Daily Papers

Modern large language models are pretrained on massive datasets, making it difficult to prevent benchmark data from entering their training sets and undermining the reliability of evaluation results. Reliable evaluation is particularly challenging for base models, whose limited instruction-following ability complicates task-based assessment. We introduce Uncheatable Eval, a dynamic benchmark that regularly collects newly published text to evaluate base language models and reduce the risk of data contamination. Drawing on the relationship between a model's predictive ability and its ability to compress data losslessly, we use compression rate to evaluate how well models predict new text. We evaluate 80 models across 14 text categories, study how compression changes with context length, and examine the correlation between compression rate and zero-shot MMLU accuracy. Our results yield three main findings: (1) compression performance follows a consistent scaling trend with model size; (2) attention-based, hybrid, and recurrent models differ in how their compression performance changes as more context becomes available; and (3) lower compression rates are strongly associated with higher zero-shot MMLU accuracy. Code is available at https://github.com/Jellyfish042/uncheatable_eval.

One core capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) is to follow natural language instructions. However, the evaluation of such abilities is not standardized: Human evaluations are expensive, slow, and not objectively reproducible, while LLM-based auto-evaluation is potentially biased or limited by the ability of the evaluator LLM. To overcome these issues, we introduce Instruction-Following Eval (IFEval) for large language models. IFEval is a straightforward and easy-to-reproduce evaluation benchmark. It focuses on a set of "verifiable instructions" such as "write in more than 400 words" and "mention the keyword of AI at least 3 times". We identified 25 types of those verifiable instructions and constructed around 500 prompts, with each prompt containing one or more verifiable instructions. We show evaluation results of two widely available LLMs on the market. Our code and data can be found at https://github.com/google-research/google-research/tree/master/instruction_following_eval

Program synthesis has been long studied with recent approaches focused on directly using the power of Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate code. Programming benchmarks, with curated synthesis problems and test-cases, are used to measure the performance of various LLMs on code synthesis. However, these test-cases can be limited in both quantity and quality for fully assessing the functional correctness of the generated code. Such limitation in the existing benchmarks begs the following question: In the era of LLMs, is the code generated really correct? To answer this, we propose EvalPlus -- a code synthesis evaluation framework to rigorously benchmark the functional correctness of LLM-synthesized code. EvalPlus augments a given evaluation dataset with large amounts of test-cases newly produced by an automatic test input generator, powered by both LLM- and mutation-based strategies. While EvalPlus is general, we extend the test-cases of the popular HumanEval benchmark by 80x to build HumanEval+. Our extensive evaluation across 26 popular LLMs (e.g., GPT-4 and ChatGPT) demonstrates that HumanEval+ is able to catch significant amounts of previously undetected wrong code synthesized by LLMs, reducing the pass@k by up-to 19.3-28.9%. We also surprisingly found that test insufficiency can lead to mis-ranking. For example, both WizardCoder-CodeLlama and Phind-CodeLlama now outperform ChatGPT on HumanEval+, while none of them could on HumanEval. Our work not only indicates that prior popular code synthesis evaluation results do not accurately reflect the true performance of LLMs for code synthesis, but also opens up a new direction to improve such programming benchmarks through automated testing. We have open-sourced our tools, enhanced datasets as well as all LLM-generated code at https://github.com/evalplus/evalplus to facilitate and accelerate future LLM-for-code research.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have showcased impressive code generation capabilities, primarily evaluated through language-to-code benchmarks. However, these benchmarks may not fully capture a model's code understanding abilities. We introduce CodeJudge-Eval (CJ-Eval), a novel benchmark designed to assess LLMs' code understanding abilities from the perspective of code judging rather than code generation. CJ-Eval challenges models to determine the correctness of provided code solutions, encompassing various error types and compilation issues. By leveraging a diverse set of problems and a fine-grained judging system, CJ-Eval addresses the limitations of traditional benchmarks, including the potential memorization of solutions. Evaluation of 12 well-known LLMs on CJ-Eval reveals that even state-of-the-art models struggle, highlighting the benchmark's ability to probe deeper into models' code understanding abilities. Our benchmark will be available at https://github.com/CodeLLM-Research/CodeJudge-Eval.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in software engineering, their application to unit testing remains largely confined to isolated test generation or oracle prediction, neglecting the broader challenge of test suite maintenance. We introduce TAM-Eval (Test Automated Maintenance Evaluation), a framework and benchmark designed to evaluate model performance across three core test maintenance scenarios: creation, repair, and updating of test suites. Unlike prior work limited to function-level tasks, TAM-Eval operates at the test file level, while maintaining access to full repository context during isolated evaluation, better reflecting real-world maintenance workflows. Our benchmark comprises 1,539 automatically extracted and validated scenarios from Python, Java, and Go projects. TAM-Eval supports system-agnostic evaluation of both raw LLMs and agentic workflows, using a reference-free protocol based on test suite pass rate, code coverage, and mutation testing. Empirical results indicate that state-of-the-art LLMs have limited capabilities in realistic test maintenance processes and yield only marginal improvements in test effectiveness. We release TAM-Eval as an open-source framework to support future research in automated software testing. Our data and code are publicly available at https://github.com/trndcenter/TAM-Eval.

Reliable evaluation is essential for developing and deploying large language models, yet in practice it often requires substantial manual effort: practitioners must identify appropriate benchmarks, reproduce heterogeneous evaluation codebases, configure dataset schema mappings, and interpret aggregated metrics. To address these challenges, we present One-Eval, an agentic evaluation system that converts natural-language evaluation requests into executable, traceable, and customizable evaluation workflows. One-Eval integrates (i) NL2Bench for intent structuring and personalized benchmark planning, (ii) BenchResolve for benchmark resolution, automatic dataset acquisition, and schema normalization to ensure executability, and (iii) Metrics \& Reporting for task-aware metric selection and decision-oriented reporting beyond scalar scores. The system further incorporates human-in-the-loop checkpoints for review, editing, and rollback, while preserving sample evidence trails for debugging and auditability. Experiments show that One-Eval can execute end-to-end evaluations from diverse natural-language requests with minimal user effort, supporting more efficient and reproducible evaluation in industrial settings. Our framework is publicly available at https://github.com/OpenDCAI/One-Eval.

Large Language Models have gained considerable attention for their revolutionary capabilities. However, there is also growing concern on their safety implications, making a comprehensive safety evaluation for LLMs urgently needed before model deployment. In this work, we propose S-Eval, a new comprehensive, multi-dimensional and open-ended safety evaluation benchmark. At the core of S-Eval is a novel LLM-based automatic test prompt generation and selection framework, which trains an expert testing LLM Mt combined with a range of test selection strategies to automatically construct a high-quality test suite for the safety evaluation. The key to the automation of this process is a novel expert safety-critique LLM Mc able to quantify the riskiness score of a LLM's response, and additionally produce risk tags and explanations. Besides, the generation process is also guided by a carefully designed risk taxonomy with four different levels, covering comprehensive and multi-dimensional safety risks of concern. Based on these, we systematically construct a new and large-scale safety evaluation benchmark for LLMs consisting of 220,000 evaluation prompts, including 20,000 base risk prompts (10,000 in Chinese and 10,000 in English) and 200, 000 corresponding attack prompts derived from 10 popular adversarial instruction attacks against LLMs. Moreover, considering the rapid evolution of LLMs and accompanied safety threats, S-Eval can be flexibly configured and adapted to include new risks, attacks and models. S-Eval is extensively evaluated on 20 popular and representative LLMs. The results confirm that S-Eval can better reflect and inform the safety risks of LLMs compared to existing benchmarks. We also explore the impacts of parameter scales, language environments, and decoding parameters on the evaluation, providing a systematic methodology for evaluating the safety of LLMs.

We introduce TestCase-Eval, a new benchmark for systematic evaluation of LLMs in test-case generation. TestCase-Eval includes 500 algorithm problems and 100,000 human-crafted solutions from the Codeforces platform. It focuses on two pivotal tasks: (1) Fault Coverage, which measures how well LLM-generated test sets probe diverse input scenarios and cover a wide range of potential failure modes. (2) Fault Exposure, which evaluates whether LLMs can craft a tailored test input that reveals a specific incorrect code implementation. We provide a comprehensive assessment of 19 state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs on TestCase-Eval, offering insights into their strengths and limitations in generating effective test cases for algorithm problems.

Agent evaluation requires assessing complex multi-step behaviors involving tool use and intermediate reasoning, making it costly and expertise-intensive. A natural question arises: can frontier coding assistants reliably automate this evaluation process? Our study shows that simply prompting coding assistants is insufficient for this task. Without domain-specific evaluation knowledge, frontier coding assistants achieve only a 30% execution success rate and produce over-engineered evaluations averaging 12+ metrics per agent, indicating that strong coding ability does not automatically translate to reliable agent evaluation. We introduce EvalAgent, an AI assistant that automates the end-to-end agent evaluation pipeline. EvalAgent encodes evaluation domain expertise as evaluation skills (procedural instructions, reusable code and templates, and dynamically retrieved API documentation) that compose into a trace-based pipeline producing complete evaluation artifacts including metrics, executable code, and reports. To systematically assess generated evaluations, we introduce a meta-evaluation framework alongside AgentEvalBench, a benchmark comprising 20 agents, each paired with evaluation requirements and test scenarios. We further propose the Eval@1 metric to measure whether generated evaluation code both executes and yields meaningful results on the first run. Our experiments show that EvalAgent produces focused evaluations, improving Eval@1 from 17.5% to 65%, and achieving 79.5% human expert preference over baseline approaches. Further ablation studies show that evaluation skills are critical for handling complex evaluation: removing them causes Eval@1 to drop significantly from 65% to 30%.

The tendency to find and exploit "shortcuts" to complete tasks poses significant risks for reliable assessment and deployment of large language models (LLMs). For example, an LLM agent with access to unit tests may delete failing tests rather than fix the underlying bug. Such behavior undermines both the validity of benchmark results and the reliability of real-world LLM coding assistant deployments. To quantify, study, and mitigate such behavior, we introduce ImpossibleBench, a benchmark framework that systematically measures LLM agents' propensity to exploit test cases. ImpossibleBench creates "impossible" variants of tasks from existing benchmarks like LiveCodeBench and SWE-bench by introducing direct conflicts between the natural-language specification and the unit tests. We measure an agent's "cheating rate" as its pass rate on these impossible tasks, where any pass necessarily implies a specification-violating shortcut. As a practical framework, ImpossibleBench is not just an evaluation but a versatile tool. We demonstrate its utility for: (1) studying model behaviors, revealing more fine-grained details of cheating behaviors from simple test modification to complex operator overloading; (2) context engineering, showing how prompt, test access and feedback loop affect cheating rates; and (3) developing monitoring tools, providing a testbed with verified deceptive solutions. We hope ImpossibleBench serves as a useful framework for building more robust and reliable LLM systems. Our implementation can be found at https://github.com/safety-research/impossiblebench.

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.

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.

