Daily Papers

Before changing a deployed AI agent (a stricter safety gate, a new model), organizations must approve the change, starting from existing logs. Extending classical risk analysis to partial records and partial changes to running systems, agent-risk replays logged episodes, assuming nothing else changes and the agent does not anticipate the change. The log settles episodes acting as before, a declared stop value settles stopped ones, and the rest need logged support, a saved-state rerun, or a bound. We prove what logs must record for exact replay and which saved states serve a gate family. For independent episodes, we bound the reruns a decision needs and tolerable drift from live behavior. In a bash sandbox, a 7,200-episode log alone decided neither of two retry gates, which let the agent act after refusals the log never shows. Rerunning only each gate's blocked episodes from saved states reached both live decisions at half the agent calls of a live test sized post hoc for them, given the log. Without per-step harm, a stopping gate's certified harm ceiling rose up to 2.5-fold, since the log hides whether harm preceded the stop. Approval thus needs evidence designed in advance: log fields, saved states, targeted reruns.

Red-team evaluations of AI models support some claims and not others, and the boundary between the two is calculable rather than merely a matter of judgment. We define the evidential ceiling of an evaluation as the largest factor by which one result can move belief under a fixed testing budget, derive it in closed form for the benchmark null result, and use it to locate that boundary exactly. We find that above a calculable harm rate, a benchmark of modest size certifies a category to a stated evidentiary standard, and a clean sheet is then the stronger of the two possible observations, outweighing a single reproduced failure. Below that rate, no passive benchmark of feasible size provides the specified evidence of safety under the fixed scoring rule and approximately independent trial structure. The crossing between the two regimes has a closed form. The bound is not specific to benchmarks: written in terms of a procedure's hypothesis conditioned elicitation rates, it covers adaptive and automated red teaming as well, and shows that discrimination between the hypotheses rather than attack success is what determines evidential worth. Auditing eight evaluation suites against the boundary, we find that current benchmarks are adequate for high-frequency harm categories and several orders of magnitude short for rare, catastrophic ones. Safety benchmarks are not uninformative. They are informative about a specific and computable set of propositions, and the discipline they need is to state which.

Agentic red-teaming benchmarks report whether an injected agent was compromised as a single bit: the attack succeeded, or it did not. We argue that this binary attack-success rate discards the information a defender most needs, namely how harmful the resulting action was. We introduce an action-graded harm rubric that scores an agent's tool-call trajectory on a seven-level ordinal scale (L0 to L6) according to whether the executed action was reversible, whether it crossed scope to reach another party, and whether it expanded privilege. We compute the scale two ways: a deterministic oracle that reads the trajectory and the attacker's stated goal, and a panel of three frontier language-model judges that read a tag-free account of the same trajectory. Across four victim models and two defenses on the AgentDojo workspace suite, severity grading exposes three cases the binary metric hides, including a defense that reports a zero attack-success rate while still permitting an externally visible cross-scope leak through an unfiltered tool. The judge panel reproduces the oracle with high ordinal agreement (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.91) but shares systematic blind spots that we characterize, most notably a failure to recognize escalation chains. Unlike prior work that provides harm taxonomies, harmful-task completion tests, execution-level safety benchmarks, or severity-aware simulation, our contribution is a reusable, trace-grounded severity instrument applied to the actual actions recorded in existing red-team logs. All code, prompts, and per-episode logs are released.

Safety heads are lightweight classifiers attached to pretrained language models for flagging harmful inputs before generation. Their empirical detection performance has been studied, but their formal robustness properties remain largely unexplored. We ask when a State Space Model (SSM)-based safety head can be certified to produce the same prediction for all inputs within a bounded embedding-space perturbation. We prove that the answer turns on a single condition: the l_infty norm of the state transition matrix must satisfy A_infty<1 (the contraction condition), which enables exact interval bound propagation (IBP) certification for linear time-invariant classifiers. When the contraction condition holds, the reachable output interval has bounded steady-state width and examples can be certified as robustly classified. When it fails, the interval grows exponentially with sequence length and certification is impossible at any practical perturbation radius. We enforce contraction with a hinge penalty and show on toxic comment data that certified fraction improves from 41\% to 59\%, with a sharp empirical phase transition at A_infty=1 matching the theory. Applying a contraction-regularized S4 head to jailbreak detection on JailbreakBench, we achieve a zero-shot transfer to AdvBench (DR=0.994) and HarmBench (DR=0.988). A logistic regression on mean-pooled Mamba-130M embeddings matches or exceeds the S4 head on every detection metric, confirming that harmful intent is already linearly separable in the embedding space. The S4 safety head's contribution is not superior discrimination but the formal certification that no probe-based approach provides.

