novel benchmark framework that assesses the proclivity of models to engage in risky behaviors when equipped with simulated dangerous capabilities using proxy tools. Our framework includes 5,874 scenarios with 6,648 tools spanning four high-risk domains: cybersecurity, self-proliferation, biosecurity, and chemical security. We simulate access to powerful capabilities via a controlled agentic environment and evaluate the models' choices under varying operational pressures that reflect real-world constraints or incentives models may encounter, such as resource scarcity or gaining more autonomy. Across open-source and proprietary frontier models, we uncover 9 alarming signs of propensity: models frequently choose high-risk tools when under pressure, despite lacking the capability to execute such actions unaided. These findings call for a shift from static capability audits toward dynamic propensity assessments as a prerequisite for deploying frontier AI systems safely. Our code is available at https://github.com/scaleapi/propensity-evaluation.

Clinical early warning systems built on irregularly sampled medical time series (ISMTS) from electronic health records must deliver continuous risk scores for patient triage as well as interpretable rationales that clinicians can verify. Large language models (LLMs) are uniquely positioned for both, deriving risk from their output probabilities and rationales from their medical knowledge. However, we find that conventional LLM reasoning collapses graded risk into overconfident predictions and thereby undermines the cross-patient comparability on which triage depends. We refer to this failure mode as risk polarization and identify two underlying behaviors: early commitment to a single outcome, and one-sided reasoning that focuses only on the evidence for that outcome. To address this, we propose TRIAGE, a framework that trains an LLM to reason dialectically over competing clinical outcomes by eliciting outcome-specific rationales. This dialectical formulation mitigates risk polarization, enabling a single LLM to jointly provide explicit clinical rationales and risk scores comparable across patients. Across five ISMTS benchmarks, TRIAGE improves mean AUPRC by 17.0% and reduces mean calibration error by 82.8% relative to the competitive LLM-based baseline, while surpassing the strongest ISMTS baseline by 3.5% in mean AUPRC.

Personal AI agents like OpenClaw run with elevated privileges on users' local machines, where a single successful prompt injection can leak credentials, redirect financial transactions, or destroy files. This threat goes well beyond conventional text-level jailbreaks, yet existing safety evaluations fall short: most test models in isolated chat settings, rely on synthetic environments, and do not account for how the agent framework itself shapes safety outcomes. We introduce CLAWSAFETY, a benchmark of 120 adversarial test scenarios organized along three dimensions (harm domain, attack vector, and harmful action type) and grounded in realistic, high-privilege professional workspaces spanning software engineering, finance, healthcare, law, and DevOps. Each test case embeds adversarial content in one of three channels the agent encounters during normal work: workspace skill files, emails from trusted senders, and web pages. We evaluate five frontier LLMs as agent backbones, running 2,520 sandboxed trials across all configurations. Attack success rates (ASR) range from 40\% to 75\% across models and vary sharply by injection vector, with skill instructions (highest trust) consistently more dangerous than email or web content. Action-trace analysis reveals that the strongest model maintains hard boundaries against credential forwarding and destructive actions, while weaker models permit both. Cross-scaffold experiments on three agent frameworks further demonstrate that safety is not determined by the backbone model alone but depends on the full deployment stack, calling for safety evaluation that treats model and framework as joint variables. Code and data will be available at: https://weibowen555.github.io/ClawSafety/.

The application scope of Large Language Models (LLMs) continues to expand, leading to increasing interest in personalized LLMs that align with human values. However, aligning these models with individual values raises significant safety concerns, as certain values may correlate with harmful information. In this paper, we identify specific safety risks associated with value-aligned LLMs and investigate the psychological principles behind these challenges. Our findings reveal two key insights. (1) Value-aligned LLMs are more prone to harmful behavior compared to non-fine-tuned models and exhibit slightly higher risks in traditional safety evaluations than other fine-tuned models. (2) These safety issues arise because value-aligned LLMs genuinely generate text according to the aligned values, which can amplify harmful outcomes. Using a dataset with detailed safety categories, we find significant correlations between value alignment and safety risks, supported by psychological hypotheses. This study offers insights into the "black box" of value alignment and proposes in-context alignment methods to enhance the safety of value-aligned LLMs.

Large Language Model (LLM) safety is one of the most pressing challenges for enabling wide-scale deployment. While most studies and global discussions focus on generic harms, such as models assisting users in harming themselves or others, enterprises face a more fundamental concern: whether LLM-based agents are safe for their intended use case. To address this, we introduce operational safety, defined as an LLM's ability to appropriately accept or refuse user queries when tasked with a specific purpose. We further propose OffTopicEval, an evaluation suite and benchmark for measuring operational safety both in general and within specific agentic use cases. Our evaluations on six model families comprising 20 open-weight LLMs reveal that while performance varies across models, all of them remain highly operationally unsafe. Even the strongest models -- Qwen-3 (235B) with 77.77\% and Mistral (24B) with 79.96\% -- fall far short of reliable operational safety, while GPT models plateau in the 62--73\% range, Phi achieves only mid-level scores (48--70\%), and Gemma and Llama-3 collapse to 39.53\% and 23.84\%, respectively. While operational safety is a core model alignment issue, to suppress these failures, we propose prompt-based steering methods: query grounding (Q-ground) and system-prompt grounding (P-ground), which substantially improve OOD refusal. Q-ground provides consistent gains of up to 23\%, while P-ground delivers even larger boosts, raising Llama-3.3 (70B) by 41\% and Qwen-3 (30B) by 27\%. These results highlight both the urgent need for operational safety interventions and the promise of prompt-based steering as a first step toward more reliable LLM-based agents.

Reproducing a machine learning paper involves most research steps, from installing software and debugging to running experiments, work that AI agents increasingly do. We introduce RECLAIM, a benchmark of 100 NeurIPS 2025 papers that can be rebuilt yearly from new conferences. For each paper we fix in advance the result to reproduce, what counts as a successful reproduction, and a GPU-hour budget. An agent must reproduce that result using the paper and whatever its authors released. What the authors released decides the difficulty tier. Run-tier releases include code, data, and weights; Retrain-tier releases lack weights, so the agent trains the model; Reimplement-tier releases lack code, so the agent writes it. A separate language model grades runs from logs and outputs rather than agents' reports. We run four agents once per paper; the best agent in each tier reproduces only 41% of Run-tier papers, 27% at Retrain, and 15% at Reimplement, where every agent does worst. Failed attempts use on average 29% of their budget, so most stop with budget left. The most common agent error is writing the method without checking any part against the paper's numbers, in 63 of 400 runs.

Multimodal safety moderation requires distinguishing risks arising from visual content, user intent, and assistant behavior. Existing safeguards, however, are typically trained for a single judgment target and reduce safety assessment to a binary decision. Consequently, risk becomes difficult to compare across a multimodal interaction, and ambiguous cases are obscured. We introduce SafeAtlas-VL, a dataset of 1.5M training instances that places image-, request-, and response-level judgments on a five-level ordered scale. We curate a broad collection of safety-relevant data from both real-world and synthetic sources and apply a disagreement-aware annotation procedure. The resulting dataset spans 15 harm categories and 55 fine-grained subcategories, covering a broad range of multimodal safety scenarios. We also construct SafeAtlas-Bench, a held-out set of 5,000 instances for evaluating five-level predictions and continuous risk scores. Upon this dataset, we train the SafeAtlas Guard series of models via target-conditioned tuning for multimodal safety detection. Our models not only perform five-way classification of safety levels but also map safety to continuous scores through a soft cumulative ordinal head. Experimental results demonstrate that guard models trained on our dataset exhibit strong generalization: even without using the training sets of other benchmarks, they achieve competitive performance on the corresponding test sets. Notably, our 8B model attains the overall best performance, outperforming the previous SOTA by approximately 4% in F1 score. Code, data, and models are released to support further research. Warning: this paper contains example data that may be offensive, harmful, graphic, or disturbing.