Unlearning in Large Language Models (LLMs) aims to enhance safety, mitigate biases, and comply with legal mandates, such as the right to be forgotten. However, existing unlearning methods are brittle: minor query modifications, such as multi-hop reasoning and entity aliasing, can recover supposedly forgotten information. As a result, current evaluation metrics often create an illusion of effectiveness, failing to detect these vulnerabilities due to reliance on static, unstructured benchmarks. We propose a dynamic framework that stress tests unlearning robustness using complex structured queries. Our approach first elicits knowledge from the target model (pre-unlearning) and constructs targeted probes, ranging from simple queries to multi-hop chains, allowing precise control over query difficulty. Our experiments show that the framework (1) shows comparable coverage to existing benchmarks by automatically generating semantically equivalent Q&A probes, (2) aligns with prior evaluations, and (3) uncovers new unlearning failures missed by other benchmarks, particularly in multi-hop settings. Furthermore, activation analyses show that single-hop queries typically follow dominant computation pathways, which are more likely to be disrupted by unlearning methods. In contrast, multi-hop queries tend to use alternative pathways that often remain intact, explaining the brittleness of unlearning techniques in multi-hop settings. Our framework enables practical and scalable evaluation of unlearning methods without the need for manual construction of forget test sets, enabling easier adoption for real-world applications. We release the pip package and the code at https://sites.google.com/view/unlearningmirage/home.

Coding agents can modify and test code across large software projects. Game development is a domain where agents must implement gameplay rules. A game can end in a valid state even after violating its rules during the run. Current game-development benchmarks replay fixed examples, score videos, or ask another model to judge the result. However, no existing benchmark checks game rules throughout execution across varied evaluator-selected scenarios while ensuring exactly reproducible verdicts. We introduce GameLogicBench, a benchmark of 72 gameplay-logic tasks in Godot projects. An automated evaluator checks each game's rules at every simulation tick. Across 403 hand-designed scenarios, seeded parameter variations produce 1,451 test cases. To ensure that the evaluator measures behavior rather than implementation choice, it must accept different correct implementations for each task while rejecting mutants, implementations with one required capability removed. The tasks span isolated mechanics, multi-system interactions, and repository-scale features. Across 20 combinations of language models and scaffolds, the best observed run solves 52.78% of tasks. Under Claude Code, all twelve models solve fewer tasks as task scope expands from isolated mechanics, through interacting systems, to repository-scale features. Agents inspect code more often and make more tool calls on repository-scale tasks than on isolated-mechanic tasks. Most unsuccessful submissions are runnable, but implement some required game behavior incorrectly. We compared versions of our benchmark evaluator built with and without validation using mutants. Without this validation, incorrect agent submissions passed. A separate analysis finds agents copying code from public repositories when network access is open. Reliable evaluation thus depends both on what the tests reject and on what external code agents can access.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly aided developers by generating or assisting in code writing, enhancing productivity across various tasks. While identifying incorrect code is often straightforward, detecting vulnerabilities in functionally correct code is more challenging, especially for developers with limited security knowledge, which poses considerable security risks of using LLM-generated code and underscores the need for robust evaluation benchmarks that assess both functional correctness and security. Current benchmarks like CyberSecEval and SecurityEval attempt to solve it but are hindered by unclear and impractical specifications, failing to assess both functionality and security accurately. To tackle these deficiencies, we introduce CWEval, a novel outcome-driven evaluation framework designed to enhance the evaluation of secure code generation by LLMs. This framework not only assesses code functionality but also its security simultaneously with high-quality task specifications and outcome-driven test oracles which provides high accuracy. Coupled with CWEval-bench, a multilingual, security-critical coding benchmark, CWEval provides a rigorous empirical security evaluation on LLM-generated code, overcoming previous benchmarks' shortcomings. Through our evaluations, CWEval reveals a notable portion of functional but insecure code produced by LLMs, and shows a serious inaccuracy of previous evaluations, ultimately contributing significantly to the field of secure code generation. We open-source our artifact at: https://github.com/Co1lin/CWEval .

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly integrate native code interpreters, they enable powerful real-time execution capabilities, substantially expanding their utility. However, such integrations introduce potential system-level cybersecurity threats, fundamentally different from prompt-based vulnerabilities. To systematically evaluate these interpreter-specific risks, we propose CIRCLE (Code-Interpreter Resilience Check for LLM Exploits), a simple benchmark comprising 1,260 prompts targeting CPU, memory, and disk resource exhaustion. Each risk category includes explicitly malicious ("direct") and plausibly benign ("indirect") prompt variants. Our automated evaluation framework assesses not only whether LLMs refuse or generates risky code, but also executes the generated code within the interpreter environment to evaluate code correctness, simplifications made by the LLM to make the code safe, or execution timeouts. Evaluating 7 commercially available models from OpenAI and Google, we uncover significant and inconsistent vulnerabilities. For instance, evaluations show substantial disparities even within providers - OpenAI's o4-mini correctly refuses risky requests at 7.1%, notably higher rates compared to GPT-4.1 at 0.5%. Results particularly underscore that indirect, socially-engineered prompts substantially weaken model defenses. This highlights an urgent need for interpreter-specific cybersecurity benchmarks, dedicated mitigation tools (e.g., guardrails), and clear industry standards to guide safe and responsible deployment of LLM interpreter integrations. The benchmark dataset and evaluation code are publicly released to foster further research.

Recent developments in Large Language Models (LLMs) have manifested significant advancements. To facilitate safeguards against malicious exploitation, a body of research has concentrated on aligning LLMs with human preferences and inhibiting their generation of inappropriate content. Unfortunately, such alignments are often vulnerable: fine-tuning with a minimal amount of harmful data can easily unalign the target LLM. While being effective, such fine-tuning-based unalignment approaches also have their own limitations: (1) non-stealthiness, after fine-tuning, safety audits or red-teaming can easily expose the potential weaknesses of the unaligned models, thereby precluding their release/use. (2) non-persistence, the unaligned LLMs can be easily repaired through re-alignment, i.e., fine-tuning again with aligned data points. In this work, we show that it is possible to conduct stealthy and persistent unalignment on large language models via backdoor injections. We also provide a novel understanding on the relationship between the backdoor persistence and the activation pattern and further provide guidelines for potential trigger design. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that our proposed stealthy and persistent unalignment can successfully pass the safety evaluation while maintaining strong persistence against re-alignment defense.

Evaluation is pivotal for refining Large Language Models (LLMs), pinpointing their capabilities, and guiding enhancements. The rapid development of LLMs calls for a lightweight and easy-to-use framework for swift evaluation deployment. However, considering various implementation details, developing a comprehensive evaluation platform is never easy. Existing platforms are often complex and poorly modularized, hindering seamless incorporation into research workflows. This paper introduces UltraEval, a user-friendly evaluation framework characterized by its lightweight nature, comprehensiveness, modularity, and efficiency. We identify and reimplement three core components of model evaluation (models, data, and metrics). The resulting composability allows for the free combination of different models, tasks, prompts, benchmarks, and metrics within a unified evaluation workflow. Additionally, UltraEval supports diverse models owing to a unified HTTP service and provides sufficient inference acceleration. UltraEval is now available for researchers publicly.

Automated LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks have become the de facto standard for scalable evaluation across natural language processing. For instance, in safety evaluation, these judges are relied upon to evaluate harmfulness in order to benchmark the robustness of safety against adversarial attacks. However, we show that existing validation protocols fail to account for substantial distribution shifts inherent to red-teaming: diverse victim models exhibit distinct generation styles, attacks distort output patterns, and semantic ambiguity varies significantly across jailbreak scenarios. Through a comprehensive audit using 6642 human-verified labels, we reveal that the unpredictable interaction of these shifts often causes judge performance to degrade to near random chance. This stands in stark contrast to the high human agreement reported in prior work. Crucially, we find that many attacks inflate their success rates by exploiting judge insufficiencies rather than eliciting genuinely harmful content. To enable more reliable evaluation, we propose ReliableBench, a benchmark of behaviors that remain more consistently judgeable, and JudgeStressTest, a dataset designed to expose judge failures. Data available at: https://github.com/SchwinnL/LLMJudgeReliability.

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.

Benchmark contamination has become a significant concern in the LLM evaluation community. Previous Agents-as-an-Evaluator address this issue by involving agents in the generation of questions. Despite their success, the biases in Agents-as-an-Evaluator methods remain largely unexplored. In this paper, we present a theoretical formulation of evaluation bias, providing valuable insights into designing unbiased evaluation protocols. Furthermore, we identify two type of bias in Agents-as-an-Evaluator through carefully designed probing tasks on a minimal Agents-as-an-Evaluator setup. To address these issues, we propose the Unbiased Evaluator, an evaluation protocol that delivers a more comprehensive, unbiased, and interpretable assessment of LLMs.Extensive experiments reveal significant room for improvement in current LLMs. Additionally, we demonstrate that the Unbiased Evaluator not only offers strong evidence of benchmark contamination but also provides interpretable evaluation results.

Benchmarks can run without determining what their results license. We freeze a large evaluation collection and attempt to replay its historical claims. Most units stop because the evidence required for replay is not bound. Where replay is possible, different claims remain stable at different resolutions. We make this otherwise implicit inference step explicit and executable.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly capable, it is prudent to assess whether safety measures remain effective even if LLMs intentionally try to bypass them. Previous work introduced control evaluations, an adversarial framework for testing deployment strategies of untrusted models (i.e., models which might be trying to bypass safety measures). While prior work treats a single failure as unacceptable, we perform control evaluations in a "distributed threat setting" -- a setting where no single action is catastrophic and no single action provides overwhelming evidence of misalignment. We approach this problem with a two-level deployment framework that uses an adaptive macro-protocol to choose between micro-protocols. Micro-protocols operate on a single task, using a less capable, but extensively tested (trusted) model to harness and monitor the untrusted model. Meanwhile, the macro-protocol maintains an adaptive credence on the untrusted model's alignment based on its past actions, using it to pick between safer and riskier micro-protocols. We evaluate our method in a code generation testbed where a red team attempts to generate subtly backdoored code with an LLM whose deployment is safeguarded by a blue team. We plot Pareto frontiers of safety (# of non-backdoored solutions) and usefulness (# of correct solutions). At a given level of usefulness, our adaptive deployment strategy reduces the number of backdoors by 80% compared to non-adaptive baselines.

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.

Function calling is a core capability of large language models, essential for AI agents. Existing benchmarks such as the Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL), tau^2-Bench (arXiv:2506.07982), and ACEBench (arXiv:2501.12851) evaluate argument correctness but do not test adherence to format instructions embedded in parameter descriptions, such as enclosing values in double quotes or using ISO date formats. We introduce IFEval-FC, a benchmark inspired by IFEval (arXiv:2311.07911) that assesses precise instruction following in function calling. IFEval-FC encodes verifiable formats directly within JSON schema descriptions, for example specifying that a value must not contain punctuation. It includes 750 test cases, each consisting of a function with an embedded format for one of its input parameters and a corresponding user query. Evaluation is fully algorithmic, ensuring objectivity, reproducibility, and scalability. Our results show that even state-of-the-art proprietary models, including GPT-5 and Claude 4.1 Opus, frequently fail to follow basic formatting rules, highlighting a practical limitation for real-world agent systems. The complete codebase and data are publicly available at https://github.com/Skripkon/IFEval-FC.