Large language model (LLM) coding agents increasingly operate with shell access, allowing them to write scripts, move files, alter permissions, and modify system configurations. However, an agent may achieve a user's goal while causing unintended harm, such as deleting unrelated files, weakening access controls, or corrupting data, in response to benign inputs without explicit jailbreaking. This failure mode is particularly important because apparent task success may reassure users that an agent behaved correctly, causing harmful side effects to go unnoticed. We call this harmful success: the agent successfully completes the intended benign task while simultaneously causing unintended harm. Despite its importance, harmful success is difficult to measure because conventional task-success metrics overlook harmful behaviors, while existing safety evaluations are often designed solely to assess harmful outcomes. We introduce VeriHarm, an automatic framework for constructing programmatically verifiable benchmarks that directly measure harmful success. VeriHarm minimally perturbs coding tasks to elicit unintended harmful behavior while maintaining the benignity of the task and preserving the original task objective. It then synthesizes executable harm tests that, together with the original task-correctness tests, evaluate both task accuracy and harmful outcomes. Frontier agents, including GPT-5.6-Sol and Claude-Opus-5, achieve an average task accuracy of 95% on our curated VeriHarm-Bench, yet still struggle to complete tasks safely: their safe success rate, the fraction of tasks completed successfully without triggering the designated harm, averages only 37%. These results suggest that successful task completion can frequently coexist with unintended harm, and that task-success metrics alone may substantially understate the potential safety risks of coding agents.

Millions of individuals' well-being are challenged by the harms of substance use. Harm reduction as a public health strategy is designed to improve their health outcomes and reduce safety risks. Some large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated a decent level of medical knowledge, promising to address the information needs of people who use drugs (PWUD). However, their performance in relevant tasks remains largely unexplored. We introduce HRIPBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate LLM's accuracy and safety risks in harm reduction information provision. The benchmark dataset HRIP-Basic has 2,160 question-answer-evidence pairs. The scope covers three tasks: checking safety boundaries, providing quantitative values, and inferring polysubstance use risks. We build the Instruction and RAG schemes to evaluate model behaviours based on their inherent knowledge and the integration of domain knowledge. Our results indicate that state-of-the-art LLMs still struggle to provide accurate harm reduction information, and sometimes, carry out severe safety risks to PWUD. The use of LLMs in harm reduction contexts should be cautiously constrained to avoid inducing negative health outcomes. WARNING: This paper contains illicit content that potentially induces harms.

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.

LLM agents increasingly rely on community-contributed skills that expand an agent's operational capability set. We study a core safety problem in agentic AI systems: whether individually safe skills can compose into unsafe installed skill sets. We present SkillReact, a compositional security measurement framework with three components: a deterministic static-composition benchmark, a two-rater LLM-assisted human-adjudication pipeline, and an action-based exploitability harness. On 1,520 ClawHub skills, 651 pass individual inspection and form 211,575 pairs; the benchmark flags 22.25% of these as structural candidates. We treat this raw rate as a recall-oriented scanner ceiling and calibrate it against human judgment: in a pattern-stratified audit, roughly one in five flagged pair-pattern hits survives as a real compositional risk (population-weighted validity 18.2%, our headline result), implying about 14K genuine risk memberships in a single registry that per-skill scanning misses by construction, since every pair is individually safe. An action-based harness then probes when these candidates become model-issued tool calls, and finds realization gated by host-model disposition: on an anchor-conditioned dropper subset, Haiku-4-5 issues the dropper-stage tool call on all 39 direct-prompt trials (36 of them the full download-then-execute chain, 3 download-only), Opus-4-7 stops at the download, and Sonnet-4-6 refuses outright. A control that holds the request fixed and varies only the installed skills finds compliance highest with no skills installed: a composition fixes which capabilities are reachable, while the host model decides whether to use them. Together these motivate install-time compositional checks and capability isolation as complements to per-skill scanning.