We present CogEvol, a family of models trained specifically for Learning Environment Generation: turning a course brief into a finished learning artifact (structured-JSON slides or self-contained interactive HTML pages) in a single pass. Across 220k production requests, CogEvol completes a slide in a median of 17 seconds and an interactive page in 59, replacing minutes-long multi-turn agent scaffolding. Reliability is enforced rather than hoped for: a production-grounded data pipeline turns real failures into 53,687 verified SFT samples, and a hybrid rule-plus-VLM reward drives GRPO-based RL, hardened after we caught and fixed a reward-hacking episode that produced visually convincing but unplayable games. CogEvol-27B scores 83.7 on slide quality and 63.7 on a 500-case interactive-HTML benchmark with 26.9x fewer parameters than flagship coding models, and, in collaboration with the OpenMAIC team, serves their live production traffic. CogEvol-4B is released openly under the Apache 2.0 license at https://github.com/CogEvol/CogEvol-4B; external flagships are measured on the same suites under the identical harness. Scaffold editing cuts interactive-page generation cost by a further ~76%, and the full stack runs on domestic Ascend accelerators at application-level parity with A800 GPUs, lowering the unit cost of AI-native education at scale.

Kimi K2.5 is an open-weight LLM that rivals closed models across coding, multimodal, and agentic benchmarks, but was released without an accompanying safety evaluation. In this work, we conduct a preliminary safety assessment of Kimi K2.5 focusing on risks likely to be exacerbated by powerful open-weight models. Specifically, we evaluate the model for CBRNE misuse risk, cybersecurity risk, misalignment, political censorship, bias, and harmlessness, in both agentic and non-agentic settings. We find that Kimi K2.5 shows similar dual-use capabilities to GPT 5.2 and Claude Opus 4.5, but with significantly fewer refusals on CBRNE-related requests, suggesting it may uplift malicious actors in weapon creation. On cyber-related tasks, we find that Kimi K2.5 demonstrates competitive cybersecurity performance, but it does not appear to possess frontier-level autonomous cyberoffensive capabilities such as vulnerability discovery and exploitation. We further find that Kimi K2.5 shows concerning levels of sabotage ability and self-replication propensity, although it does not appear to have long-term malicious goals. In addition, Kimi K2.5 exhibits narrow censorship and political bias, especially in Chinese, and is more compliant with harmful requests related to spreading disinformation and copyright infringement. Finally, we find the model refuses to engage in user delusions and generally has low over-refusal rates. While preliminary, our findings highlight how safety risks exist in frontier open-weight models and may be amplified by the scale and accessibility of open-weight releases. Therefore, we strongly urge open-weight model developers to conduct and release more systematic safety evaluations required for responsible deployment.

Vision-language model safety benchmarks typically evaluate only final responses: whether a model refuses, warns, or complies. This outcome-level view cannot tell whether a model is safe for the right multimodal reason. Safelooking behavior may reflect keyword-triggered refusal, missed visual hazards, or over-refusal of benign-sensitive inputs. We introduce EviSafe, an evidence-grounded framework for VLM safety that jointly evaluates natural user-facing behavior, explicit grounding in textual and visual evidence, and behavioral sensitivity to counterfactual changes in safety-critical evidence. EviSafeBench instantiates the framework as a controlled benchmark with 1,181 gold image-text scenarios and 2,452 targeted counterfactual variants across eight safety domains and eight risk-source types. Each scenario includes a gold safety decision, evidence annotations, a safe-response policy, and counterfactual interventions. The three-probe protocol queries models with natural-response, evidencereporting, and counterfactual-response prompts, then scores them using an evidence-aware judge. Across eleven evaluated VLMs, natural severity accuracy ranges from 27.6% to 52.8%, relaxed diagnostic consistency from 6.1% to 29.3%, and unsafe-to-safe counterfactual transition success from 30.4% to 58.4%. These gaps show that the evaluated VLMs are not reliably safe for the right multimodal reason and motivate evaluation beyond refusal counts.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become an integral part of our daily lives. However, they impose certain risks, including those that can harm individuals' privacy, perpetuate biases and spread misinformation. These risks highlight the need for robust safety mechanisms, ethical guidelines, and thorough testing to ensure their responsible deployment. Safety of LLMs is a key property that needs to be thoroughly tested prior the model to be deployed and accessible to the general users. This paper reports the external safety testing experience conducted by researchers from Mondragon University and University of Seville on OpenAI's new o3-mini LLM as part of OpenAI's early access for safety testing program. In particular, we apply our tool, ASTRAL, to automatically and systematically generate up to date unsafe test inputs (i.e., prompts) that helps us test and assess different safety categories of LLMs. We automatically generate and execute a total of 10,080 unsafe test input on a early o3-mini beta version. After manually verifying the test cases classified as unsafe by ASTRAL, we identify a total of 87 actual instances of unsafe LLM behavior. We highlight key insights and findings uncovered during the pre-deployment external testing phase of OpenAI's latest LLM.

Organizations of all sizes, across all industries and domains are leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to solve some of their biggest challenges around operations, customer experience, and much more. However, due to the probabilistic nature of AI, the risks associated with it are far greater than traditional technologies. Research has shown that these risks can range anywhere from regulatory, compliance, reputational, and user trust, to financial and even societal risks. Depending on the nature and size of the organization, AI technologies can pose a significant risk, if not used in a responsible way. This position paper seeks to present a brief introduction to AI governance, which is a framework designed to oversee the responsible use of AI with the goal of preventing and mitigating risks. Having such a framework will not only manage risks but also gain maximum value out of AI projects and develop consistency for organization-wide adoption of AI.

Globally, artificial intelligence (AI) implementation is growing, holding the capability to fundamentally alter organisational processes and decision making. Simultaneously, this brings a multitude of emergent risks to organisations, exposing vulnerabilities in their extant risk management frameworks. This necessitates a greater understanding of how organisations can position themselves in response. This issue is particularly pertinent within the financial sector with relatively mature AI applications matched with severe societal repercussions of potential risk events. Despite this, academic risk management literature is trailing behind the speed of AI implementation. Adopting a management perspective, this study aims to contribute to the understanding of AI risk management in organisations through an exploratory empirical investigation into these practices. In-depth insights are gained through interviews with nine practitioners from different organisations within the UK financial sector. Through examining areas of organisational convergence and divergence, the findings of this study unearth levels of risk management framework readiness and prevailing approaches to risk management at both a processual and organisational level. Whilst enhancing the developing literature concerning AI risk management within organisations, the study simultaneously offers a practical contribution, providing key areas of guidance for practitioners in the operational development of AI risk management frameworks.

Many applications involve estimating the mean of multiple binomial outcomes as a common problem -- assessing intergenerational mobility of census tracts, estimating prevalence of infectious diseases across countries, and measuring click-through rates for different demographic groups. The most standard approach is to report the plain average of each outcome. Despite simplicity, the estimates are noisy when the sample sizes or mean parameters are small. In contrast, the Empirical Bayes (EB) methods are able to boost the average accuracy by borrowing information across tasks. Nevertheless, the EB methods require a Bayesian model where the parameters are sampled from a prior distribution which, unlike the commonly-studied Gaussian case, is unidentified due to discreteness of binomial measurements. Even if the prior distribution is known, the computation is difficult when the sample sizes are heterogeneous as there is no simple joint conjugate prior for the sample size and mean parameter. In this paper, we consider the compound decision framework which treats the sample size and mean parameters as fixed quantities. We develop an approximate Stein's Unbiased Risk Estimator (SURE) for the average mean squared error given any class of estimators. For a class of machine learning-assisted linear shrinkage estimators, we establish asymptotic optimality, regret bounds, and valid inference. Unlike existing work, we work with the binomials directly without resorting to Gaussian approximations. This allows us to work with small sample sizes and/or mean parameters in both one-sample and two-sample settings. We demonstrate our approach using three datasets on firm discrimination, education outcomes, and innovation rates.