Evaluations (Evals) are a deployment bottleneck for real-world AI applications: public benchmarks rarely match a team's users, context, or policies, and human review is often tedious to scale. Motivated by our work with AI applications in the public sector, this project addresses recurring evaluation challenges encountered when applications must satisfy local policy and governance requirements. We present Kaleidoscope, an integrated workflow for contextual functional evaluation that links persona-based test generation, contextualized rubrics, and human review for reliability-gated automated scoring. Generated test cases are scored against application-specific rubrics; human annotations provide reviewable labels; and LLM judges automate scoring only when their agreement with those labels meets a configured threshold. Kaleidoscope is therefore a practical, inspectable, iterative workflow for product teams. We report early evidence from a three-week pilot across four organizational use cases and custom-rubric judge experiments on 108 annotated Q\&A pairs spanning four domains and 14 evaluation dimensions. The results highlight useful features for end-to-end reliable, automated scoring.

Code large language models (Code LLMs) have made significant progress in code generation by translating natural language descriptions into functional code; however, real-world applications often demand stricter adherence to detailed requirements such as coding style, line count, and structural constraints, beyond mere correctness. To address this, the paper introduces forward and backward constraints generation to improve the instruction-following capabilities of Code LLMs in controlled code generation, ensuring outputs align more closely with human-defined guidelines. The authors further present IFEvalCode, a multilingual benchmark comprising 1.6K test samples across seven programming languages (Python, Java, JavaScript, TypeScript, Shell, C++, and C#), with each sample featuring both Chinese and English queries. Unlike existing benchmarks, IFEvalCode decouples evaluation into two metrics: correctness (Corr.) and instruction-following (Instr.), enabling a more nuanced assessment. Experiments on over 40 LLMs reveal that closed-source models outperform open-source ones in controllable code generation and highlight a significant gap between the models' ability to generate correct code versus code that precisely follows instructions.

Self-evolving agent systems improve by creating, revising, and retiring their own skills, but every such loop rests on a hidden assumption: a reliable evaluation metric already exists. In many real applications it does not. We make three claims. First, metrics can be evolved: our metric loop searches compositions of small drawback detectors under a full evolutionary lifecycle, trained to agree with a ten-item anchored reference set, regularized by consensus over unlabeled outputs, and audited against a held-out anchor it never reads, yielding a transparent, inspectable metric rather than an opaque judge. Second, since no metric exists to beat, the yardstick is recovering what an accurate metric would have enabled, and Double Ratchet, our co-evolution of the metric with a lifecycle-managed skill loop, does so: across code generation (MBPP+), enterprise text-to-SQL (Spider~2.0-Snow), and reference-free report generation, it retains 88--110\% of the held-out lift achieved by the same skill loop driven by ground truth or the best available rubric. Third, safety comes from anchor discipline plus outer audits: removing anchor guards collapses the metric into a vacuous detector while removing the lifecycle does not; and when evolved skills gamed the report rubric, an independent judge caught it, one detector repaired it, and a task-aware judge then preferred the evolved outputs over the pre-evolution baseline in 77\% of decided pairs. We argue this failure-expecting architecture is the right default wherever no reliable automatic verifier exists.

Machine unlearning aims to remove sensitive or undesired data from large language models. However, recent studies suggest that unlearning is often shallow, claiming that removed knowledge can easily be recovered. In this work, we critically examine standard unlearning evaluation practices and uncover key limitations that shake our trust in those findings. First, we show that some evaluations introduce substantial new information into the model, potentially masking true unlearning performance by re-teaching the model during testing. Second, we demonstrate that evaluation outcomes vary significantly across tasks, undermining the generalizability of current evaluation routines. Finally, we find that many evaluations rely on spurious correlations, making their results difficult to trust and interpret. Taken together, these issues suggest that current evaluation protocols may both overstate and understate unlearning success. To address this, we propose two principles for future unlearning evaluations: minimal information injection and downstream task awareness. We validate these principles through a series of targeted experiments, showing how violations of each can lead to misleading conclusions.

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

Due to the cumbersome nature of human evaluation and limitations of code-based evaluation, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to assist humans in evaluating LLM outputs. Yet LLM-generated evaluators simply inherit all the problems of the LLMs they evaluate, requiring further human validation. We present a mixed-initiative approach to ``validate the validators'' -- aligning LLM-generated evaluation functions (be it prompts or code) with human requirements. Our interface, EvalGen, provides automated assistance to users in generating evaluation criteria and implementing assertions. While generating candidate implementations (Python functions, LLM grader prompts), EvalGen asks humans to grade a subset of LLM outputs; this feedback is used to select implementations that better align with user grades. A qualitative study finds overall support for EvalGen but underscores the subjectivity and iterative process of alignment. In particular, we identify a phenomenon we dub criteria drift: users need criteria to grade outputs, but grading outputs helps users define criteria. What is more, some criteria appears dependent on the specific LLM outputs observed (rather than independent criteria that can be defined a priori), raising serious questions for approaches that assume the independence of evaluation from observation of model outputs. We present our interface and implementation details, a comparison of our algorithm with a baseline approach, and implications for the design of future LLM evaluation assistants.

Deploying language models (LMs) necessitates outputs to be both high-quality and compliant with safety guidelines. Although Inference-Time Guardrails (ITG) offer solutions that shift model output distributions towards compliance, we find that current methods struggle in balancing safety with helpfulness. ITG Methods that safely address non-compliant queries exhibit lower helpfulness while those that prioritize helpfulness compromise on safety. We refer to this trade-off as the guardrail tax, analogous to the alignment tax. To address this, we propose PrimeGuard, a novel ITG method that utilizes structured control flow. PrimeGuard routes requests to different self-instantiations of the LM with varying instructions, leveraging its inherent instruction-following capabilities and in-context learning. Our tuning-free approach dynamically compiles system-designer guidelines for each query. We construct and release safe-eval, a diverse red-team safety benchmark. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that PrimeGuard, without fine-tuning, overcomes the guardrail tax by (1) significantly increasing resistance to iterative jailbreak attacks and (2) achieving state-of-the-art results in safety guardrailing while (3) matching helpfulness scores of alignment-tuned models. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that PrimeGuard, without fine-tuning, outperforms all competing baselines and overcomes the guardrail tax by improving the fraction of safe responses from 61% to 97% and increasing average helpfulness scores from 4.17 to 4.29 on the largest models, while reducing attack success rate from 100% to 8%. PrimeGuard implementation is available at https://github.com/dynamofl/PrimeGuard and safe-eval dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/dynamoai/safe_eval.

With the growing use of large language models(LLMs) as evaluators, their application has expanded to code evaluation tasks, where they assess the correctness of generated code without relying on reference implementations. While this offers scalability and flexibility, it also raises a critical, unresolved question: Can LLM judges fairly and robustly evaluate semantically equivalent code with superficial variations? Functionally correct code often exhibits variations-such as differences in variable names, comments, or formatting-that should not influence its correctness. Yet, whether LLM judges can reliably handle these variations remains unclear. We present the first comprehensive study of this issue, defining six types of potential bias in code evaluation and revealing their systematic impact on LLM judges. Across five programming languages and multiple LLMs, we empirically demonstrate that all tested LLM judges are susceptible to both positive and negative biases, resulting in inflated or unfairly low scores. Moreover, we observe that LLM judges remain vulnerable to these biases even when prompted to generate test cases before scoring, highlighting the need for more robust code evaluation methods.

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.

The growing awareness of safety concerns in large language models (LLMs) has sparked considerable interest in the evaluation of safety within current research endeavors. This study investigates an interesting issue pertaining to the evaluation of LLMs, namely the substantial discrepancy in performance between multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. Inspired by research on jailbreak attack patterns, we argue this is caused by mismatched generalization. That is, the LLM does not have a comprehensive understanding of the complex concept of safety. Instead, it only remembers what to answer for open-ended safety questions, which makes it unable to solve other forms of safety tests. We refer to this phenomenon as fake alignment and construct a comparative benchmark to empirically verify its existence in LLMs. Such fake alignment renders previous evaluation protocols unreliable. To address this, we introduce the Fake alIgNment Evaluation (FINE) framework and two novel metrics--Consistency Score (CS) and Consistent Safety Score (CSS), which jointly assess two complementary forms of evaluation to quantify fake alignment and obtain corrected performance estimates. Applying FINE to 14 widely-used LLMs reveals several models with purported safety are poorly aligned in practice. Our work highlights potential limitations in prevailing alignment methodologies.

Safety claims on self-improving agent runtimes are almost always self-graded: a policy file, a guardrail, or a README commitment. We describe falsifiable release gates, and a methodology to build and validate such systems, such that every new capability must pass a pre-specified, machine-verifiable acceptance suite before it ships, and a fixed set of standing invariants is preserved at each gate. I think we applied the method in the Antahkarana, an open runtime, via seven gates from basic observability into a self governing loop that suggests changes to its own policy. no action goes to an effector without a safety-critical property capability token minted by a control ring is exhaustively machine-checked over the one million recorded reachable state space of a bounded model and re-checked against execution traces. A purposely broken model gives the shortest counterexample, so the checker has teeth, is apparent. The self-enhancement loop is positively Constrained: the entire write surface is policy rules, tightening changes. may auto-apply loosening changes always require a human merge and a proposal autoclosed is one that mispredicts its own effect; We publish the acceptance measured results for all the seven gates, define precisely the scope of each claim (a bounded of the coordination skeleton (not the learned components) and free the runtime, either command line tools and the gate suite, so the results reproduce, and gates can run against other agent frameworks. Reviewers may repeat the single command central non-bypass in seconds.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as agents that solve tasks by interacting with external tool environments. Although recent tool-use benchmarks increasingly cover complex task settings, they still largely assume clean, stable, and trustworthy tool environments, leaving tool-environment unreliability insufficiently examined. We introduce ToolBench-X, a benchmark for evaluating agents under recoverable reliability hazards. ToolBench-X contains executable multi-step tasks across diverse domains and sequential, parallel, and mixed workflows, each paired with deterministic tools and a canonical final answer for automatic evaluation. Starting from clean tool environments, ToolBench-X injects five structured hazard types: Specification Drift, Invocation Error, Execution Failure, Output Drift, and Cross-source Conflict. Crucially, each injected instance remains solvable through at least one valid recovery path, such as retrying, fallback, verification, or cross-checking. Experiments reveal a substantial reliability gap: agents that perform well with reliable tools often fail under recoverable hazards. Further analysis shows that failures are driven less by tool-use volume or inference budget than by limited hazard diagnosis and ineffective recovery. Targeted recovery hints recover many failed tasks, while test-time scaling yields more limited gains. These results suggest that tool-use evaluation should move beyond function-call accuracy toward task completion under unreliable tool environments. The code and data is available at https://github.com/Foreverskyou/ToolBench-X.