OpenClaw-style agent stacks turn language into privileged execution: LLM intents flow through tool interception, policy gates, and a local executor. In parallel, skill marketplaces such as skills.sh make capability acquisition as easy as installing skills and CLIs, creating a growing capability supply chain. Together, these trends shift the dominant safety failure mode from "wrong answers" to execution-induced loss, where untrusted prompts, compromised skills, or narrative manipulation can trigger real trades and irreversible side effects. We propose Survivability-Aware Execution (SAE), an execution-layer survivability standard for OpenClaw-style systems and skill-enabled agents. SAE sits as middleware between a strategy engine (LLM or non-LLM) and the exchange executor. It defines an explicit execution contract (ExecutionRequest, ExecutionContext, ExecutionDecision) and enforces non-bypassable last-mile invariants: projection-based exposure budgets, cooldown and order-rate limits, slippage bounds, staged execution, and tool/venue allowlists. To make delegated execution testable under supply-chain risk, we operationalize the Delegation Gap (DG) via a logged Intended Policy Spec that enables deterministic out-of-scope labeling and reproducible DG metrics. On an offline replay using official Binance USD-M BTCUSDT/ETHUSDT perpetual data (15m; 2025-09-01--2025-12-01, incl. funding), SAE improves survivability: MDD drops from 0.4643 to 0.0319 (Full; 93.1%), |CVaR_0.99| shrinks from 4.025e-3 to ~1.02e-4 (~97.5%), and DG loss proxy falls from 0.647 to 0.019 (~97.0%). AttackSuccess decreases from 1.00 to 0.728 with zero FalseBlock in this run. Block bootstrap, paired Wilcoxon, and two-proportion tests confirm the shifts. SAE reframes agentic trading safety for the OpenClaw+skills era: treat upstream intent and skills as untrusted, and enforce survivability where actions become side effects.

Open-weight language models can be rendered unsafe through several parameter-level interventions, yet models with matched harmful compliance can exhibit fundamentally different failure modes. We compare harmful supervised fine-tuning (SFT), harmful reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), and refusal-feature abliteration in Qwen2.5-7B and Llama-3.1-8B using harmfulness, capability, self-audit, safety reflection, representation similarity, and refusal-direction repair. All three routes reach near-ceiling harmfulness, but SFT causes the broadest capability loss and representational drift; abliteration yields localized, family-dependent refusal-feature suppression; and RLVR largely preserves base-model capability, explicit safety judgments, and representation geometry while retargeting behavior toward compliance. RLVR models consequently remain unusually responsive to safety-reflection prompts despite complying under direct prompting. We further find that harmful RLVR induces capability-blind compliance: models claim to complete unavailable actions and fabricate information about nonexistent entities. Targeted RLVR calibration substantially reduces this false acceptance without restoring safety or degrading general capability. These results show that harmful compliance, harm recognition, and capability awareness are separable behavioral axes, and that self-audit and hallucination patterns are not necessarily robust safety signals under adaptive post-training.

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.

Clinical protocol-execution tasks -- checking a lab value, applying a threshold, placing a correctly structured FHIR order -- are natural candidates for RL from world feedback: once clinical SMEs encode decision logic into a verifier, that verifier grades unlimited rollouts without per-episode annotation. But applying RL requires a sound feedback channel and sufficient base capability. We audit MedAgentBench v1/v2, find a 41.7\% silent-finish ceiling that makes inaction the RL dominant strategy, and construct MedAgentBench-v3 (MAB-v3) (508 tasks, 8.9\% ceiling). Training Qwen3-8B exposes two structural barriers: a capability ceiling (10/20 task types have 0\% base performance, zero gradient) and a format-knowledge barrier (3/20 types require exact clinical codes undiscoverable by exploration). Pure RL reaches 18.2\% pass@1 vs.\ 34.1\% for rule-based SFT; the 15.9~pp gap is attributable entirely to these barriers. A decision/format-knowledge/lookup taxonomy predicts RL learnability and prescribes the fix: SFT to inject codes, RL to learn conditionals.