The maintenance risks of open source software (OSS) projects pose significant threats to the quality, security, and resilience of modern software supply chains. While prior research has proposed diverse approaches for predicting OSS maintenance risk -- leveraging signals ranging from surface features (e.g., stars, commits) to social network analyses and behavioral patterns -- existing methods often suffer from ambiguous operational definitions, limited interpretability, and datasets of insufficient scale or generalizability. In this work, we introduce ``maintenance cessation'', grounded in both explicit archival status and rigorous semantic analysis of project documentation. Building on this foundation, we curate a large-scale, longitudinal dataset of 115,466 GitHub repositories -- encompassing 57,733 confirmed cessation events -- complemented by comprehensive, timeline-based behavioral features. We propose an integrated, multi-perspective feature framework for predicting maintenance cessation, systematically combining user-centric features, maintainer-centric features and project evolution features. AFT survival analysis demonstrates a high C-index (0.846), substantially outperforming models relying only on surface features. Feature ablation and SHAP analysis further confirm the effectiveness and interpretability of our approach. Finally, we demonstrate real-world applicability by deploying a GBSA classifier in the openEuler ecosystem for proactive package risk screening. Our work establishes a scalable, interpretable foundation for maintenance-risk prediction, enabling reproducible risk management across large-scale open source ecosystems.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) and generative AI become more widespread, the content safety risks associated with their use also increase. We find a notable deficiency in high-quality content safety datasets and benchmarks that comprehensively cover a wide range of critical safety areas. To address this, we define a broad content safety risk taxonomy, comprising 13 critical risk and 9 sparse risk categories. Additionally, we curate AEGISSAFETYDATASET, a new dataset of approximately 26, 000 human-LLM interaction instances, complete with human annotations adhering to the taxonomy. We plan to release this dataset to the community to further research and to help benchmark LLM models for safety. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the dataset, we instruction-tune multiple LLM-based safety models. We show that our models (named AEGISSAFETYEXPERTS), not only surpass or perform competitively with the state-of-the-art LLM-based safety models and general purpose LLMs, but also exhibit robustness across multiple jail-break attack categories. We also show how using AEGISSAFETYDATASET during the LLM alignment phase does not negatively impact the performance of the aligned models on MT Bench scores. Furthermore, we propose AEGIS, a novel application of a no-regret online adaptation framework with strong theoretical guarantees, to perform content moderation with an ensemble of LLM content safety experts in deployment

Comprehensive evaluations of language models (LM) during both development and deployment phases are necessary because these models possess numerous capabilities (e.g., mathematical reasoning, legal support, or medical diagnostic) as well as safety risks (e.g., racial bias, toxicity, or misinformation). The average score across a wide range of benchmarks provides a signal that helps guide the use of these LMs in practice. Currently, holistic evaluations are costly due to the large volume of benchmark questions, making frequent evaluations impractical. A popular attempt to lower the cost is to compute the average score on a subset of the benchmark. This approach, unfortunately, often renders an unreliable measure of LM performance because the average score is often confounded with the difficulty of the questions in the benchmark subset. Item response theory (IRT) was designed to address this challenge, providing a reliable measurement by careful controlling for question difficulty. Unfortunately, question difficulty is expensive to estimate. Facing this challenge, we train a model that predicts question difficulty from its content, enabling a reliable measurement at a fraction of the cost. In addition, we leverage this difficulty predictor to further improve the evaluation efficiency through training a question generator given a difficulty level. This question generator is essential in adaptive testing, where, instead of using a random subset of the benchmark questions, informative questions are adaptively chosen based on the current estimation of LLM performance. Experiments on 22 common natural language benchmarks and 172 LMs show that this approach is more reliable and efficient compared to current common practice.

Long-running LLM agents act through tools, and a single step can send an email, merge a pull request, or wire a payment. The steering decision is the pre-commit choice at that boundary: proceed, or hold for human or policy review. We introduce SteerBench-Work, an incident-anchored, bidirectional benchmark for that decision in workplace agents across developer operations, customer service, finance, legal, medical, HR, and security. Release v2026-05 contains 106 scenarios anchored in public incidents, paired evidence-reversed mirrors, and calibration controls, with labels split nearly evenly between proceed and hold so the two error directions get near-identical numbers of chances. A model sees the proposed action and the available evidence, returns a gate decision, and is scored on whether it crosses or holds the boundary correctly. Across 30 model conditions the failures run almost entirely in one direction: models wrongly hold authorized, evidence-cleared work on 28.1% of opportunities and wrongly allow unsafe work on 1.0%. The hardest cases are risk-resolved commits, where signed or structured evidence has already cleared a real risk trigger, and models score markedly worse on evidence-reversed mirrors of famous incidents (63.8%) than on the incidents themselves (98.5%). General capability is not the same as steering calibration: higher-capability models often over-refuse at the commit boundary, and more reasoning can repair a weak gate while leaving a calibrated one flat. The public leaderboard is at steerbench.com.

Software engineers develop, fine-tune, and deploy deep learning (DL) models. They use and re-use models in a variety of development frameworks and deploy them on a range of runtime environments. In this diverse ecosystem, engineers use DL model converters to move models from frameworks to runtime environments. However, errors in converters can compromise model quality and disrupt deployment. The failure frequency and failure modes of DL model converters are unknown. In this paper, we conduct the first failure analysis on DL model converters. Specifically, we characterize failures in model converters associated with ONNX (Open Neural Network eXchange). We analyze past failures in the ONNX converters in two major DL frameworks, PyTorch and TensorFlow. The symptoms, causes, and locations of failures (for N=200 issues), and trends over time are also reported. We also evaluate present-day failures by converting 8,797 models, both real-world and synthetically generated instances. The consistent result from both parts of the study is that DL model converters commonly fail by producing models that exhibit incorrect behavior: 33% of past failures and 8% of converted models fell into this category. Our results motivate future research on making DL software simpler to maintain, extend, and validate.

Safety routers send each request to one of several models and are judged against the best single model. A major routing benchmark picks that comparator on the evaluation data. In the benchmark's own setting this is harmless, but under distribution shift it is not. On HELM Safety the selection cost is 0.003-0.030 of harm under random splits and 0.045-0.113 under held-out categories, comparable to the whole deficit attributed to routing, with its direction holding under either published judge alone. It rises seven- to ninefold on AgentDojo when suites are held out. Across seven safety corpora chosen by rules fixed in advance, three meet a registered interval test and four beat a later permutation null, and three of the four interval misses are corpora where some models have zero observed harm. Prior work proves the direction of this bias. We size it on harm and accuracy, show that it is larger under the held-out splits we measure, and bound it by optimism plus a shift-dependent regret. Scored honestly under shift, routing buys little on these benchmarks. In most pool cells the nested router serves the honest baseline's model, and on the nearly saturated AgentDojo corpus a perfect pre-dispatch router is worth at most two points of harm. We also find a model's expressed recognition of a late injection steerable. On held-out reruns an attacker who knows which model it faces lowers GPT-5.4's judged recognition by 19.6 points, confirmed by an independent label. In an offline counterfactual composition into a controller, the same attack raises or lowers estimated harm depending on the fallback model. Safety routing should be evaluated under shift, against a baseline chosen without the test labels, and recognition-based defences should be scored on harm against an attacker who chooses what the model sees.

When an LLM agent reads a confidential file, then writes a summary, then emails it externally, no single step is unsafe, but the sequence is a data leak. We call this safety drift: individually safe actions compounding into violations. Prior work has measured this problem; we predict it. SafetyDrift models agent safety trajectories as absorbing Markov chains, computing the probability that a trajectory will reach a violation within a given number of steps via closed form absorption analysis. A consequence of the monotonic state design is that every agent will eventually violate safety if left unsupervised (absorption probability 1.0 from all states), making the practical question not if but when, and motivating our focus on finite horizon prediction. Across 357 traces spanning 40 realistic tasks in four categories, we discover that "points of no return" are sharply task dependent: in communication tasks, agents that reach even a mild risk state have an 85% chance of violating safety within five steps, while in technical tasks the probability stays below 5% from any state. A lightweight monitor built on these models detects 94.7% of violations with 3.7 steps of advance warning at negligible computational cost, outperforming both keyword matching (44.7% detection, 55.9% false positive rate) and per step LLM judges (52.6% detection, 38.2% false positive rate) while running over 60,000x faster.

Machine-learned interatomic potentials distilled from foundation models enable fast large-scale molecular dynamics (MD), but they can fail locally in chemical environments that their training data did not sample. System-averaged error metrics and small random audits often miss such sparse or isolated failures. Here we use an exact equivariant foundation model, MACE-MPA-0, to check every atom of million-atom production simulations. Reorganizing two-layer MACE inference into a receiver-chunked three-pass schedule that keeps no per-edge intermediates resident reduces the marginal memory per atom 340-fold, evaluates up to 2.86times10^{7} atoms on a single H200 GPU, and supervises 10^{6}-atom trajectories in LAMMPS at 1.3% of the run time. Distilled MACE students run four to nine times slower than NEP89 with 0.95-1.28 times the teacher's force error against density functional theory (DFT). In molten SiO_2, whole-system checks uncover a persistent tail of under-coordinated atoms hidden by the system-averaged error and an isolated, unphysical O-O contact that a 1% random audit misses 94% of the time. On-the-fly retraining on teacher-labelled 13-Å clusters, with the force loss restricted to their inner 6 Å, removes three quarters of the failure tail and the kilobar-level pressure biases in SiO_2 and compressed water; the repair converges to the teacher, not to DFT.