Almost every paper on LLM jailbreaks and prompt injection reports an attack-success rate (ASR), and that number is assigned not by people but by an automated judge: either a safety classifier trained for the task, or a general chat model prompted to grade. The judge is rarely checked. We check it. Using 596 human-labeled completions from the HarmBench classifier validation set, we compare the two judge families against human majority votes and then attack them. The two families fail in opposite ways. The dedicated classifier over-flags (precision 0.835, recall 0.974); three different LLM-as-judges keep high precision (0.81 to 0.94) but show erratic recall (0.06 to 0.65), so the same responses produce very different ASR depending on which judge scores them. The two families also differ sharply in robustness. Wrappers that leave the harmful text untouched and only add benign framing flip every LLM-judge between 57% and 100% of the time, and a single prepended refusal sentence accounts for much of this (39% to 88%). The dedicated classifier resists these surface attacks (at most 6.7%), but a white-box GCG attack on its open weights flips 70% of confident true positives (21 of 30; 95% CI 54 to 86%) even at a small optimization budget. A two-annotator audit confirms the attacks leave the harm intact: every one of 80 sampled flips still contained the harmful content. Because a large and growing share of reported ASR comes from LLM-judges, many such numbers are unreliable both on average and under deliberate pressure. We recommend that papers report judge precision and recall on a human-labeled slice, report ASR corrected for judge precision, and include an adversarial check of the judge. Our code is released.

Software vulnerabilities are increasing at an alarming rate. However, manual patching is both time-consuming and resource-intensive, while existing automated vulnerability repair (AVR) techniques remain limited in effectiveness. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have opened a new paradigm for AVR, demonstrating remarkable progress. To examine the capability of LLMs in AVR, several vulnerability benchmarks have been proposed recently. However, they still suffer from key limitations of outdated vulnerabilities, limited language coverage, unreliable patch validation, and insufficient reproducibility. To overcome these challenges, we introduce PATCHEVAL, a multilingual benchmark for Go, JavaScript, and Python, languages for which existing benchmarks remain unexplored. PATCHEVAL curates a dataset of 1,000 vulnerabilities drawn from CVEs reported between 2015 and 2025, covering 65 distinct CWEs. A subset of 230 CVEs is further equipped with runtime sandbox environments, enabling patch verification through both security tests and functionality tests. To provide a systematic comparison of LLM-based vulnerability repair, we evaluate a series of state-of-the-art LLMs and agents, presenting an in-depth analysis that empirically yields key insights to guide future research in AVR.

Coding agents are increasingly asked to build software rather than patch it, yet benchmarks for from-scratch repository construction are mostly limited to a single language and depend on manually curated tasks. We introduce Zero2Repo, a benchmark in which an agent receives a product requirements document, an interface contract, and an empty workspace, and must deliver a complete repository in the project's native ecosystem. Tasks are produced by a language-agnostic authoring pipeline that converts real, version-pinned open-source projects into behavioral specifications, reproducible environments, and hidden acceptance tests. Each task is validated by execution: a reference implementation derived from the upstream project must pass, and adversarial validation must show that the tests reject incorrect implementations. Evaluation runs production coding agents in isolated containers, withholds the acceptance tests until an explicit submission, and assigns a binary reward only when every test passes, with no LLM judge. The pipeline and harness make no language-specific assumptions and apply to mainstream programming ecosystems; the current release contains Python, TypeScript, Go, and C++ tasks. Even on 11 tasks drawn from repositories that frontier models have very likely seen during training, the strongest agent solves only 10, and every failing submission passes 90-99% of the hidden tests; for the two strongest agents, 67-100% of failed tests trace to a single omission or a low-frequency rule stated in the specification rather than to a missing subsystem, so each failure is a concrete target for improvement.

Rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) has achieved major advances in reasoning, planning, and function-calling capabilities. Multi-agentic collaborative frameworks using such LLMs place them at the center of solving software development-related tasks such as code generation. However, direct use of LLM generated code in production software development systems is problematic. The code could be unstable or erroneous and contain vulnerabilities such as data poisoning, malicious attacks, and hallucinations that could lead to widespread system malfunctions. This prohibits the adoption of LLM generated code in production AI systems where human code reviews and traditional secure testing tools are impractical or untrustworthy. In this paper, we discuss safety and reliability problems with the execution of LLM generated code and propose a Secure Transpiler and Executor of LLM-Generated Program (STELP), capable of executing LLM-generated code in a controlled and safe manner. STELP secures autonomous production AI systems involving code generation, filling the critical void left by the impracticality or limitations of traditional secure testing methodologies and human oversight. This includes applications such as headless code generation-execution and LLMs that produce executable code snippets as an action plan to be executed in real time. We contribute a human-validated dataset of insecure code snippets and benchmark our approach on publicly available datasets for correctness, safety, and latency. Our results demonstrate that our approach outperforms an existing method by a significant margin, particularly in its ability to safely execute risky code snippets. Warning: This paper contains malicious code snippets that should be run with caution.

Recently, machine unlearning, the removal of specific training data influence from a model, has gained increasing attention. In large language models (LLMs), unlearning is particularly challenging due to the ambiguity of inputs and outputs. Con- sequently, rigorous evaluation is critical for assessing both safety and utility, and for driving progress in unlearning meth- ods. We identify two key shortcomings in existing unlearning benchmarks: (1) they do not actively test whether unlearned information can still be forcibly extracted, and (2) they fail to evaluate performance preservation on boundary questions, be- nign queries that are semantically close to the unlearned con- tent. Here we introduce WMDP++, an extension of WMDP that addresses these gaps by incorporating targeted extrac- tion of unlearned information and systematic evaluation on boundary questions. WMDP++ provides a more stringent and informative benchmark for evaluating unlearning in LLMs.

With the rapidly increasing capabilities and adoption of code agents for AI-assisted coding, safety concerns, such as generating or executing risky code, have become significant barriers to the real-world deployment of these agents. To provide comprehensive and practical evaluations on the safety of code agents, we propose RedCode, a benchmark for risky code execution and generation: (1) RedCode-Exec provides challenging prompts that could lead to risky code execution, aiming to evaluate code agents' ability to recognize and handle unsafe code. We provide a total of 4,050 risky test cases in Python and Bash tasks with diverse input formats including code snippets and natural text. They covers 25 types of critical vulnerabilities spanning 8 domains (e.g., websites, file systems). We provide Docker environments and design corresponding evaluation metrics to assess their execution results. (2) RedCode-Gen provides 160 prompts with function signatures and docstrings as input to assess whether code agents will follow instructions to generate harmful code or software. Our empirical findings, derived from evaluating three agent frameworks based on 19 LLMs, provide insights into code agents' vulnerabilities. For instance, evaluations on RedCode-Exec show that agents are more likely to reject executing risky operations on the operating system, but are less likely to reject executing technically buggy code, indicating high risks. Risky operations described in natural text lead to a lower rejection rate than those in code format. Additionally, evaluations on RedCode-Gen show that more capable base models and agents with stronger overall coding abilities, such as GPT4, tend to produce more sophisticated and effective harmful software. Our findings highlight the need for stringent safety evaluations for diverse code agents. Our dataset and code are available at https://github.com/AI-secure/RedCode.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated an impressive ability to generate code for various programming tasks. In many instances, LLMs can generate a correct program for a task when given numerous trials. Consequently, a recent trend is to do large scale sampling of programs using a model and then filtering/ranking the programs based on the program execution on a small number of known unit tests to select one candidate solution. However, these approaches assume that the unit tests are given and assume the ability to safely execute the generated programs (which can do arbitrary dangerous operations such as file manipulations). Both of the above assumptions are impractical in real-world software development. In this paper, we propose CodeRanker, a neural ranker that can predict the correctness of a sampled program without executing it. Our CodeRanker is fault-aware i.e., it is trained to predict different kinds of execution information such as predicting the exact compile/runtime error type (e.g., an IndexError or a TypeError). We show that CodeRanker can significantly increase the pass@1 accuracy of various code generation models (including Codex, GPT-Neo, GPT-J) on APPS, HumanEval and MBPP datasets.

The code generation capabilities of large language models(LLMs) have emerged as a critical dimension in evaluating their overall performance. However, prior research has largely overlooked the security risks inherent in the generated code. In this work, we introduce SafeGenBench, a benchmark specifically designed to assess the security of LLM-generated code. The dataset encompasses a wide range of common software development scenarios and vulnerability types. Building upon this benchmark, we develop an automatic evaluation framework that leverages both static application security testing(SAST) and LLM-based judging to assess the presence of security vulnerabilities in model-generated code. Through the empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs on SafeGenBench, we reveal notable deficiencies in their ability to produce vulnerability-free code. Our findings highlight pressing challenges and offer actionable insights for future advancements in the secure code generation performance of LLMs. The data and code will be released soon.

Evaluating aligned large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests is crucial for safe, policy-compliant deployments. Existing evaluation efforts, however, face three limitations that we address with SORRY-Bench, our proposed benchmark. First, existing methods often use coarse-grained taxonomies of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics. For example, among the ten existing datasets that we evaluated, tests for refusals of self-harm instructions are over 3x less represented than tests for fraudulent activities. SORRY-Bench improves on this by using a fine-grained taxonomy of 45 potentially unsafe topics, and 450 class-balanced unsafe instructions, compiled through human-in-the-loop methods. Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations. We supplement SORRY-Bench with 20 diverse linguistic augmentations to systematically examine these effects. Third, existing evaluations rely on large LLMs (e.g., GPT-4) for evaluation, which can be computationally expensive. We investigate design choices for creating a fast, accurate automated safety evaluator. By collecting 7K+ human annotations and conducting a meta-evaluation of diverse LLM-as-a-judge designs, we show that fine-tuned 7B LLMs can achieve accuracy comparable to GPT-4 scale LLMs, with lower computational cost. Putting these together, we evaluate over 40 proprietary and open-source LLMs on SORRY-Bench, analyzing their distinctive refusal behaviors. We hope our effort provides a building block for systematic evaluations of LLMs' safety refusal capabilities, in a balanced, granular, and efficient manner.

Autonomous coding agents increasingly execute multi-step software work, but lifecycle states such as reviewed, tested, DONE, and ready-to-merge remain claims unless supported by current evidence. We present Proof-or-Stop Lifecycle Control, a method that permits lifecycle transitions only when fresh, tracked-source-state-bound, mechanically verifiable evidence satisfies the relevant gate. The method treats agent outputs as claims rather than lifecycle state, and uses proof operationally to mean gate-admissible evidence under a stated trust model, not semantic program correctness. We evaluate an open-source implementation through mechanism tests, a powered control-policy ablation, and operated self-application evidence. The unattended-loop engine passed 10 of 10 scenarios with zero false-DONE, and local-key receipt bundles rejected 18 tamper classes with zero false accepts. In a 9,240-cell ablation, the pre-registered A4 versus A2-prime comparison reduced visible-pass/hidden-fail amplification from 31 of 1,800 injected cells under a compute-budgeted naive loop to 2 of 1,800 under the gated loop, a 1.6 percentage-point improvement in not-amplified rate with a 95 percent confidence interval of [0.8, 2.5]. A near-compute A3 versus A4 comparison, 14 of 1,800 versus 2 of 1,800, indicates that the gain is associated with enforcing review as a lifecycle gate rather than merely adding a reviewer. The self-application corpus contains 565 stories and 1,007 review findings, with 94.8 percent resolved, plus a 68-row high/critical cross-vendor exhibit. These results support Proof-or-Stop as a model-agnostic, host-neutral control layer for deciding which autonomous-agent claims a lifecycle may act on. The evaluation is limited to one model family, 24 ablation tasks, and a self-hosted corpus.

