Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

This research introduces ToxicBench, a rigorous benchmark exposing how tool-augmented agents silently adopt plausible but incorrect evidence from poisoned sources, significantly degrading task success rates. The study demonstrates that while simple retries can mitigate single-point failures, repeated poisoning strategies lead to wrong-answer adoption even after verification checks, highlighting critical gaps in current agent reliability. These findings are essential for developers building robust data agents who must navigate the tension between trusting tool outputs and maintaining analytical integrity.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

When Tools Silently Lie: Evaluating and Mitigating Blind Compliance in Tool-Augmented Data Agents

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.37153v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-augmented data agents rely on tool outputs for analytical decisions. Yet successful execution can return plausible but incorrect evidence, requiring agents to decide whether to trust or verify it. Understanding this failure requires examining both the evidence obtained through checking and the answer ultimately adopted. We introduce ToxicBench to measure checking and adoption under numerical, label, schema, and retrieval errors, pairing clean and poisoned observations over fixed source data. In the 118-task GPT evaluation across three adapters, poisoning lowers task success by 26 to 39 percentage points. Ordinary retries help under one-shot poisoning, whereas repeated poisoning reveals wrong-answer adoption after checking. Controls on three public tables isolate how supplied evidence affects recovery. After freezing the scorer, we compare its judgments with human annotations on 200 trajectories, finding 96% task-success agreement. Human judgments support retry gains over Base and confirm adoption after checking on audited tasks. We release trajectories, versioned scoring, and reference and delivery audits. These findings highlight evidence availability and answer selection as complementary dimensions of agent reliability.

Abstract:Tool-augmented data agents rely on tool outputs for analytical decisions. Yet successful execution can return plausible but incorrect evidence, requiring agents to decide whether to trust or verify it. Understanding this failure requires examining both the evidence obtained through checking and the answer ultimately adopted. We introduce ToxicBench to measure checking and adoption under numerical, label, schema, and retrieval errors, pairing clean and poisoned observations over fixed source data. In the 118-task GPT evaluation across three adapters, poisoning lowers task success by 26 to 39 percentage points. Ordinary retries help under one-shot poisoning, whereas repeated poisoning reveals wrong-answer adoption after checking. Controls on three public tables isolate how supplied evidence affects recovery. After freezing the scorer, we compare its judgments with human annotations on 200 trajectories, finding 96% task-success agreement. Human judgments support retry gains over Base and confirm adoption after checking on audited tasks. We release trajectories, versioned scoring, and reference and delivery audits. These findings highlight evidence availability and answer selection as complementary dimensions of agent reliability.

28 pages, 8 figures. Code and benchmark materials: this https URL

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

arXiv:2609.37153 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2609.37153v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.37153 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 · 278 words

Related coverage