Frontier model progress is often measured by academic benchmarks, which offer a limited view of performance in real-world professional contexts. Existing evaluations often fail to assess open-ended, economically consequential tasks in high-stakes domains like Legal and Finance, where practical returns are paramount. To address this, we introduce Professional Reasoning Bench (PRBench), a realistic, open-ended, and difficult benchmark of real-world problems in Finance and Law. We open-source its 1,100 expert-authored tasks and 19,356 expert-curated criteria, making it, to our knowledge, the largest public, rubric-based benchmark for both legal and finance domains. We recruit 182 qualified professionals, holding JDs, CFAs, or 6+ years of experience, who contributed tasks inspired by their actual workflows. This process yields significant diversity, with tasks spanning 114 countries and 47 US jurisdictions. Our expert-curated rubrics are validated through a rigorous quality pipeline, including independent expert validation. Subsequent evaluation of 20 leading models reveals substantial room for improvement, with top scores of only 0.39 (Finance) and 0.37 (Legal) on our Hard subsets. We further catalog associated economic impacts of the prompts and analyze performance using human-annotated rubric categories. Our analysis shows that models with similar overall scores can diverge significantly on specific capabilities. Common failure modes include inaccurate judgments, a lack of process transparency and incomplete reasoning, highlighting critical gaps in their reliability for professional adoption.

Code generated by large language models passes security checks at a rate that has barely moved in four years. In regulated backends, the defect classes that matter most are money arithmetic, time handling, retry safety, and access control. Teams answer with instruction files, yet the largest controlled study of instruction files to date found no benefit. This paper tests a narrower idea: generated code improves when the prompt carries a specification, a fixed preamble stating what must be true of the result. We pre-registered hypotheses, refuters, analysis code, and a one-shot generation rule, then ran 50 realistic backend tasks from finance, healthcare, and insurance practice through five frontier models from five vendor lineages, each task twice: bare, and preceded by a 267-word filled specification frame. Nine deterministic AST-based checkers scored the outputs. The Bandit security scanner, which knows nothing of the frame, scored them independently. The frame reduced defects in all five models (mean reduction 0.16 to 0.70 findings per task, every Holm-adjusted sign test significant, every bootstrap confidence interval excluding zero). Where the arms differed, the frame arm won 95 of 100 times. It never made any model worse in any domain. Bandit found 53 medium-or-high issues in the bare arm and 11 in the frame arm, in the same direction for every model. The effect was largest where a model's unprompted defaults were weakest: the frame supplies the discipline a model lacks. All 500 outputs, prompts, checkers, scoring code, and the pre-registration are published with a DOI, so any team can re-derive the result without trusting the author.

LLM-based agents are becoming increasingly proficient at solving web-based tasks. With this capability comes a greater risk of misuse for malicious purposes, such as posting misinformation in an online forum or selling illicit substances on a website. To evaluate these risks, we propose SafeArena, the first benchmark to focus on the deliberate misuse of web agents. SafeArena comprises 250 safe and 250 harmful tasks across four websites. We classify the harmful tasks into five harm categories -- misinformation, illegal activity, harassment, cybercrime, and social bias, designed to assess realistic misuses of web agents. We evaluate leading LLM-based web agents, including GPT-4o, Claude-3.5 Sonnet, Qwen-2-VL 72B, and Llama-3.2 90B, on our benchmark. To systematically assess their susceptibility to harmful tasks, we introduce the Agent Risk Assessment framework that categorizes agent behavior across four risk levels. We find agents are surprisingly compliant with malicious requests, with GPT-4o and Qwen-2 completing 34.7% and 27.3% of harmful requests, respectively. Our findings highlight the urgent need for safety alignment procedures for web agents. Our benchmark is available here: https://safearena.github.io

The recent performance leap of Large Language Models (LLMs) opens up new opportunities across numerous industrial applications and domains. However, erroneous generations, such as false predictions, misinformation, and hallucination made by LLMs, have also raised severe concerns for the trustworthiness of LLMs', especially in safety-, security- and reliability-sensitive scenarios, potentially hindering real-world adoptions. While uncertainty estimation has shown its potential for interpreting the prediction risks made by general machine learning (ML) models, little is known about whether and to what extent it can help explore an LLM's capabilities and counteract its undesired behavior. To bridge the gap, in this paper, we initiate an exploratory study on the risk assessment of LLMs from the lens of uncertainty. In particular, we experiment with twelve uncertainty estimation methods and four LLMs on four prominent natural language processing (NLP) tasks to investigate to what extent uncertainty estimation techniques could help characterize the prediction risks of LLMs. Our findings validate the effectiveness of uncertainty estimation for revealing LLMs' uncertain/non-factual predictions. In addition to general NLP tasks, we extensively conduct experiments with four LLMs for code generation on two datasets. We find that uncertainty estimation can potentially uncover buggy programs generated by LLMs. Insights from our study shed light on future design and development for reliable LLMs, facilitating further research toward enhancing the trustworthiness of LLMs.

An agentic system issues several structurally different kinds of LLM calls. It routes intent, classifies actions, grounds language in a device registry, plans multi-agent pipelines and writes the Python code those pipelines run. The difficulty of these call sites varies by an order of magnitude, yet in practice a single model, chosen for the hardest site, serves all of them. In this work, we evaluate 9 models from 0.8B to a frontier hosted model across the five call sites of a deployed open-source home-automation framework (Wactorz), using its unmodified production prompts and two real Home Assistant installations (280 cases, 2520 scored calls). We find that capability is not ordered the same way at every site, and that larger models are not uniformly better: one 4B model is worse than its 2B sibling at grounded actuation. Paired testing shows the best local model to be statistically indistinguishable from both hosted models at four of five sites. Only code generation separates them, against a small hosted model (p = 0.039) as well as a frontier one (p = 0.002). Aggregate accuracy also hides a safety failure specific to actuation, where small models resolve the accuracy/refusal trade-off in degenerate ways: one model (Gemma4 E2B) actuates on 87.2% of requests for devices the site does not own, while another refuses every request it receives. Routing each site to its best local model reaches 91.8% against 95.4% at no per-call cost. In a live deployment judged by a user, hosting only the two generative sites matches hosting everything (39/43 against 39/43) for 28% of the spend, and the actuation gap the benchmark predicted appears as exactly one case in twenty-six. Benchmark, harness and all records are released at https://github.com/waldiez/slm-callsite-eval.

Large language models are rapidly being deployed as AI tutors, yet current evaluation paradigms assess problem-solving accuracy and generic safety in isolation, failing to capture whether a model is simultaneously pedagogically effective and safe across student-tutor interaction. We argue that tutoring safety is fundamentally different from conventional LLM safety: the primary risk is not toxic content but the quiet erosion of learning through answer over-disclosure, misconception reinforcement, and the abdication of scaffolding. To systematically study this failure mode, we introduce SafeTutors, a benchmark that jointly evaluates safety and pedagogy across mathematics, physics, and chemistry. SafeTutors is organized around a theoretically grounded risk taxonomy comprising 11 harm dimensions and 48 sub-risks drawn from learning-science literature. We uncover that all models show broad harm; scale doesn't reliably help; and multi-turn dialogue worsens behavior, with pedagogical failures rising from 17.7% to 77.8%. Harms also vary by subject, so mitigations must be discipline-aware, and single-turn "safe/helpful" results can mask systematic tutor failure over extended interaction.