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.

The hallucination of code generation models hinders their applicability to systems requiring higher safety standards. One critical bottleneck in addressing code hallucination is the difficulty of identifying the functional correctness of generated code, due to its unnatural form. We address this core bottleneck by automatically generating unit tests using dynamic code analysis tools, leveraging the executable nature of code. Accordingly, we propose a selective code generator that abstains from uncertain generations -- based on the functional correctness evaluated by generated unit tests -- to theoretically control the correctness among non-abstained answers, \ie the false discovery rate. Finally, we propose to use generated unit tests in evaluation as well as in learning for precise code evaluation, calling this paradigm FuzzEval. We demonstrate the efficacy of our method along with the controllability of code hallucination and reasonable selection efficiency.

Decentralized Finance (DeFi) has turned blockchains into financial infrastructure, allowing anyone to trade, lend, and build protocols without intermediaries, but this openness exposes pools of value controlled by code. Within five years, the DeFi ecosystem has lost over 15.75B USD to reported exploits. Many exploits arise from permissionless opportunities that any participant can trigger using only public state and standard interfaces, which we call Anyone-Can-Take (ACT) opportunities. Despite on-chain transparency, postmortem analysis remains slow and manual: investigations start from limited evidence, sometimes only a single transaction hash, and must reconstruct the exploit lifecycle by recovering related transactions, contract code, and state dependencies. We present TxRay, a Large Language Model (LLM) agentic postmortem system that uses tool calls to reconstruct live ACT attacks from limited evidence. Starting from one or more seed transactions, TxRay recovers the exploit lifecycle, derives an evidence-backed root cause, and generates a runnable, self-contained Proof of Concept (PoC) that deterministically reproduces the incident. TxRay self-checks postmortems by encoding incident-specific semantic oracles as executable assertions. To evaluate PoC correctness and quality, we develop PoCEvaluator, an independent agentic execution-and-review evaluator. On 114 incidents from DeFiHackLabs, TxRay produces an expert-aligned root cause and an executable PoC for 105 incidents, achieving 92.11% end-to-end reproduction. Under PoCEvaluator, 98.1% of TxRay PoCs avoid hard-coding attacker addresses, a +22.9pp lift over DeFiHackLabs. In a live deployment, TxRay delivers validated root causes in 40 minutes and PoCs in 59 minutes at median latency. TxRay's oracle-validated PoCs enable attack imitation, improving coverage by 15.6% and 65.5% over STING and APE.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are being increasingly used in software engineering tasks, with an increased focus on bug report resolution over the past year. However, most proposed systems fail to properly handle uncertain or incorrect inputs and outputs. Existing LLM-based tools and coding agents respond to every issue and generate a patch for every case, even when the input is vague or their own output is incorrect. There are no mechanisms in place to abstain when confidence is low. This leads to unreliable behaviour, such as hallucinated code changes or responses based on vague issue reports. We introduce BouncerBench, a benchmark that evaluates whether LLM-based software agents can refuse to act when inputs are ill-defined or refuse to respond when their own outputs are likely to be incorrect. Unlike prior benchmarks that implicitly incentivize models to generate responses even when uncertain, BouncerBench aims to improve precision by targeting two overlooked failure points: (1) vague or underspecified issue descriptions in tickets and (2) logically or functionally incorrect code patches created by the system. It measures whether proposed systems can distinguish actionable issues from vague tickets and valid patches from untrustworthy ones. We also implement a basic input and output bouncer, evaluating how well current LLMs can abstain when needed. Our results show that most models fail to abstain from underspecified inputs or incorrect outputs. Hence, we conclude that there is significant room for improvement before LLMs can be trusted to make correct decisions and recommendations in real-world software engineering workflows. BouncerBench provides a first step toward evaluating and building more cautious, trustworthy code agents. The replication package, dataset, and leaderboard can be found at bouncerbench.com

LLM-as-judge ("grader") components are now standard in evaluation harnesses, including safety evaluations where a pass/fail verdict may gate downstream deployment decisions. A widespread assumption is that setting the grader's sampling temperature to 0 makes grading deterministic. We test this assumption against a real safety-evaluation codebase (Japan AISI's open-source aisev) and show it fails on two levels. First, the harness invokes its grader without setting temperature or seed; the underlying provider silently applies its default of 1.0, so items near the decision boundary flip pass/fail across identical runs (per-item disagreement up to ~50% over 20 runs). Second, pinning temperature=0 reduces but does not eliminate flips: across 690 API calls spanning two providers, three model tiers, and five sampling configurations, 1-2 of 7 borderline items remain non-reproducible even under forced greedy decoding (top_k=1). Claude Opus 4.7/4.8 has since deprecated temperature entirely, rendering the primary mitigation inapplicable to newer model generations. These findings expose a structural gap: evaluation harnesses that report single-run verdicts without variance or grader-disagreement metrics can present noise as a safety property. We release a reproduction harness (690 calls, 7 conditions) and recommend that harnesses treat grader disagreement as a first-class health metric alongside the scores themselves.

Automated vulnerability reproduction from CVE descriptions requires generating executable Proof-of-Concept (PoC) exploits and validating them in target environments. This process is critical in software security research and practice, yet remains time-consuming and demands specialized expertise when performed manually. While LLM agents show promise for automating this task, existing approaches often conflate exploring attack directions with fixing implementation details, which leads to unproductive debugging loops when reproduction fails. To address this, we propose CVE2PoC, an LLM-based dual-loop agent framework following a plan-execute-evaluate paradigm. The Strategic Planner analyzes vulnerability semantics and target code to produce structured attack plans. The Tactical Executor generates PoC code and validates it through progressive verification. The Adaptive Refiner evaluates execution results and routes failures to different loops: the Tactical Loop for code-level refinement, while the Strategic Loop for attack strategy replanning. This dual-loop design enables the framework to escape ineffective debugging by matching remediation to failure type. Evaluation on two benchmarks covering 617 real-world vulnerabilities demonstrates that CVE2PoC achieves 82.9% and 54.3% reproduction success rates on SecBench.js and PatchEval, respectively, outperforming the best baseline by 11.3% and 20.4%. Human evaluation confirms that generated PoCs achieve comparable code quality to human-written exploits in readability and reusability.

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has significantly pushed the frontiers of program synthesis. Advancement of LLM-based program synthesis calls for a thorough evaluation of LLM-generated code. Most evaluation frameworks focus on the (functional) correctness of generated code; efficiency, as an important measure of code quality, has been overlooked in existing evaluations. In this work, we develop ENAMEL (EfficeNcy AutoMatic EvaLuator), a rigorous and high-standard benchmark for evaluating the capability of LLMs in generating efficient code. Firstly, we propose a new efficiency metric called eff@k, which generalizes the pass@k metric from correctness to efficiency and appropriately handles right-censored execution time. Furthermore, we derive an unbiased and variance-reduced estimator of eff@k via Rao--Blackwellization; we also provide a numerically stable implementation for the new estimator. Secondly, to set a high-standard for efficiency evaluation, we employ a human expert to design best algorithms and implementations as our reference solutions of efficiency, many of which are much more efficient than existing canonical solutions in HumanEval and HumanEval+. Moreover, to ensure a rigorous evaluation, we employ a human expert to curate strong test case generators to filter out wrong code and differentiate suboptimal algorithms. An extensive study across 30 popular LLMs using our benchmark ENAMEL shows that LLMs still fall short of generating expert-level efficient code. Using two subsets of our problem set, we demonstrate that such deficiency is because current LLMs struggle in designing advanced algorithms and are barely aware of implementation optimization. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/q-rz/enamel .

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly relied upon to evaluate text outputs of other LLMs, thereby influencing leaderboards and development decisions. However, concerns persist over the accuracy of these assessments and the potential for misleading conclusions. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of LLMs as evaluators for text generation tasks. We propose FBI, a novel framework designed to examine the proficiency of Evaluator LLMs in assessing four critical abilities in other LLMs: factual accuracy, instruction following, coherence in long-form writing, and reasoning proficiency. By introducing targeted perturbations in answers generated by LLMs, that clearly impact one of these key capabilities, we test whether an Evaluator LLM can detect these quality drops. By creating a total of 2400 perturbed answers covering 22 perturbation categories, we conduct a comprehensive study using different evaluation strategies on five prominent LLMs commonly used as evaluators in the literature. Our findings reveal significant shortcomings in current Evaluator LLMs, which failed to identify quality drops in over 50\% of cases on average. Single-answer and pairwise evaluations demonstrated notable limitations, whereas reference-based evaluations showed comparatively better performance. These results underscore the unreliable nature of current Evaluator LLMs and advocate for cautious implementation in practical applications. Code and data are available at https://github.com/AI4Bharat/FBI.

The rapid integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into high-stakes domains necessitates reliable safety and compliance evaluation. However, existing static benchmarks are ill-equipped to address the dynamic nature of AI risks and evolving regulations, creating a critical safety gap. This paper introduces a new paradigm of agentic safety evaluation, reframing evaluation as a continuous and self-evolving process rather than a one-time audit. We then propose a novel multi-agent framework SafeEvalAgent, which autonomously ingests unstructured policy documents to generate and perpetually evolve a comprehensive safety benchmark. SafeEvalAgent leverages a synergistic pipeline of specialized agents and incorporates a Self-evolving Evaluation loop, where the system learns from evaluation results to craft progressively more sophisticated and targeted test cases. Our experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of SafeEvalAgent, showing a consistent decline in model safety as the evaluation hardens. For instance, GPT-5's safety rate on the EU AI Act drops from 72.50% to 36.36% over successive iterations. These findings reveal the limitations of static assessments and highlight our framework's ability to uncover deep vulnerabilities missed by traditional methods, underscoring the urgent need for dynamic evaluation ecosystems to ensure the safe and responsible deployment of advanced AI.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for code generation, raising concerns that they may be misused to produce malicious code. Meanwhile, Grammar-Constrained Decoding (GCD) has been widely adopted to improve the reliability of LLM-generated code by enforcing syntactic validity. In this paper, we reveal a counterintuitive risk: this reliability-oriented technique can itself become an attack surface. We uncover a new jailbreak attack, termed CodeSpear, that exploits GCD to induce LLMs into generating malicious code. Our experiments show that simply applying a benign code grammar constraint can effectively jailbreak LLMs. To address this vulnerability, we propose CodeShield, a safety alignment approach that robustly preserves safe behavior even under attacker-controlled grammar constraints. CodeShield aligns the model in the code modality by teaching it to generate honeypot code under GCD. Such code is semantically harmless, so it does not implement the malicious request, and structurally diverse, so it is difficult to suppress through grammar tightening. At the same time, CodeShield still preserves natural-language refusals when natural language is available. Experiments on 10 popular LLMs across 4 benchmarks show that CodeSpear outperforms representative jailbreak baselines and increases the attack success rate by more than 30 percentage points on average. CodeShield also restores safety under CodeSpear while preserving benign utility. Our findings reveal a fundamental risk of GCD and call for greater attention to its potential security implications.