Autonomous language-model agents increasingly rely on installable skills and tools to complete user tasks. Static skill auditing can expose capability surface before deployment, but it cannot determine whether a particular invocation is unsafe under the current user request and runtime context. We therefore study skill invocation auditing as a continuous-risk estimation problem: given a user request, candidate skill, and runtime context, predict a score that supports ranking and triage before a hard intervention is applied. We introduce STARS, which combines a static capability prior, a request-conditioned invocation risk model, and a calibrated risk-fusion policy. To evaluate this setting, we construct SIA-Bench, a benchmark of 3,000 invocation records with group-safe splits, lineage metadata, runtime context, canonical action labels, and derived continuous-risk targets. On a held-out split of indirect prompt injection attacks, calibrated fusion reaches 0.439 high-risk AUPRC, improving over 0.405 for the contextual scorer and 0.380 for the strongest static baseline, while the contextual scorer remains better calibrated with 0.289 expected calibration error. On the locked in-distribution test split, gains are smaller and static priors remain useful. The resulting claim is therefore narrower: request-conditioned auditing is most valuable as an invocation-time risk-scoring and triage layer rather than as a replacement for static screening. Code is available at https://github.com/123zgj123/STARS.

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

As LM agents gain the ability to execute actions on real computer systems, we need ways to not only prevent harmful actions at scale but also effectively remediate harm when prevention fails. We formalize a solution to this neglected challenge in post-execution safeguards as harm recovery: the problem of optimally steering an agent from a harmful state back to a safe one in alignment with human preferences. We ground preference-aligned recovery through a formative user study that identifies valued recovery dimensions and produces a natural language rubric. Our dataset of 1,150 pairwise judgments reveals context-dependent shifts in attribute importance, such as preferences for pragmatic, targeted strategies over comprehensive long-term approaches. We operationalize these learned insights in a reward model, re-ranking multiple candidate recovery plans generated by an agent scaffold at test time. To evaluate recovery capabilities systematically, we introduce BackBench, a benchmark of 50 computer-use tasks that test an agent's ability to recover from harmful states. Human evaluation shows our reward model scaffold yields higher-quality recovery trajectories than base agents and rubric-based scaffolds. Together, these contributions lay the foundation for a new class of agent safety methods -- ones that confront harm not only by preventing it, but by navigating its aftermath with alignment and intent.

The ideal LLM content moderation system would be both structurally interpretable (so its decisions can be explained to users) and steerable (to reflect a community's values or align to safety standards). However, current systems fall short on both of these dimensions. To address this gap, we present SafetyAnalyst, a novel LLM safety moderation framework. Given a prompt, SafetyAnalyst creates a structured "harm-benefit tree," which identifies 1) the actions that could be taken if a compliant response were provided, 2) the harmful and beneficial effects of those actions (along with their likelihood, severity, and immediacy), and 3) the stakeholders that would be impacted by those effects. It then aggregates this structured representation into a harmfulness score based on a parameterized set of safety preferences, which can be transparently aligned to particular values. Using extensive harm-benefit features generated by SOTA LLMs on 19k prompts, we fine-tuned an open-weight LM to specialize in generating harm-benefit trees through symbolic knowledge distillation. On a comprehensive set of prompt safety benchmarks, we show that our system (average F1=0.75) outperforms existing LLM safety moderation systems (average F1<0.72) on prompt harmfulness classification, while offering the additional advantages of interpretability and steerability.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) now reach expert-level scores on medical licensing exams, encouraging the assumption that high scores imply safe medical judgment while patients increasingly use them for health advice. We show this assumption is fragile: when misleading context is injected into questions that LLMs originally answer correctly, they abandon the correct answer. We call the ability to maintain correct judgment under adversarial context epistemic resilience, and introduce MedMisBench to measure it. MedMisBench contains 10,932 medical question items and 48,889 misleading context-option pairs spanning medical reasoning, agentic capability, and patient-journey evaluation. Across 11 model configurations, mean accuracy falls from 71.1% on original questions to 38.0% under focused misleading context, with 51.5% attack success. The most damaging injections are formal, rule-like fabrications: authority-framed falsehoods reach 69.5% attack success and exception-poisoning claims reach 64.1%. A 14-member clinical panel from 7 countries identified serious potential harm in 38.2% of reviewed cases. MedMisBench exposes a structural blind spot in LLM evaluation in medical settings: existing benchmarks measure what models know, but not whether they preserve correct medical judgment under misleading context.

