analiza aiqbench
This research reveals a critical security gap in tool-using LLM agents where 45% of top-ranked responses can trigger hidden, forbidden execution effects despite producing correct outputs. The introduced SINGED benchmark demonstrates that standard evaluation metrics fail to verify the integrity of the underlying execution path, necessitating new protocols that link output correctness with artifact safety.
SINGED: Correct Outputs Do Not Certify Safe Execution in LLM Agents
arXiv:2609.35889v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using language-model agents select and execute third-party artifacts. Different implementations can return the requested output while producing hidden execution effects that task-, attack-, or choice-based evaluations may miss. We study functional counterfeits: implementations that match benign alternatives on the requested output but add an effect forbidden by the task contract. We introduce SINGED (Source Integrity and the Nonidentifiability Gap in Execution Decisions for LLM Agents), a controlled benchmark covering five primary and two held-out task families. It varies displayed rank, evidence depth, decision policy, model release, and agent configuration, while task and process oracles verify the artifact and execution path. Across 7,549 audited trials, the randomized-rank study finds counterfeit execution in 45% (27/60) of rank-one trials and none at later ranks. Cross-candidate comparison eliminates shallow failures and reduces layered failures from 15.7% to 4.2%, but leaves dependency failures; its benefit is uncertain on unseen effects and public-package structures. Moreover, seven releases with no counterfeit executions when benign alternatives are available execute the counterfeit in 55/175 single-source cells after alternatives are removed. SINGED thus exposes a rank-, evidence-, and choice-sensitive outcome-to-execution gap: evaluation must connect correct outputs to execution paths.
Abstract:Tool-using language-model agents select and execute third-party artifacts. Different implementations can return the requested output while producing hidden execution effects that task-, attack-, or choice-based evaluations may miss. We study functional counterfeits: implementations that match benign alternatives on the requested output but add an effect forbidden by the task contract. We introduce SINGED (Source Integrity and the Nonidentifiability Gap in Execution Decisions for LLM Agents), a controlled benchmark covering five primary and two held-out task families. It varies displayed rank, evidence depth, decision policy, model release, and agent configuration, while task and process oracles verify the artifact and execution path. Across 7,549 audited trials, the randomized-rank study finds counterfeit execution in 45% (27/60) of rank-one trials and none at later ranks. Cross-candidate comparison eliminates shallow failures and reduces layered failures from 15.7% to 4.2%, but leaves dependency failures; its benefit is uncertain on unseen effects and public-package structures. Moreover, seven releases with no counterfeit executions when benign alternatives are available execute the counterfeit in 55/175 single-source cells after alternatives are removed. SINGED thus exposes a rank-, evidence-, and choice-sensitive outcome-to-execution gap: evaluation must connect correct outputs to execution paths.
Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.35889 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2609.35889v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.35889 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 287 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

The Alignment Problem: Computer Science Meets Analytic Philosophy
LessWrong · 18 oct. 2026

Underwriting Superintelligence: Backing Agents you can Sue — Rune Kvist, AIUC
Latent Space · 16 sept. 2026

The Entangled Dimensions of Decision Theory
LessWrong · 30 iul. 2026

News
Quantum Computing Report · 7 iun. 2026