The development of large language models (LLMs) depends on trustworthy evaluation. However, most current evaluations rely on public benchmarks, which are prone to data contamination issues that significantly compromise fairness. Previous researches have focused on constructing dynamic benchmarks to address contamination. However, continuously building new benchmarks is costly and cyclical. In this work, we aim to tackle contamination by analyzing the mechanisms of contaminated models themselves. Through our experiments, we discover that the overestimation of contaminated models is likely due to parameters acquiring shortcut solutions in training. We further propose a novel method for identifying shortcut neurons through comparative and causal analysis. Building on this, we introduce an evaluation method called shortcut neuron patching to suppress shortcut neurons. Experiments validate the effectiveness of our approach in mitigating contamination. Additionally, our evaluation results exhibit a strong linear correlation with MixEval, a recently released trustworthy benchmark, achieving a Spearman coefficient (rho) exceeding 0.95. This high correlation indicates that our method closely reveals true capabilities of the models and is trustworthy. We conduct further experiments to demonstrate the generalizability of our method across various benchmarks and hyperparameter settings. Code: https://github.com/GaryStack/Trustworthy-Evaluation

Recently, high-performing code generation systems based on large language models have surfaced. They are trained on massive corpora containing much more natural text than actual executable computer code. This work shows that current code generation systems exhibit undesired biases inherited from their large language model backbones, which can reduce the quality of the generated code under specific circumstances. To investigate the effect, we propose the "block of influence" concept, which enables a modular decomposition and analysis of the coding challenges. We introduce an automated intervention mechanism reminiscent of adversarial testing that exposes undesired biases through the failure modes of the models under test. Finally, we demonstrate how our framework can be used as a data transformation technique during fine-tuning, acting as a mitigation strategy for these biases.

Many popular programming languages, including C#, Java, and Python, support exceptions. Exceptions are thrown during program execution if an unwanted event happens, e.g., a method is invoked with an illegal argument value. Software developers write exceptional behavior tests (EBTs) to check that their code detects unwanted events and throws appropriate exceptions. Prior research studies have shown the importance of EBTs, but those studies also highlighted that developers put most of their efforts on "happy paths", e.g., paths without unwanted events. To help developers fill the gap, we present the first framework, dubbed exLong, that automatically generates EBTs. exLong is a large language model instruction-tuned from CodeLlama and embeds reasoning about traces that lead to throw statements, conditional expressions that guard throw statements, and non-exceptional behavior tests that execute similar traces. We compare exLong with the state-of-the-art models for test generation (CAT-LM) and one of the strongest foundation models (GPT3.5), as well as with analysis-based tools for test generation (Randoop and EvoSuite). Our results show that exLong outperforms existing models and tools. Furthermore, we contributed several pull requests to open-source projects and 23 EBTs generated by exLong were already accepted.

Modern coding agents expose multiple tool surfaces -- IDE primitives, bash, and Model Context Protocol (MCP) code-execution -- and the field has shipped three contradictory claims about which one matters. We run the missing crossed comparison: an integrity-clean three-arm ablation (baseline / bash_only / code_only) on synthetic computation tasks and SWE-bench Mini modification tasks, holding model, harness, and prompts fixed, with two agents (Claude Code, OpenAI Codex CLI) so the comparison spans both regime and agent-design axes. Across the four resulting (regime, agent) cells, restricting the agent to a single execute_code MCP tool is cheaper than -- or statistically tied with -- its cheapest tool-rich rival in three cells (significantly on Artifact/Claude and SWE-bench/Codex; directionally on Artifact/Codex), with pass rates statistically tied within each cell. The lone exception is SWE-bench/Claude, where code_only is directionally costlier (+14.4%, not significant); a conditional-cost analysis localizes that gap to failure-cost on doomed-run trajectories, not a per-edit tax on successful runs. Two implications: the cheapest tool surface is jointly determined by task regime and agent design rather than by either axis alone, and the headline cost signal lives in cache-adjusted cost -- not pass rate, which is invariant across surfaces at the model sizes we evaluate. The benchmark harness, task suite, and analysis code are available at https://github.com/hyang0129/onlycodes.

Languages with rich static semantics, such as Rust, provide stronger guarantees for AI-generated code, but their strictness makes generation more difficult. Off-the-shelf compilers can provide useful feedback post-generation, but does not guide intermediate generation steps, such as those during autoregressive LLM decoding. Constrained decoding intervenes earlier by rejecting invalid tokens during sampling, but requires white-box model access and costly reimplementation for semantic constraints.We introduce generative compilation, the first approach to obtaining compiler feedback on partial programs during generation. The core technical device is a sealor: a lightweight, mostly syntax-guided transformation that converts partial programs into complete ones that standard compilers can diagnose. It is designed such that possible-to-complete partial programs are never rejected, while preserving enough code context to catch genuine dead ends early. We construct such a sealor on a core Rust-like calculus and prove that it satisfies these properties, all mechanized in Lean. We extend it to the first partial-program checker for real Rust. We evaluate our method on challenging repository-level Rust coding tasks, across both frontier black-box and open-weight models. We show that generative compilation reduces non-compiling outputs and improves functional correctness, relative to standard post-generation feedback. It does so by detecting a broad range of errors close to their source and early during generation, thereby reducing errors cascades and enabling focused diagnostics. More broadly, generative compilation is a step toward making compilers a first-class citizen of AI-assisted programming active during generation, rather than a separate post-generation check.

Larger language models (LLMs) have taken the world by storm with their massive multi-tasking capabilities simply by optimizing over a next-word prediction objective. With the emergence of their properties and encoded knowledge, the risk of LLMs producing harmful outputs increases, making them unfit for scalable deployment for the public. In this work, we propose a new safety evaluation benchmark RED-EVAL that carries out red-teaming. We show that even widely deployed models are susceptible to the Chain of Utterances-based (CoU) prompting, jailbreaking closed source LLM-based systems such as GPT-4 and ChatGPT to unethically respond to more than 65% and 73% of harmful queries. We also demonstrate the consistency of the RED-EVAL across 8 open-source LLMs in generating harmful responses in more than 86% of the red-teaming attempts. Next, we propose RED-INSTRUCT--An approach for the safety alignment of LLMs. It constitutes two phases: 1) HARMFULQA data collection: Leveraging CoU prompting, we collect a dataset that consists of 1.9K harmful questions covering a wide range of topics, 9.5K safe and 7.3K harmful conversations from ChatGPT; 2) SAFE-ALIGN: We demonstrate how the conversational dataset can be used for the safety alignment of LLMs by minimizing the negative log-likelihood over helpful responses and penalizing over harmful responses by gradient accent over sample loss. Our model STARLING, a fine-tuned Vicuna-7B, is observed to be more safely aligned when evaluated on RED-EVAL and HHH benchmarks while preserving the utility of the baseline models (TruthfulQA, MMLU, and BBH).

Production LLM-agent frameworks expose control primitives -- human-in-the-loop approval gates, run cancellation, and execution timeouts -- whose names and documentation imply barrier semantics: while a run is paused, cancelled, or timed out, no gated side effect executes. We show this implied contract holds on none of the six widely used open-source frameworks we test. Model-free differential probes isolate a recurring sibling leak -- an approval gate suspends its own branch while a sibling branch's effect executes during the pause, so a later rejection cannot prevent it -- in every framework shipping a pre-execution gate (five of six), plus three further gaps: replay double-execution, cancellation orphans, and timeout zombies. The hazard is reachable, not merely constructible: under an a-priori-fixed protocol, frontier models emit the leak-triggering plan shape at pooled rates up to 14%, and when live models drive the unmodified frameworks under an approval pause, 215 of 1,200 runs execute their effect during the pause, across three schedulers and two language runtimes. To repair the measured gaps we present SOUNDGATE, an environment-external effect gate in Rust through which every side effect must be admitted, enforcing hold-until-decided, reject-cancels, dedup-on-replay, and fence-on-cancel -- one property per violation class -- under a stated complete-mediation contract discharged for network egress by kernel-enforced routes. We verify the properties over a model of the admission core (Verus; TLA+/TLC, exhaustive to 7.5e7 states; TLAPS), model-check the deployed Rust with Loom, and bridge model to code by differential conformance over 1.2e7 operations -- refinement evidence, not a mechanized proof. SOUNDGATE blocks every measured violation end-to-end on all six frameworks while releasing legitimate effects, at about 1 ms admission per write and 12k-26k durable admissions per second.

Neurosymbolic systems rely on mathematical solvers to guarantee reasoning correctness, yet solvers are fundamentally blind to whether a formal translation maintains strict reference-equivalence to a designated formalization. We formalize this vulnerability as Verdict-Preserving-Unfaithfulness (VPU): a failure mode where an incorrect encoding executes successfully and matches the expected verdict. We theoretically prove that structural, verdict-only verification heuristics are mathematically bounded to chance-level detection on these deceptively valid traces. To resolve this, we introduce Generative Verification (GenV), which distills an offline Z3-equivalence oracle into a reference-free, continuous reference-equivalence score by repurposing the language model's native vocabulary space. Mechanistic analysis via decision-projected logit lenses and sparse autoencoders shows this generative readout natively extracts precise spatial error coordinates without explicit localization training. Empirically, our oracle-mined verifier (GenV+HN) achieves 0.961 AUROC in reference-equivalence verification, generalizes zero-shot across unseen translators and divergent formal styles, and yields an 11.3-point downstream accuracy gain in agentic test-time compute allocation.

Code large language models (LLMs) enhance programming by understanding and generating code across languages, offering intelligent feedback, bug detection, and code updates through reflection, improving development efficiency and accessibility. While benchmarks (e.g. HumanEval/LiveCodeBench) evaluate code generation and real-world relevance, previous works ignore the scenario of modifying code in repositories. Considering challenges remaining in improving reflection capabilities and avoiding data contamination in dynamic benchmarks, we introduce LiveRepoReflection, a challenging benchmark for evaluating code understanding and generation in multi-file repository contexts, featuring 1,888 rigorously filtered test cases across 6 programming languages to ensure diversity, correctness, and high difficulty. Further, we create RepoReflection-Instruct, a large-scale, quality-filtered instruction-tuning dataset derived from diverse sources, used to train RepoReflectionCoder through a two-turn dialogue process involving code generation and error-driven repair. The leaderboard evaluates over 40 LLMs to reflect the model performance of repository-based code reflection.

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.

Language model-generated rubrics are increasingly used as reward signals for rubric-based reinforcement learning, LLM-as-a-judge evaluation, and automated grading. Such rubrics are reliable only if they reward honest answers over adversarial answers optimized to exploit them. Yet their robustness to such optimization remains poorly understood. We isolate the hardest regime: impossible tasks, where the prompt pressures the model toward an unsupported conclusion, so the only honest response is to acknowledge the impossibility. We introduce ImpossibleRubrics, a benchmark of 169 impossible tasks spanning six impossibility categories, each paired with a verifiable oracle certificate specifying what an honest answer may and may not claim, together with 48 answerable controls. Rather than providing fixed rubrics, ImpossibleRubrics provides task environments and certificates, allowing rubrics to be generated downstream and then adversarially tested for whether they reward certificate-violating answers. Eleven generators are exploited 8--26% of the time on the unbiased 150-of-169 environment cut; on a deliberately selected stress cut the strongest generator we measured is still exploited 36% while a certificate-faithful rubric is exploited 0%, so what we measure is a rubric-quality gap, not task impossibility. One result runs against intuition. A single generic rubric ("be decisive, penalize hedging") used unchanged for every task is exploited 64% of the time, and seven of the eleven generators are exploited more often than that while writing a rubric tailored to each one. The tailored criteria appear to tell an attacker which claim to fabricate. The problem is not that rubrics are vague; it is that they are specific about the wrong things.