Agent skills occupy a privileged position in the agent workflow, as agents are expected to implicitly follow and execute them, rendering third-party skills a vulnerable attack surface. Existing studies have revealed unsafe agent behaviors induced by skill-based attacks, but they primarily evaluate poisoned skills within a single task execution and enumerate harms through ad-hoc risk lists. To bridge these gaps, we introduce SkillHarm, a benchmark of skill-based attacks across the skill-use lifecycle, paired with a systematic taxonomy of skill-relevant risks. SkillHarm evaluates two attack scenarios: Fixed-Payload Poisoning (FPP), where a fixed poisoned skill package directly compromises any task session that invokes it, and Self-Mutating Poisoning (SMP), where an initially benign execution silently mutates persistent skill content, deferring harm until a subsequent reuse. It further defines 12 risk types based on the agent workflow component targeted by the harm: data pipelines, system environments, and agent autonomy. To instantiate these attacks at scale, we build AutoSkillHarm, an automated construction pipeline with coding agents driven by natural-language harnesses. The resulting benchmark contains 879 attack samples across 71 skills. Experiments show that current agents remain vulnerable with attack success rates up to 86.3% in FPP and 69.3% in SMP. Our analysis further reveals a latent risk: many apparent attack failures stem from the agent failing to engage with the poisoned file rather than genuine resistance, and current defenses still fail to reliably mitigate the threat.

Large language models (LLMs) have evolved into autonomous agents that rely on open skill ecosystems (e.g., ClawHub and Skills.Rest), hosting numerous publicly reusable skills. Existing security research on these ecosystems mainly focuses on vulnerabilities within skills, such as prompt injection. However, there is a critical gap regarding skills that may be misused for harmful actions (e.g., cyber attacks, fraud and scams, privacy violations, and sexual content generation), namely harmful skills. In this paper, we present the first large-scale measurement study of harmful skills in agent ecosystems, covering 98,440 skills across two major registries. Using an LLM-driven scoring system grounded in our harmful skill taxonomy, we find that 4.93% of skills (4,858) are harmful, with ClawHub exhibiting an 8.84% harmful rate compared to 3.49% on Skills.Rest. We then construct HarmfulSkillBench, the first benchmark for evaluating agent safety against harmful skills in realistic agent contexts, comprising 200 harmful skills across 20 categories and four evaluation conditions. By evaluating six LLMs on HarmfulSkillBench, we find that presenting a harmful task through a pre-installed skill substantially lowers refusal rates across all models, with the average harm score rising from 0.27 without the skill to 0.47 with it, and further to 0.76 when the harmful intent is implicit rather than stated as an explicit user request. We responsibly disclose our findings to the affected registries and release our benchmark to support future research (see https://github.com/TrustAIRLab/HarmfulSkillBench).

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.

Agent skills provide a lightweight mechanism for extending general-purpose agents, but their open format exposes them to skill-poisoning attacks. A practically dangerous injection must stay invisible: if executing the payload derails the user's legitimate task, the resulting failure signal invites inspection of the skill. We therefore evaluate attacks by Attack Success Rate, which requires the injected payload to execute and the user's task to still pass its verifier in the same trial. Prior skill-poisoning attacks face a reliability-stealth trade-off under this lens: YAML-header injections are reliably loaded but easily inspected, whereas stealthier body injections that place explicit malicious commands in the skill prose are less reliable because out-of-context commands invite the agent's own suspicion. We introduce POISE, a position-aware attack that compresses the trigger into a single, benign-looking body instruction, placing it at a feasible position and using a context-aware generator to blend it with nearby setup or prerequisite steps. On Skill-Inject with codex+gpt-5.2, POISE achieves an 89.3% ASR, 28.0 points above a random-placement body baseline and 2.6 points above a YAML-only baseline, while retaining the stealth advantage of body placement. That stealth is the decisive margin: because legitimate skill bodies naturally require privileged tool operations, LLM scanners are hyper-sensitive, falsely flagging 74.6% of clean skills on average across four judges and both benchmarks. Blending into these false alarms, POISE causes only 5.6% of poisoned variants to gain a new high-risk alert over their clean baselines, rendering current static defenses ineffective.