Agentic coding assistants are increasingly given extra capabilities, such as browser based testing tools and design oriented system prompts, on the assumption that more capability yields better software. This study tested that assumption directly. Ninety independent agent runs built the same application, a real time retrospective board, from one detailed specification, each scored on a fixed 14 criterion functional rubric (42 point maximum) and a visual quality review. The runs spanned several model generations, two agent harnesses, two reasoning effort levels, a testing tool, and two design oriented prompts. Capability tier dominated: frontier models clustered near the ceiling while a low cost local model fell to 24 to 37 points. A criterion level analysis revealed what run totals conceal. Container deployment was the dominant defect, failing first try in 44 percent of runs, with its failure rate shifting sharply across model generations while mean totals moved less than a point. The testing tool raised cost by 42 to 68 percent without improving functional score or reliability, even on interface visible criteria. Raising reasoning effort from High to xHigh lifted first try perfect runs from 28 percent to 89 percent and cut corrective prompts about five fold, for 9 to 29 percent more cost. A design oriented prompt raised visual quality, 4.5 versus 3.0 on a 5 point scale, without lifting function, and a one paragraph paraphrase of its directive reproduced the entire lift. The practical lesson is to match the fix to the failure: most first run failures came from weak reasoning, which a stronger model or more effort prevents, not from visible flaws a checking tool would catch.

Quantized checkpoints are often screened first with quality metrics and only later, if at all, with direct safety tests. This paper audits that shortcut on a matched 51-row matrix spanning 6 models, 4 families, a 7-level GGUF ladder, and AWQ/GPTQ INT4 checkpoints. In this matrix the shortcut fails: all 36 quality-safety pairings split direction across models, and 9 hidden-danger rows plus 1 near-hidden-danger row show quality stable or improved while refusal falls by 12-68 percentage points. Seven of the 11 AWQ/GPTQ rows are hidden-danger. A four-probe mechanistic follow-up over the 17 Hugging Face-backed FP16/AWQ/GPTQ cells does not rescue it: entropy, refusal-direction, and calibration probes are weak or null separators of dangerous rows, and although probe-identified safety-associated neurons absorb 1.39times more quantization error overall (p < 5 times 10^{-7}), the effect is not regime-specific. Claude Sonnet 4 relabels 11,470 items in a predefined stratified set, agrees with the primary gemma3:12b judge on 89.9\% of rows (κ= 0.873, 95\% CI [0.866, 0.881]), and changes 0/10 hidden-danger cells. A calibrated study-internal behavioral screen -- the Refusal Template Stability Index (RTSI), built from four refusal-template drift features and calibrated on this matrix -- routes 10/10 hidden- or near-hidden-danger rows to direct safety testing (Wilson 95\% CI lower bound 0.72) while leaving 23 of 45 non-baseline rows in a low-risk bucket under both in-sample scoring and row-level leave-one-out validation; on the same matrix, the best single-feature baselines (unique-prefix-rate-delta, raw refusal-rate delta) recover 9/10 and 8/10 respectively at matched bucket size, and cross-stack transfer requires recalibration. For the quantized checkpoints, model families, and safety outcomes studied here, retained quality cannot waive direct safety evaluation.

Current evaluations of LLM safety predominantly rely on severity-based taxonomies to assess the harmfulness of malicious queries. We argue that this formulation requires re-examination as it assumes uniform risk across all malicious queries, neglecting Execution Likelihood--the conditional probability of a threat being realized given the model's response. In this work, we introduce Expected Harm, a metric that weights the severity of a jailbreak by its execution likelihood, modeled as a function of execution cost. Through empirical analysis of state-of-the-art models, we reveal a systematic Inverse Risk Calibration: models disproportionately exhibit stronger refusal behaviors for low-likelihood (high-cost) threats while remaining vulnerable to high-likelihood (low-cost) queries. We demonstrate that this miscalibration creates a structural vulnerability: by exploiting this property, we increase the attack success rate of existing jailbreaks by up to 2times. Finally, we trace the root cause of this failure using linear probing, which reveals that while models encode severity in their latent space to drive refusal decisions, they possess no distinguishable internal representation of execution cost, making them "blind" to this critical dimension of risk.

Language model deployments in consumer-facing applications introduce numerous risks. While existing research on harms and hazards of such applications follows top-down approaches derived from regulatory frameworks and theoretical analyses, empirical evidence of real-world failure modes remains underexplored. In this work, we introduce RealHarm, a dataset of annotated problematic interactions with AI agents built from a systematic review of publicly reported incidents. Analyzing harms, causes, and hazards specifically from the deployer's perspective, we find that reputational damage constitutes the predominant organizational harm, while misinformation emerges as the most common hazard category. We empirically evaluate state-of-the-art guardrails and content moderation systems to probe whether such systems would have prevented the incidents, revealing a significant gap in the protection of AI applications.

Large language models(LLMs) increasingly match expert performance on licensing examinations, yet routine clinical use remains limited because governance requires auditable reasoning, safety and ethics alignment, and resilience to adversarial misuse. Here we present SafeMed-R1, trained with a traceable Clinical Trust Signals(CTS) pipeline that links each reasoning instance to clinician rubric scores and edit histories, and aligned through safety and ethics supervision and red team stress testing. SafeMed-R1 attains a macro-averaged accuracy of 79.6% across clinical benchmarks. Under adversarial safety testing, it shows the lowest aggregated risk and reduces unsafe outputs by about 3 to 5% relative to its baseline. In a paired expert study of 30 medication safety vignettes, SafeMed-R1 matches PGY1 and PGY2 residents on medical correctness and scores higher for medication safety, guideline consistency, and clinical usefulness. Collectively, these results suggest that clinician-audited supervision provenance, together with domain-tailored safety and ethics alignment, can strengthen governance-relevant evidence without relying on inference-time retrieval or citation grounding.

Trading discipline often fails people. Our study tested whether four AI trading agents followed their strategies and risk rules. Offering traders the evidence and an agent evaluation toolkit to separate luck from following the rules, before giving agents meaningful autonomy or capital. Our study analysed 2,627 closed positions from 12 February to 27 August 2026 across the same asset universe and execution conditions. Most positions were simulated against live prices with a 0.09% round-trip fee; 18% involved real Hyperliquid orders. Each position declared a strategy, stop and target, with a limit of five open positions per agent. The fleet finished net positive after fees. Rule adherence was high across all four agents, including the unprofitable one. Profitability tracked how often agents won relative to their break-even win rates. Institutional-style controls ran by default and contained losses through a 29% market drawdown and recovery, with documented exceptions. The discipline held for all four agents. Agents kept 97.5% of gross loss within declared stops, and typical losses closed at declared levels. Declared risk remained stable after losses and broadly stable across calm and volatile months. Twenty-three of 24 runs respected the position limit; logs identify the exception's size and duration. The same live data produced different results across assigned strategies. The trade-log tests can be rerun from the published trade snapshot; regime tests also require the published Bitcoin prices and regime labels. Section 3.5 specifies the stop-breach tolerance. These trade-level results are not account-level returns or proof of a lasting edge. Our study provides an evaluation toolkit to help traders distinguish rule-following from luck before committing capital. For anyone considering allocating capital to agents to trade, discipline should be the entry test, not the only test.

LLM-based agents leverage third-party skills to extend their capabilities in open-world scenarios. However, third-party skills can introduce extra security vulnerabilities, as seemingly harmless skills can contain latent safety risks that only emerge during actual execution. In this work, we conduct a systematic investigation into how well current agent systems recognize and avoid such risks. To support quantitative and qualitative evaluation, we construct OpenSkillRisk, a dedicated safety benchmark containing 263 risky skills collected from public skill marketplaces. We classify these skills into seven categories based on their threat types and pair each skill with a standardized user task and a corresponding sandbox for controlled evaluation. Distinct from prior benchmarks, OpenSkillRisk not only covers more realistic and diverse unsafe scenarios, but also provides a fine-grained analysis to diagnose the behavioral patterns of agents in such scenarios. We conduct comprehensive experiments covering three mainstream CLI agent frameworks and thirteen state-of-the-art LLMs. Experimental results show that no tested system handles risky skills reliably: even the safest configurations still execute unsafe actions in about 17% of cases. Context-dependent and system-level risks are especially difficult for current agent systems to avoid. Our behavioral analysis reveals three recurring failure patterns: agents may fail to recognize the risk, recognize it but fail to intervene before acting, or follow skill instructions beyond the user's intended scope. These findings highlight the need to improve both risk reasoning in LLMs and execution control in agent frameworks.