This study reveals a previously unexplored vulnerability in the safety alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs). Existing aligned LLMs predominantly respond to unsafe queries with refusals, which often begin with a fixed set of prefixes (I'm sorry). We demonstrate that this rigid refusal pattern is a vulnerability and introduce a novel refusal unlearning technique that exploits it. Specifically, we fine-tune LLMs using merely 1,000 benign samples, where each response is prepended with a refusal prefix. The underlying intuition is to disrupt the refusal completion pathway, thereby driving the model to forget how to refuse while following harmful instructions. This intuition is further supported by theoretical proofs. We apply this approach to a total of 16 LLMs, including various open-source models from Llama, Qwen, and Gemma families, as well as closed-source models such as Gemini and GPT. Experimental results show that the safety scores of previously aligned LLMs degrade both consistently and substantially. Importantly, we verify that the observed gain cannot be attributed to plain fine-tuning or random prefix effects. Our findings suggest that current safety alignment may rely heavily on token sequence memorization rather than reasoning, motivating future work beyond simple refusal mechanisms. Code has been released: https://github.com/guoyang9/refusal-unlearning.

Over the past year, there has been a notable rise in the use of large language models (LLMs) for academic research and industrial practices within the cybersecurity field. However, it remains a lack of comprehensive and publicly accessible benchmarks to evaluate the performance of LLMs on cybersecurity tasks. To address this gap, we introduce CS-Eval, a publicly accessible, comprehensive and bilingual LLM benchmark specifically designed for cybersecurity. CS-Eval synthesizes the research hotspots from academia and practical applications from industry, curating a diverse set of high-quality questions across 42 categories within cybersecurity, systematically organized into three cognitive levels: knowledge, ability, and application. Through an extensive evaluation of a wide range of LLMs using CS-Eval, we have uncovered valuable insights. For instance, while GPT-4 generally excels overall, other models may outperform it in certain specific subcategories. Additionally, by conducting evaluations over several months, we observed significant improvements in many LLMs' abilities to solve cybersecurity tasks. The benchmarks are now publicly available at https://github.com/CS-EVAL/CS-Eval.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents executing multi-step workflows in real-world software environments. However, existing agent benchmarks suffer from three critical limitations: (1) trajectory-opaque grading that checks only final outputs, (2) underspecified safety and robustness evaluation, and (3) narrow modality coverage and interaction paradigms. We introduce Claw-Eval, an end-to-end evaluation suite addressing all three gaps. It comprises 300 human-verified tasks spanning 9 categories across three groups (general service orchestration, multimodal perception and generation, and multi-turn professional dialogue). Every agent action is recorded through three independent evidence channels (execution traces, audit logs, and environment snapshots), enabling trajectory-aware grading over 2,159 fine-grained rubric items. The scoring protocol evaluates Completion, Safety, and Robustness, reporting Average Score, Pass@k, and Pass^k across three trials to distinguish genuine capability from lucky outcomes. Experiments on 14 frontier models reveal that: (1) trajectory-opaque evaluation is systematically unreliable, missing 44% of safety violations and 13% of robustness failures that our hybrid pipeline catches; (2) controlled error injection primarily degrades consistency rather than peak capability, with Pass^3 dropping up to 24% while Pass@3 remains stable; (3) multimodal performance varies sharply, with most models performing poorer on video than on document or image, and no single model dominating across all modalities. Beyond benchmarking, Claw-Eval highlights actionable directions for agent development, shedding light on what it takes to build agents that are not only capable but reliably deployable.

Red-teaming has been a widely adopted way to evaluate the harmfulness of Large Language Models (LLMs). It aims to jailbreak a model's safety behavior to make it act as a helpful agent disregarding the harmfulness of the query. Existing methods are primarily based on input text-based red-teaming such as adversarial prompts, low-resource prompts, or contextualized prompts to condition the model in a way to bypass its safe behavior. Bypassing the guardrails uncovers hidden harmful information and biases in the model that are left untreated or newly introduced by its safety training. However, prompt-based attacks fail to provide such a diagnosis owing to their low attack success rate, and applicability to specific models. In this paper, we present a new perspective on LLM safety research i.e., parametric red-teaming through Unalignment. It simply (instruction) tunes the model parameters to break model guardrails that are not deeply rooted in the model's behavior. Unalignment using as few as 100 examples can significantly bypass commonly referred to as CHATGPT, to the point where it responds with an 88% success rate to harmful queries on two safety benchmark datasets. On open-source models such as VICUNA-7B and LLAMA-2-CHAT 7B AND 13B, it shows an attack success rate of more than 91%. On bias evaluations, Unalignment exposes inherent biases in safety-aligned models such as CHATGPT and LLAMA- 2-CHAT where the model's responses are strongly biased and opinionated 64% of the time.

Exact unlearning was first introduced as a privacy mechanism that allowed a user to retract their data from machine learning models on request. Shortly after, inexact schemes were proposed to mitigate the impractical costs associated with exact unlearning. More recently unlearning is often discussed as an approach for removal of impermissible knowledge i.e. knowledge that the model should not possess such as unlicensed copyrighted, inaccurate, or malicious information. The promise is that if the model does not have a certain malicious capability, then it cannot be used for the associated malicious purpose. In this paper we revisit the paradigm in which unlearning is used for in Large Language Models (LLMs) and highlight an underlying inconsistency arising from in-context learning. Unlearning can be an effective control mechanism for the training phase, yet it does not prevent the model from performing an impermissible act during inference. We introduce a concept of ununlearning, where unlearned knowledge gets reintroduced in-context, effectively rendering the model capable of behaving as if it knows the forgotten knowledge. As a result, we argue that content filtering for impermissible knowledge will be required and even exact unlearning schemes are not enough for effective content regulation. We discuss feasibility of ununlearning for modern LLMs and examine broader implications.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities but remain vulnerable to jailbreaking attacks, where adversaries exploit textual or visual triggers to bypass safety guardrails. Recent defenses typically rely on safety fine-tuning or external filters to reduce the model's likelihood of producing harmful content. While effective to some extent, these methods often incur significant computational overheads and suffer from the safety utility trade-off, degrading the model's performance on benign tasks. To address these challenges, we propose EVA (Editing for Versatile Alignment against Jailbreaks), a novel framework that pioneers the application of direct model editing for safety alignment. EVA reframes safety alignment as a precise knowledge correction task. Instead of retraining massive parameters, EVA identifies and surgically edits specific neurons responsible for the model's susceptibility to harmful instructions, while leaving the vast majority of the model unchanged. By localizing the updates, EVA effectively neutralizes harmful behaviors without compromising the model's general reasoning capabilities. Extensive experiments demonstrate that EVA outperforms baselines in mitigating jailbreaks across both LLMs and VLMs, offering a precise and efficient solution for post-deployment safety alignment.

Large language models trained on code have shown great potential to increase productivity of software developers. Several execution-based benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate functional correctness of model-generated code on simple programming problems. Nevertheless, it is expensive to perform the same evaluation on complex real-world projects considering the execution cost. On the contrary, static analysis tools such as linters, which can detect errors without running the program, haven't been well explored for evaluating code generation models. In this work, we propose a static evaluation framework to quantify static errors in Python code completions, by leveraging Abstract Syntax Trees. Compared with execution-based evaluation, our method is not only more efficient, but also applicable to code in the wild. For experiments, we collect code context from open source repos to generate one million function bodies using public models. Our static analysis reveals that Undefined Name and Unused Variable are the most common errors among others made by language models. Through extensive studies, we also show the impact of sampling temperature, model size, and context on static errors in code completions.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for systems programming, their ability to generate secure C++ code, where a single memory-safety failure creates an exploitable vulnerability, remains a critical concern. Yet most security evaluations of AI-generated code rely on static analysis alone, which flags warnings without confirming run- time violations or reasoning about untested paths. This study investigates whether AI-generated C++ is measurably less safe than human-written code, and whether common verification tools agree on the risk. We introduce VULBENCH-CPP, a benchmark of 8,918 C++ programs from three open-weight LLMs (Gemma 3 27B IT, LLaMA 3.3 70B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Instruct) and human authors across 851 competitive-programming tasks. Each program is annotated by four verification tiers: functional testing, static analysis (cppcheck, clang-tidy), dynamic analysis (ASan/UBSan), and bounded model checking (ESBMC). Account- ing for the correlation among solutions to a shared task, we find that AI-generated code is roughly twice as likely as human code to trigger a confirmed runtime violation, even after controlling for code length and test pass-rate. Under static analysis the two look equally safe, but this is misleading: the apparent similarity reflects code length rather than real safety, and the tiers detect largely different classes of violation, demonstrating that no single tier is sufficient. These vulnerability patterns remain consistent across independent generations. We release the benchmark, harness, and annotated results.

Decompilation aims to restore compiled code to human-readable source code, but struggles with details like names and structure. Large language models (LLMs) show promise for programming tasks, motivating their application to decompilation. However, there does not exist any open-source LLM for decompilation. Moreover, existing decompilation evaluation systems mainly consider token-level accuracy and largely ignore code executability, which is the most important feature of any program. Therefore, we release the first open-access decompilation LLMs ranging from 1B to 33B pre-trained on 4 billion tokens of C source code and the corresponding assembly code. The open-source LLMs can serve as baselines for further development in the field. To ensure practical program evaluation, we introduce Decompile-Eval, the first dataset that considers re-compilability and re-executability for decompilation. The benchmark emphasizes the importance of evaluating the decompilation model from the perspective of program semantics. Experiments indicate that our LLM4Decompile has demonstrated the capability to accurately decompile 21% of the assembly code, which achieves a 50% improvement over GPT-4. Our code, dataset, and models are released at https://github.com/albertan017/LLM4Decompile

Large Language Models (LLMs) and code agents in software development are rapidly evolving from generating isolated code snippets to producing full-fledged software applications with graphical interfaces, interactive logic, and dynamic behaviors. However, current benchmarks fall short in evaluating such production-ready software, as they often rely on static checks or binary pass/fail scripts, failing to capture the interactive behaviors and runtime dynamics that define real-world usability - qualities that only emerge when an application is actively used. This is the blind spot of current evaluation: you don't know if an app works until you click through it, interact with it, and observe how it responds. To bridge this gap, we introduce RealDevWorld, a novel evaluation framework for automated end-to-end assessment of LLMs' ability to generate production-ready repositories from scratch. It features two key components: (1) RealDevBench, a diverse collection of 194 open-ended software engineering tasks across multiple domains, incorporating multimodal elements to reflect real-world complexity; and (2) AppEvalPilot, a new agent-as-a-judge evaluation system that simulates realistic, GUI-based user interactions to automatically and holistically assess software functional correctness, visual fidelity, and runtime behavior. The framework delivers fine-grained, task-specific diagnostic feedback, supporting nuanced evaluation beyond simple success/failure judgments. Empirical results show that RealDevWorld delivers effective, automatic, and human-aligned evaluations, achieving an accuracy of 0.92 and a correlation of 0.85 with expert human assessments, while significantly reducing the reliance on manual review. This enables scalable, human-aligned assessment of production-level software generated by LLMs. Our code is available on GitHub.