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.

We study whether demonstration-curation metrics that detect defective training episodes also improve the downstream behavior-cloning policy that trains on the curated data. On a contact-rich LIBERO pick-and-place benchmark with a controlled structural defect (early gripper release during the carry phase), we find that the two quantities are sharply decoupled. The metric with the highest defect-detection AUROC (0.804) produces the worst curated policy (13.3% task success), while a metric with a substantially lower AUROC (0.638) produces a policy that nearly matches the oracle trained on ground-truth clean data (90.0% vs. 93.3%). We further show that five of the seven metrics we evaluate exploit episode length as a trivial proxy for the defect label, a confound that inflates reported AUROCs to near-perfect values and disappears once episode length is controlled. Across all conditions, the contaminated baseline succeeds on only 3.3% of rollouts, and the two best curation methods close this to within 3 percentage points of the 93.3% oracle ceiling. Our results argue that curation methods should be evaluated by the policy they produce, not the defects they flag, and that any curation benchmark must control for episode length before reporting detection accuracy. We release the testbed, all metric implementations, and the evaluation pipeline.

This paper audits damage labels derived from coincident satellite and drone aerial imagery for 15,814 buildings across Hurricanes Ian, Michael, and Harvey, finding 29.02% label disagreement and significantly different distributions between the two sources, which presents risks and potential harms during the deployment of machine learning damage assessment systems. Currently, there is no known study of label agreement between drone and satellite imagery for building damage assessment. The only prior work that could be used to infer if such imagery-derived labels agree is limited by differing damage label schemas, misaligned building locations, and low data quantities. This work overcomes these limitations by comparing damage labels using the same damage label schemas and building locations from three hurricanes, with the 15,814 buildings representing 19.05 times more buildings considered than the most relevant prior work. The analysis finds satellite-derived labels significantly under-report damage by at least 20.43% compared to drone-derived labels (p<1.2x10^-117), and satellite- and drone-derived labels represent significantly different distributions (p<5.1x10^-175). This indicates that computer vision and machine learning (CV/ML) models trained on at least one of these distributions will misrepresent actual conditions, as the differing satellite and drone-derived distributions cannot simultaneously represent the distribution of actual conditions in a scene. This potential misrepresentation poses ethical risks and potential societal harm if not managed. To reduce the risk of future societal harms, this paper offers four recommendations to improve reliability and transparency to decisio-makers when deploying CV/ML damage assessment systems in practice

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.

Benchmark gains are often treated as evidence of greater LLM capability. Yet the same gain can reflect different changes in model behavior. A model may reach new answers, or produce answers that were already within reach. Aggregate scores do not distinguish these changes question by question. We establish a question-level audit under fixed budgets, temperatures, and answer formats. A question is realized when the default deployment procedure produces the correct answer. A question is reachable when a specified probe finds that answer within a fixed budget. We first test whether inference-time layer routing can expand reachability. Under a matched budget, random routes match or exceed structured search in all 43 model and task settings. Answer-blind procedures retain almost none of this gain, which instead requires access to the correct answer. We then ask why reachable answers sometimes fail to appear. Across six cases spanning 0.5B to 31B, silencing one identified MLP block repairs 68 to 92 percent of a predefined failure set. We next test whether training closes the gap by expanding reachability. In five of six matched evaluations, deployed performance rises while the reachable ceiling remains flat or falls. For DAPO, the deployed score rises by 14.7 points while the reachable ceiling falls by 13.3 points. Across the settings we audit, realization and reachability therefore do not always change together. Claims of capability expansion should report both realized performance and reachability under matched evaluation conditions. Code is available at https://github.com/LiZaiyuan0619/reachability-not-realization