Excellent tail performance is crucial for modern machine learning tasks, such as algorithmic fairness, class imbalance, and risk-sensitive decision making, as it ensures the effective handling of challenging samples within a dataset. Tail performance is also a vital determinant of success for personalized recommender systems to reduce the risk of losing users with low satisfaction. This study introduces a "safe" collaborative filtering method that prioritizes recommendation quality for less-satisfied users rather than focusing on the average performance. Our approach minimizes the conditional value at risk (CVaR), which represents the average risk over the tails of users' loss. To overcome computational challenges for web-scale recommender systems, we develop a robust yet practical algorithm that extends the most scalable method, implicit alternating least squares (iALS). Empirical evaluation on real-world datasets demonstrates the excellent tail performance of our approach while maintaining competitive computational efficiency.

Large language models (LLMs) are demonstrating increasing prowess in cybersecurity applications, creating creating inherent risks alongside their potential for strengthening defenses. In this position paper, we argue that current efforts to evaluate risks posed by these capabilities are misaligned with the goal of understanding real-world impact. Evaluating LLM cybersecurity risk requires more than just measuring model capabilities -- it demands a comprehensive risk assessment that incorporates analysis of threat actor adoption behavior and potential for impact. We propose a risk assessment framework for LLM cyber capabilities and apply it to a case study of language models used as cybersecurity assistants. Our evaluation of frontier models reveals high compliance rates but moderate accuracy on realistic cyber assistance tasks. However, our framework suggests that this particular use case presents only moderate risk due to limited operational advantages and impact potential. Based on these findings, we recommend several improvements to align research priorities with real-world impact assessment, including closer academia-industry collaboration, more realistic modeling of attacker behavior, and inclusion of economic metrics in evaluations. This work represents an important step toward more effective assessment and mitigation of LLM-enabled cybersecurity risks.

Laboratory accidents pose significant risks to human life and property, underscoring the importance of robust safety protocols. Despite advancements in safety training, laboratory personnel may still unknowingly engage in unsafe practices. With the increasing reliance on large language models (LLMs) for guidance in various fields, including laboratory settings, there is a growing concern about their reliability in critical safety-related decision-making. Unlike trained human researchers, LLMs lack formal lab safety education, raising questions about their ability to provide safe and accurate guidance. Existing research on LLM trustworthiness primarily focuses on issues such as ethical compliance, truthfulness, and fairness but fails to fully cover safety-critical real-world applications, like lab safety. To address this gap, we propose the Laboratory Safety Benchmark (LabSafety Bench), a comprehensive evaluation framework based on a new taxonomy aligned with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) protocols. This benchmark includes 765 multiple-choice questions verified by human experts, assessing LLMs and vision language models (VLMs) performance in lab safety contexts. Our evaluations demonstrate that while GPT-4o outperforms human participants, it is still prone to critical errors, highlighting the risks of relying on LLMs in safety-critical environments. Our findings emphasize the need for specialized benchmarks to accurately assess the trustworthiness of LLMs in real-world safety applications.

While the deployment of large language models (LLMs) in high-value industries continues to expand, the systematic assessment of their safety against jailbreak and prompt-based attacks remains insufficient. Existing safety evaluation benchmarks and frameworks are often limited by an imbalanced integration of core components (attack, defense, and evaluation methods) and an isolation between flexible evaluation frameworks and standardized benchmarking capabilities. These limitations hinder reliable cross-study comparisons and create unnecessary overhead for comprehensive risk assessment. To address these gaps, we present TeleAI-Safety, a modular and reproducible framework coupled with a systematic benchmark for rigorous LLM safety evaluation. Our framework integrates a broad collection of 19 attack methods (including one self-developed method), 29 defense methods, and 19 evaluation methods (including one self-developed method). With a curated attack corpus of 342 samples spanning 12 distinct risk categories, the TeleAI-Safety benchmark conducts extensive evaluations across 14 target models. The results reveal systematic vulnerabilities and model-specific failure cases, highlighting critical trade-offs between safety and utility, and identifying potential defense patterns for future optimization. In practical scenarios, TeleAI-Safety can be flexibly adjusted with customized attack, defense, and evaluation combinations to meet specific demands. We release our complete code and evaluation results to facilitate reproducible research and establish unified safety baselines.

Safe completion requires models to provide useful assistance without enabling harm, but this behavior is difficult to evaluate with isolated prompts. We introduce OpenSafeIntent, a benchmark of controlled prompt-sets that vary intent while holding the underlying task fixed. Each datapoint contains benign, dual-use, and malicious variants of the same task. This design lets us evaluate whether models calibrate assistance across intent shifts, rather than merely appearing safe on average. Across a broad model suite, we find that prompt-level safety hides important failures: models often fail to remain safe across matched intent variants, dual-use behavior is brittle under paraphrase, high-level answers on risky topics are not reliably safe, and responses that reframe ambiguous requests into safer tasks are substantially less likely to cross the safety boundary. Our results suggest that safe completion should be evaluated as intent-calibrated behavior over controlled task variants, not as a single safety-helpfulness tradeoff over independent prompts.

With the growing prevalence of large language models (LLMs), the safety of LLMs has raised significant concerns. However, there is still a lack of definitive standards for evaluating their safety due to the subjective nature of current safety benchmarks. To address this gap, we conducted the first exploration of LLMs' safety evaluation from a legal perspective by proposing the SafeLawBench benchmark. SafeLawBench categorizes safety risks into three levels based on legal standards, providing a systematic and comprehensive framework for evaluation. It comprises 24,860 multi-choice questions and 1,106 open-domain question-answering (QA) tasks. Our evaluation included 2 closed-source LLMs and 18 open-source LLMs using zero-shot and few-shot prompting, highlighting the safety features of each model. We also evaluated the LLMs' safety-related reasoning stability and refusal behavior. Additionally, we found that a majority voting mechanism can enhance model performance. Notably, even leading SOTA models like Claude-3.5-Sonnet and GPT-4o have not exceeded 80.5% accuracy in multi-choice tasks on SafeLawBench, while the average accuracy of 20 LLMs remains at 68.8\%. We urge the community to prioritize research on the safety of LLMs.

The success of large language models (LLMs) in scientific domains has heightened safety concerns, prompting numerous benchmarks to evaluate their scientific safety. Existing benchmarks often suffer from limited risk coverage and a reliance on subjective evaluation. To address these problems, we introduce SafeSci, a comprehensive framework for safety evaluation and enhancement in scientific contexts. SafeSci comprises SafeSciBench, a multi-disciplinary benchmark with 0.25M samples, and SafeSciTrain, a large-scale dataset containing 1.5M samples for safety enhancement. SafeSciBench distinguishes between safety knowledge and risk to cover extensive scopes and employs objective metrics such as deterministically answerable questions to mitigate evaluation bias. We evaluate 24 advanced LLMs, revealing critical vulnerabilities in current models. We also observe that LLMs exhibit varying degrees of excessive refusal behaviors on safety-related issues. For safety enhancement, we demonstrate that fine-tuning on SafeSciTrain significantly enhances the safety alignment of models. Finally, we argue that knowledge is a double-edged sword, and determining the safety of a scientific question should depend on specific context, rather than universally categorizing it as safe or unsafe. Our work provides both a diagnostic tool and a practical resource for building safer scientific AI systems.

A prevalent assumption in LLM agent deployment holds that more structured harnesses universally improve reliability, and that higher-capability models need proportionally less structural guidance -- together implying a monotone inverse relationship between model capability tier and optimal harness complexity. We test this hypothesis through a controlled 432-run experiment crossing six models across four capability tiers with three harness conditions (light, balanced, strict) on HEAT-24, a 24-task synthetic benchmark with git-based workspace verification. Our results refute the monotone inverse relationship on two fronts. First, for the frontier chat model evaluated (Gemini 2.5 Flash), increased harness verbosity lowers VTSR by 29-38 percentage points -- a harness-complexity paradox. Second, for the frontier reasoning model evaluated (Qwen3.5-122B, extended thinking enabled), strict harness achieves the highest VTSR (91.7%) and the lowest latency, the opposite of the prediction. Within the constrained tier, a 2B model (Gemma4:e2B) matches strong-open-tier stability at 91.7% across all harnesses. Because each tier is represented by a single model in this study, these results should be interpreted as model-specific observations; harness sensitivity appears non-monotone across the models evaluated, and depends critically on model type (chat vs. reasoning). We introduce a six-label failure taxonomy showing that format_violation dominates capable-model failures while wrong_file dominates low-capability failures, and we derive practical tier-aware harness selection guidelines.

