Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

The paper argues that output-based evaluations of LLM agents can't detect a tampered runtime stack, and its experiments suggest that stronger LLM judges accept tampered outputs at slightly higher rates than rule-based scorers. For practitioners, the practical takeaway is that behavioral scores alone don't establish which model and components were actually deployed, so evaluation reports may need verifiable stack-identity information such as manifest hashes. The results are from a single benchmark, so their generality across real deployments still needs independent replication.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Stronger Judges Do Not See More: Deployment-Integrity Blindness in LLM Evaluation

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.21135v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-agent evaluation reports behavioral scores but leaves the identity of the deployed runtime stack unreported. A tampered deployment that preserves evaluated outputs passes every output-only evaluator. We introduce DIB-Bench, a benchmark that measures this deployment-integrity blindness across 7,560 scored examples, six tamper types, and an evaluator ladder from regex scorers through LLM judges to GPT-5-nano. Stronger evaluators accept more tampered outputs: mean acceptance rises from 88.6% (rule-based) to 94.1% (GPT-5-nano), and a trigger-conditional tamper invisible on the evaluation suite produces 48-100% harmful outputs, rising with model capability. A PAC-style bound shows that tampers with zero output shift are undetectable from outputs at any sample size; a manifest-hash identity channel detects them with zero samples. Behavioral fingerprinting identifies the model component above chance (76.7%) but covers one of six stack components. We also propose a graded deployment-identity descriptor for evaluation reports.

Abstract:LLM-agent evaluation reports behavioral scores but leaves the identity of the deployed runtime stack unreported. A tampered deployment that preserves evaluated outputs passes every output-only evaluator. We introduce DIB-Bench, a benchmark that measures this deployment-integrity blindness across 7,560 scored examples, six tamper types, and an evaluator ladder from regex scorers through LLM judges to GPT-5-nano. Stronger evaluators accept more tampered outputs: mean acceptance rises from 88.6% (rule-based) to 94.1% (GPT-5-nano), and a trigger-conditional tamper invisible on the evaluation suite produces 48-100% harmful outputs, rising with model capability. A PAC-style bound shows that tampers with zero output shift are undetectable from outputs at any sample size; a manifest-hash identity channel detects them with zero samples. Behavioral fingerprinting identifies the model component above chance (76.7%) but covers one of six stack components. We also propose a graded deployment-identity descriptor for evaluation reports.

Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2610.21135 [cs.CR]

(or arXiv:2610.21135v1 [cs.CR] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.21135 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 238 words

Related coverage