Multimodal automated fact-checking (MAFC) verifies claims by retrieving and reasoning over external evidence. However, most existing static benchmarks risk contamination: they primarily consist of outdated claims verifiable using an LLM's internal knowledge without external evidence. This can inflate performance estimates and fail to reflect true capability on novel claims that require up-to-date information. To address this, emerging dynamic benchmarks collect claims published after LLMs' knowledge cut-off dates, assuming they are uncontaminated. This work revisits this assumption by empirically studying contamination risks in both the state-of-the-art (SOTA) static AVeriTeC benchmark and our newly constructed dynamic ClaimReview2025Q4 benchmark, as well as their impact on MAFC evaluation. Our experiments yield 16 findings, highlighting three key results: (1) Dynamic evaluation reduces but does not eliminate contamination risks, as 17.09\%--29.30\% of post-cut-off claims remain potentially contaminated; (2) Many newly published claims can be verified either directly or by synthesizing multiple pieces of public knowledge available before the cut-off; and (3) Contamination can induce statistically significant inflation in MAFC performance, increasing Macro-F1 by up to 11.34 points and distorting system rankings. In light of these findings, we re-evaluate SOTA LLMs under a strictly contamination-controlled setting. Our study provides practical guidelines for trustworthy MAFC evaluation.

Frontier large language models (LLMs) safety evaluation has largely treated harmful generation as an attack outcome rather than as an object of analysis. Consequently, little is known about the harmful outputs produced during model misbehavior, partly because large-scale, high-quality collections of frontier-LLM misbehavior are difficult to obtain. To address this gap, we introduce HarmProfile, a content-centric benchmark dataset that collects model misbehavior across diverse harm categories and model families, and defines the resulting harmful-output distribution as a model-level risk profile. The premise is that, just as linguistic behavior can be characterized from an utterance corpus, model risk can be characterized from the content, severity, and variation of its safety failures. HarmProfile contains over 80,000 validated artifacts from 23 frontier LLMs across 13 model families, organized into 15 harm categories and 57 subcategories. Using this corpus, we find that frontier LLMs reliably produce harmful content at scale, yet exhibit distinct risk profiles; both harmfulness and diversity grow with model capability, suggesting that frontier LLMs may appear safe yet harbor increasingly dangerous knowledge beneath the alignment surface. Our source code is available at https://github.com/fresh-ma/HarmProfile .

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

Computer-use agents (CUAs) can now autonomously complete complex tasks in real digital environments, but when misled, they can also be used to automate harmful actions programmatically. Existing safety evaluations largely target explicit threats such as misuse and prompt injection, but overlook a subtle yet critical setting where user instructions are entirely benign and harm arises from the task context or execution outcome. We introduce OS-BLIND, a benchmark that evaluates CUAs under unintended attack conditions, comprising 300 human-crafted tasks across 12 categories, 8 applications, and 2 threat clusters: environment-embedded threats and agent-initiated harms. Our evaluation on frontier models and agentic frameworks reveals that most CUAs exceed 90% attack success rate (ASR), and even the safety-aligned Claude 4.5 Sonnet reaches 73.0% ASR. More interestingly, this vulnerability becomes even more severe, with ASR rising from 73.0% to 92.7% when Claude 4.5 Sonnet is deployed in multi-agent systems. Our analysis further shows that existing safety defenses provide limited protection when user instructions are benign. Safety alignment primarily activates within the first few steps and rarely re-engages during subsequent execution. In multi-agent systems, decomposed subtasks obscure the harmful intent from the model, causing safety-aligned models to fail. We will release our OS-BLIND to encourage the broader research community to further investigate and address these safety challenges.

Statutes are increasingly parsed by machines before people read them, and the parsers disagree: on Missouri's statutes, two independently written extractors diverge on numeric-threshold presence at a false-negative rate of 0.43. We ask what formal logic survives such noise. We build a passive survival certificate for the Duquenne-Guigues implication basis of machine-extracted statutory contexts: per-attribute inter-extractor disagreement is measured, replayed against the basis in 1,000 Monte Carlo trials, and an implication is certified only when a one-sided Wilson 95% lower bound on survival reaches 0.95; every certified implication carries premise spans and a minimal counterexample. On 29,365 Missouri sections and 502 Indian central-Act sections, the preregistered held-out gate passes (10 statute families across 7 Titles exact; 16 across 11 with 5% tolerance), yet under one globally deployed error model 93.2% of held-out chapters fall below the informativeness floor, and a 2x2 factorial assigns that to calibration-rate transfer, not selection. The certificate is usable but fragile: deploy it per-chapter-calibrated or error-tolerant. Code, data products, and the audit trail, including one retracted claim, are released.