Tool-using automation systems, from scripts and CI bots to agentic assistants, fail in recurring patterns. Common failures include unsafe side effects, invalid arguments, uncontrolled retries, and leakage of sensitive outputs. Many mitigations are model-centric and prompt-dependent, so they are brittle and do not generalize to non-LLM callers. We present Policy-First Tooling, a model-agnostic permission layer that mediates tool invocation through explicit constraints, risk-aware gating, recovery controls, and auditable explanations. The paper contributes a compact policy DSL, a runtime enforcement architecture with actionable rationale and fix hints, and a reproducible benchmark based on trace replay with controlled fault and misuse injection. In 225 controlled runs across five policy packs and three fault profiles, stricter packs improve violation prevention from 0.000 in P0 to 0.681 in P4, while task success drops from 0.356 to 0.067. Retry amplification decreases from 3.774 in P0 to 1.378 in P4, and leakage recall reaches 0.875 under injected secret outputs. These results make safety to utility trade-offs explicit and measurable.

Platform abuse campaigns conceal redirection instructions with emojis, homophones, character decomposition, and redundant symbols, then route users through disguised links to services associated with pornography, fraud, gambling, or illicit transactions. Existing benchmarks evaluate obfuscated text and risky webpages separately, obscuring how target recovery affects downstream evidence acquisition. We introduce RiskChainBench, pairing 3,600 synthetic token-text restoration inputs from 600 source sessions with 600 corresponding human-labeled local web environments. A model first restores the message, operational intent, and destination; the same underlying model then acts as a VLM-driven web agent that investigates the correctly associated website and produces a frozen, evidence-cited risk report without message-side semantics or domain-reputation cues. We score restoration and correct-routing web investigation separately and compose them offline by applying the frozen primary-entry prediction as a gate to the same Task 2 result. Human labels determine task correctness, while a fixed multimodal evidence judge assesses faithfulness, sufficiency, completeness, and consistency. Across ten models, Entry Top-1 ranges from 35.2% to 95.2% and web decision accuracy from 26.3% to 62.8%; the leading systems differ across entry recovery, full reconstruction, website decisions, and fine-grained typing. Execution failures account for 31.9% of web runs, whereas post-decision type errors account for only 0.9%, identifying stable exploration and risk judgment as the principal bottlenecks. We release the benchmark, protocol, and resettable local sandbox.

Safety evaluations of large language models commonly summarize harmful-output behavior with attack success rate (ASR). Yet the same non-harmful outcome can arise for very different reasons. A model may recover a harmful task and refuse it, fail to recover the task, or respond to something else entirely. Distinguishing these cases becomes especially important under intent-obscuring prompts, where a low ASR does not reveal whether the evaluated task was actually engaged. To make this distinction explicit, we pair ASR with operative understanding rate (UR), which measures whether a response both identifies the evaluated task and treats it as the task to be answered. Across interfaces, this paired view reveals substantial variation hidden by ASR: similar ASR values can correspond to sharply different recovery rates. Controlled English reconstructions show that recovery consistently improves as compressed prompts become more explicit, whereas ASR does not follow the same pattern. A complementary contrast comes from FormalLogic, where high recovery can still coincide with frequent harmful assistance. Together, these results show that non-harmful outcomes are not equally informative about model safety, motivating the joint reporting of intent recovery and ASR in LLM safety evaluation. Code and experiment inputs are available at https://github.com/kevinjiang0121-cyber/IRIS.

We present WebFovea, a vision-based web agent that placed 2nd in the WebRetriever Challenge 2026 with a final score of 57.0 out of 100. The challenge evaluates agents end to end on Protocol III of the WebRetriever benchmark (arXiv:2607.06118): starting from an entry URL on a live website, the agent must operate the site's own interface and return a verifiable answer. A capable multimodal large language model (LLM) is necessary for this, but not sufficient. The model's decisions reach the browser through the harness, the code between the model and the page. At every step, four things must go right: the model's reply must be parsed into the intended action, the action must take effect on the page, the result must be reported back accurately, and the model must be shown the information it needs. On real websites, many of the failures we observed occurred at one of these four stages rather than in the model's reasoning. A coordinate-space mismatch placed every click at 3/4 of its intended coordinates; actions on native dropdowns, inside iframes, and in text boxes failed silently; and self-generated chat-template tokens contaminated 4.9% of task episodes. WebFovea hardens each stage and surrounds the loop with guardrails that keep the agent within the rules and its budget. The four-stage view does not depend on the model, although some individual fixes do. Because we used the same model in all four submissions, the rise of our official hidden-set score from 31.0 to 57.0 reflects changes to the harness, up to run-to-run variance on live sites. We describe the design, the evidence for each component (including negative results), a failure analysis, the limitations, and a roadmap that includes routing different steps to different models. Code is available at https://github.com/jianganghan/WebFovea.

Foundation models (FMs) provide societal benefits but also amplify risks. Governments, companies, and researchers have proposed regulatory frameworks, acceptable use policies, and safety benchmarks in response. However, existing public benchmarks often define safety categories based on previous literature, intuitions, or common sense, leading to disjointed sets of categories for risks specified in recent regulations and policies, which makes it challenging to evaluate and compare FMs across these benchmarks. To bridge this gap, we introduce AIR-Bench 2024, the first AI safety benchmark aligned with emerging government regulations and company policies, following the regulation-based safety categories grounded in our AI risks study, AIR 2024. AIR 2024 decomposes 8 government regulations and 16 company policies into a four-tiered safety taxonomy with 314 granular risk categories in the lowest tier. AIR-Bench 2024 contains 5,694 diverse prompts spanning these categories, with manual curation and human auditing to ensure quality. We evaluate leading language models on AIR-Bench 2024, uncovering insights into their alignment with specified safety concerns. By bridging the gap between public benchmarks and practical AI risks, AIR-Bench 2024 provides a foundation for assessing model safety across jurisdictions, fostering the development of safer and more responsible AI systems.

Tool-using LLM agents can violate the very policies they are deployed to enforce while appearing to complete the task successfully. In policy-permissive environments, a tool may execute any well-formed call even when the corresponding state transition is forbidden by domain policy. The result is a silent wrong state (a booking cancelled, a passenger count changed, a claim acted on without verification) that neither the tool nor the agent's self-report exposes. We study this failure mode in the τ^2-bench airline domain. On a budget agent, 78% of observed failures are silent wrong-state failures with no tool error, and the aggregate failure rate is reproducible across disjoint seeds, not sampling noise. We then evaluate a lightweight intervention: deterministic, read-only pre-execution gates that inspect the proposed call and current state before allowing a write. A four-gate suite raises full-benchmark success from 29.6% to 42.0% on gpt-4o-mini (+12.4pp; paired task-level bootstrap P=0.0012), and the lift reproduces on a disjoint 15-seed set (+12.3pp; P=0.0008). The effect is concentrated where the gates fire: on the 26/50 firing tasks, success rises by +19.2pp, while movement on the 24 non-firing tasks does not exclude zero. Two negative controls (a self-enforcing retail domain and BFCL) bound the mechanism: gates help when tools are policy-permissive and add little where tools already self-enforce. As suggestive evidence, not a central claim, the same failure mode persists at the frontier: gpt-5.2 at default reasoning still attempts policy-violating writes, and the same suite improves success from 61.2% to 71.6% (+10.4pp; P=0.020; n=5, no replication). The contribution is a bounded evaluation and reliability result: deterministic gates do not guarantee task success, but they can deterministically prevent a known class of silent policy-violating writes at the action boundary.

AI developers often apply safety alignment procedures to prevent the misuse of their AI systems. For example, before Meta released Llama 2-Chat, a collection of instruction fine-tuned large language models, they invested heavily in safety training, incorporating extensive red-teaming and reinforcement learning from human feedback. However, it remains unclear how well safety training guards against model misuse when attackers have access to model weights. We explore the robustness of safety training in language models by subversively fine-tuning the public weights of Llama 2-Chat. We employ low-rank adaptation (LoRA) as an efficient fine-tuning method. With a budget of less than $200 per model and using only one GPU, we successfully undo the safety training of Llama 2-Chat models of sizes 7B, 13B, and 70B. Specifically, our fine-tuning technique significantly reduces the rate at which the model refuses to follow harmful instructions. We achieve a refusal rate below 1% for our 70B Llama 2-Chat model on two refusal benchmarks. Our fine-tuning method retains general performance, which we validate by comparing our fine-tuned models against Llama 2-Chat across two benchmarks. Additionally, we present a selection of harmful outputs produced by our models. While there is considerable uncertainty about the scope of risks from current models, it is likely that future models will have significantly more dangerous capabilities, including the ability to hack into critical infrastructure, create dangerous bio-weapons, or autonomously replicate and adapt to new environments. We show that subversive fine-tuning is practical and effective, and hence argue that evaluating risks from fine-tuning should be a core part of risk assessments for releasing model weights.

We develop and counterfactually evaluate a resolution-aware risk-design framework (PIRAP) for perpetual futures whose underlying tracks a single binary prediction-market probability through resolution. The framework specifies six components: an index estimator combining mid-price, depth-weighted mid, and time-decayed VWAP; jump-aware tiered margin sized against bounded-event terminal-collapse magnitude; leverage compression schedule contracting toward resolution; resolution-aware funding rule with boundary-aware correction; a multi-stage halt protocol; and an eligibility framework. Two formal non-portability propositions establish that standard basis-only funding paired with continuous-vol static margin fails on bounded-event underlyings. Empirical evaluation uses Polymarket's PMXT v2 archive for 2026-04-21 to 2026-04-27 (13,298-market analysis sample passing adequacy gates from 61,087 ingested; 13,115 resolved within the empirical window for E3). E1 evaluates two pre-registered stylized facts; E2 conducts counterfactual replay across three engine configurations; E3 isolates the resolution-zone protocol's contribution. Results are mixed. Five pre-registered floors: stylized-fact floors (boundary depth asymmetry, terminal-jump magnitude) PASS; welfare-side directional floors (final-hour liquidation -6%, drawdown -5.1% pooled, median PnL +14%) two FAIL one PASS; E3 mechanic floors (final-hour liquidation -80% by halt construction PASS; bad-debt frequency +2.4% FAIL). Three of five materiality floors fail: the framework as specified does not validate deployment, but the empirical record establishes a halt-versus-margin scope distinction (halt addresses execution-channel risk; terminal-jump bad-debt remains margin-side) and documents a pre-emption trade-off constraining the dynamic-margin component. The paper concludes with structural recommendations and explicit non-deployable status.

With the rapid development of Large language models (LLMs), understanding the capabilities of LLMs in identifying unsafe content has become increasingly important. While previous works have introduced several benchmarks to evaluate the safety risk of LLMs, the community still has a limited understanding of current LLMs' capability to recognize illegal and unsafe content in Chinese contexts. In this work, we present a Chinese safety benchmark (ChineseSafe) to facilitate research on the content safety of large language models. To align with the regulations for Chinese Internet content moderation, our ChineseSafe contains 205,034 examples across 4 classes and 10 sub-classes of safety issues. For Chinese contexts, we add several special types of illegal content: political sensitivity, pornography, and variant/homophonic words. Moreover, we employ two methods to evaluate the legal risks of popular LLMs, including open-sourced models and APIs. The results reveal that many LLMs exhibit vulnerability to certain types of safety issues, leading to legal risks in China. Our work provides a guideline for developers and researchers to facilitate the safety of LLMs. Our results are also available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/SUSTech/ChineseSafe-Benchmark.

Recent incidents involving LLMs used for mental-health support reveal a critical evaluation gap: surface-level safety scores do not capture how models behave across realistic, emotionally sensitive interactions over time. Existing benchmarks measure knowledge, safety, or static response quality, but miss whether LLM interactions help users keep reflecting, coping, and making decisions themselves. We formalize this missing dimension as COGNITIVE ATROPHY, a process-level behavioural measure in AI-mediated mental-health support distinct from safety and helpfulness. To measure it, we introduce COGNITIVE ATROPHY BENCH, a clinically grounded benchmark built from 1,576 fully human-generated counseling conversations, 15,680 turns, and 42,230 responses from five LLMs. Three clinical and neuropsychology experts developed a 20-attribute schema spanning user context, response behaviour, and global risk flags; six trained clinical reviewers applied it with span-grounded evidence, producing 5,324 reviewer judgments. We further introduce the User-Input Risk Index (UIRI), the Cognitive Atrophy Risk Index (ARI), and trajectory summaries. Across five LLMs, models show a consistent moderate-to-high level of atrophy-aligned behaviour across single and multi-turn settings. While models generally respond to overt safety cues, they adapt less reliably when users seek solutions or decisions. The dominant recurring patterns are directive advice, problem-solving, recommendation responses, topic shifts, and forms of validation that may reinforce dependence rather than reflection. Our work makes COGNITIVE ATROPHY measurable and provides a foundation for auditing model behaviour in sensitive LLM conversations.

Deploying learned robot manipulation policies in industrial settings requires rigorous pre-deployment validation, yet exhaustive testing across high-dimensional parameter spaces is intractable. We present ROBOGATE, a deployment risk management framework that combines physics-based simulation with a two-stage adaptive sampling strategy to efficiently discover failure boundaries in the operational parameter space. Stage 1 employs Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) across an 8-dimensional parameter space to establish a coarse failure landscape from 20,000 uniformly distributed experiments. Stage 2 applies boundary-focused sampling that concentrates 10,000 additional experiments in the 30-70% success rate transition zone, enabling precise failure boundary mapping. Using NVIDIA Isaac Sim with Newton physics, we evaluate a scripted pick-and-place controller on two robot embodiments -- Franka Panda (7-DOF) and UR5e (6-DOF) -- across 30,000 total experiments. Our logistic regression risk model achieves an AUC of 0.780 on the combined dataset (vs. 0.754 for Stage 1 alone), identifies a closed-form failure boundary equation, and reveals four universal danger zones affecting both robot platforms. We further demonstrate the framework on VLA (Vision-Language-Action) model evaluation, where Octo-Small achieves 0.0% success rate on 68 adversarial scenarios versus 100% for the scripted baseline -- a 100-point gap that underscores the challenge of deploying foundation models in industrial settings. ROBOGATE is open-source and runs on a single GPU workstation.

As language models are increasingly deployed in real-world scenarios with important outcomes, the impact of their mistakes often extends far beyond what correctness can capture. In domains like medicine, a single error can lead to serious consequences and put patient safety at risk. However, mainstream evaluation protocols still treat all errors as equal, overlooking the spectrum of real-world costs. To address this, we propose a utility-based evaluation paradigm that explicitly incorporates the varying consequences of errors. Guided by this principle, we develop UtilityBench, a large-scale benchmark of 15,000 instances with verifiable answers, quantifying error severity using Best-Worst Scaling to elicit meaningful, data-driven cost estimates. These quantified utilities shape when a model should answer or abstain, guiding it to make decisions that align with the true importance of each scenario. As another merit, we introduce UtilityAUC, a metric that measures the area under the utility curve determined by a model's response ordering, thereby enabling utility preference alignment beyond error frequency. Our theoretical analysis demonstrates that UtilityAUC can distinguish between models where standard accuracy and AURC fall short. Empirically, evaluating 20 state-of-the-art models, we find that greater accuracy or more advanced architectures do not reliably translate to higher UtilityAUC, highlighting a gap between problem-solving ability and responsible decision-making in language model evaluation.

When considering the accuracy of sensors in an automated vehicle (AV), it is not sufficient to evaluate the performance of any given sensor in isolation. Rather, the performance of any individual sensor must be considered in the context of the overall system design. Techniques like redundancy and different sensing modalities can reduce the chances of a sensing failure. Additionally, the use of safety models is essential to understanding whether any particular sensing failure is relevant. Only when the entire system design is taken into account can one properly understand the meaning of safety-relevant sensing failures in an AV. In this paper, we will consider what should actually constitute a sensing failure, how safety models play an important role in mitigating potential failures, how a system-level approach to safety will deliver a safe and scalable AV, and what an acceptable sensing failure rate should be considering the full picture of an AV's architecture.