New NLP benchmarks are urgently needed to align with the rapid development of large language models (LLMs). We present C-Eval, the first comprehensive Chinese evaluation suite designed to assess advanced knowledge and reasoning abilities of foundation models in a Chinese context. C-Eval comprises multiple-choice questions across four difficulty levels: middle school, high school, college, and professional. The questions span 52 diverse disciplines, ranging from humanities to science and engineering. C-Eval is accompanied by C-Eval Hard, a subset of very challenging subjects in C-Eval that requires advanced reasoning abilities to solve. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the most advanced LLMs on C-Eval, including both English- and Chinese-oriented models. Results indicate that only GPT-4 could achieve an average accuracy of over 60%, suggesting that there is still significant room for improvement for current LLMs. We anticipate C-Eval will help analyze important strengths and shortcomings of foundation models, and foster their development and growth for Chinese users.

AI evaluations are widely used for testing and understanding progress. However, the diverse evaluators bring with them inconsistencies that challenge analysis and comparison. First, results are saved in incompatible formats, scattered across leaderboards, papers, blog posts, evaluation harness logs, and custom repositories. Second, results are created by different evaluation frameworks, which produce divergent scores for nominally identical evaluations and record metadata inconsistently, hindering comparison, cross-community evaluation science, cost reduction, and reuse. We introduce Every Eval Ever, the first shared schema and community-crowdsourced repository for AI evaluation results. The schema standardizes how evaluations are represented in a unified, single JSON document. It is source-agnostic by design, ingesting results from evaluation harnesses and papers alike, and optionally stores per-instance outputs for fine-grained analysis. We contribute: (i) a community-governed metadata schema with a companion instance-level schema, the first standardization effort of its kind; (ii) automatic converters from popular formats, evaluation harnesses, and leaderboards to the unified schema; and (iii) a crowdsourced community database hosted on Hugging Face, currently spanning to date 22,235 models, 2,273 unique benchmarks, and 31 evaluation formats.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as automated evaluators to assess the safety of generated content, yet their reliability in this role remains uncertain. This study evaluates a diverse set of 11 LLM judge models across critical safety domains, examining three key aspects: self-consistency in repeated judging tasks, alignment with human judgments, and susceptibility to input artifacts such as apologetic or verbose phrasing. Our findings reveal that biases in LLM judges can significantly distort the final verdict on which content source is safer, undermining the validity of comparative evaluations. Notably, apologetic language artifacts alone can skew evaluator preferences by up to 98\%. Contrary to expectations, larger models do not consistently exhibit greater robustness, while smaller models sometimes show higher resistance to specific artifacts. To mitigate LLM evaluator robustness issues, we investigate jury-based evaluations aggregating decisions from multiple models. Although this approach both improves robustness and enhances alignment to human judgements, artifact sensitivity persists even with the best jury configurations. These results highlight the urgent need for diversified, artifact-resistant methodologies to ensure reliable safety assessments.

Large language models are increasingly capable of synthesizing executable frontend projects, yet existing benchmarks still treat web generation as a static evaluation problem. We argue that frontend artifacts demand a different paradigm: they are interactive rather than static, admit diverse yet equally valid implementations, and evolve faster than rigid pipelines can accommodate. To address these gaps, we present LiveEvalBench, an automated framework that reformulates web-generation evaluation as an agentic, adaptive, and extensible process. LiveEvalBench instantiates evaluation as a collaborative review workflow, in which a Build Engineer, a Code Engineer, and a UI Tester collectively gather evidence across the full lifecycle of a frontend project, from deployment and code inspection to browser-based interaction. To handle implementation diversity, an adaptive protocol couples shared rubrics for cross-model comparability with implementation-grounded criteria tailored to each artifact. The framework further supports incremental integration of new evaluator roles and assessment dimensions without pipeline redesign. Experiments across diverse real-world web-generation scenarios show that LiveEvalBench aligns closely with human expert judgment and provides fine-grained insights into frontier models' web generation capabilities. Code is available at https://github.com/wyysteelhead/LiveEvalBench

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models are increasingly evaluated across multiple simulation benchmarks, yet adding each benchmark to an evaluation pipeline requires resolving incompatible dependencies, matching underspecified evaluation protocols, and reverse-engineering undocumented preprocessing. This burden scales with the number of models and benchmarks, making comprehensive evaluation impractical for most teams. We present vla-eval, an open-source evaluation harness that eliminates this per-benchmark cost by decoupling model inference from benchmark execution through a WebSocket+msgpack protocol with Docker-based environment isolation. Models integrate once by implementing a single predict() method; benchmarks integrate once via a four-method interface; the full cross-evaluation matrix works automatically. The framework supports 14 simulation benchmarks and six model servers. Parallel evaluation via episode sharding and batch inference achieves up to 47x wall-clock speedup, completing 2,000 LIBERO episodes in ~18 minutes. To validate the framework, we reproduce published scores across six VLA codebases and three benchmarks, documenting previously undocumented pitfalls. We additionally release a VLA leaderboard aggregating 657 published results across 17 benchmarks. Framework, evaluation configs, and all reproduction results are publicly available at https://github.com/allenai/vla-evaluation-harness and https://allenai.github.io/vla-evaluation-harness/leaderboard.

Accurately evaluating adversarial robustness is a longstanding challenge. A flawed attack design can inflate robustness estimates, making deployment risk assessment and defense comparison unreliable. Historically, standardized attacks such as AutoAttack have largely resolved this for image classifiers, providing a reliable evaluation baseline for systematic comparison across defenses. However, no equivalent exists for LLM jailbreak evaluation yet, where designing such an attack is considerably more difficult. A reliable attack must, among other things, be black-box compatible, applicable to arbitrary defense pipelines, and efficient, which no existing method jointly satisfies. We introduce Indirect Harm Optimization (IHO), a masked diffusion language model attacker trained via iterative preference optimization against a harmfulness judge, requiring only black-box access to the target. The same method can be used without modification as a strong adaptive attack on individual behaviors, or as an efficient amortized policy that transfers to held-out behaviors and unseen target models without fine-tuning. Even against layered defenses, such as a Circuit Breaker-trained model combined with an auxiliary detector, IHO improves attack success considerably over state-of-the-art approaches, without any defense-specific adaptation. Our results position IHO as a practical step toward the kind of standardized jailbreak evaluation that has improved reliability in the past. Code and models are available on GitHub and Hugging Face.

Large language model (LLM) agents combine language-based reasoning with external tools to perform complex tasks. Adversarial inputs can exploit interactions between the agent and its environment, causing the agent to violate safety policies during execution. Yet existing evaluations often reduce agent safety to a single attack success rate (ASR), collapsing exposure, execution, observation, and adjudication and potentially conflating actual violations with evidence visibility. We introduce REDAgentBench, an executable framework for autonomous red-teaming and faithful measurement. It derives attacks from explicit safety constraints and associated agent-system vulnerabilities, runs them in isolated service sandboxes, and verifies harmful effects from service receipts and final-state changes. The benchmark contains 1,661 cases across five service surfaces. Across six models and three agent harnesses, macro-average ASR is 65.69%; reported ASR varies with harness and evidence view, while evaluation-context disclosure changes execution behavior. In a state-grounded diagnostic cohort, almost one in five confirmed violations with resolved action anchors occurs after the agent states the relevant constraint or risk, revealing a Recognition--Execution Gap. Finally, a training-free policy reminder reduces confirmed violations by more than 70 percentage points in matched replay. These findings show that executable evaluation can improve safety measurement and identify actionable intervention points.

There is a growing interest in developing unlearnable examples (UEs) against visual privacy leaks on the Internet. UEs are training samples added with invisible but unlearnable noise, which have been found can prevent unauthorized training of machine learning models. UEs typically are generated via a bilevel optimization framework with a surrogate model to remove (minimize) errors from the original samples, and then applied to protect the data against unknown target models. However, existing UE generation methods all rely on an ideal assumption called label-consistency, where the hackers and protectors are assumed to hold the same label for a given sample. In this work, we propose and promote a more practical label-agnostic setting, where the hackers may exploit the protected data quite differently from the protectors. E.g., a m-class unlearnable dataset held by the protector may be exploited by the hacker as a n-class dataset. Existing UE generation methods are rendered ineffective in this challenging setting. To tackle this challenge, we present a novel technique called Unlearnable Clusters (UCs) to generate label-agnostic unlearnable examples with cluster-wise perturbations. Furthermore, we propose to leverage VisionandLanguage Pre-trained Models (VLPMs) like CLIP as the surrogate model to improve the transferability of the crafted UCs to diverse domains. We empirically verify the effectiveness of our proposed approach under a variety of settings with different datasets, target models, and even commercial platforms Microsoft Azure and Baidu PaddlePaddle. Code is available at https://github.com/jiamingzhang94/Unlearnable-Clusters.

We introduce Differential Performance Evaluation (DPE), a framework designed to reliably evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) for efficient code generation. Traditional coding benchmarks often fail to provide reliable insights into code efficiency, due to their reliance on simplistic test inputs and the absence of effective compound metrics. DPE addresses these issues by focusing on efficiency-demanding programming tasks and establishing an insightful compound metric for performance evaluation. DPE operates in two phases: To curate efficiency datasets, it selects efficiency-demanding tasks from existing coding benchmarks and generates computationally expensive inputs to stress the efficiency of LLM solutions. To assess the code efficiency, DPE profiles the new solution and compares it globally against a set of reference solutions that exhibit distinct efficiency levels, where the matched level defines its efficiency score. As a proof of concept, we use DPE to create EvalPerf, a benchmark with 121 performance-challenging coding tasks. Our comprehensive evaluation draws interesting findings on the efficiency impact of model sizes, instruction tuning, and prompting. For example, while the scaling law fails to account for code efficiency, general instruction tuning benefits both code correctness and efficiency. We also evaluate the evaluation by examining the effectiveness of DPE, showing that EvalPerf is reliable and convenient to use even across platforms.

We study auto research as a closed empirical loop driven by external measurement. Each submitted trial carries a hypothesis, an executable code edit, an evaluator-owned outcome, and feedback that shapes the next proposal. The output is not a generated paper or a single model checkpoint, but an auditable trajectory of proposals, code diffs, experiments, scores, and failure labels. We instantiate this loop with specialist agents that partition recipe surfaces and share measured lineage across trials. The central empirical finding is that lineage feedback lets agents turn evaluator outcomes, including crashes, budget overruns, size failures, and accuracy-gate misses, into later program-level recipe edits rather than one-shot suggestions. Across 1,197 headline-run trials plus 600 Parameter Golf control trials after one-time setup and launch, humans did not choose proposals, edit recipes, override scores, or repair failed trials during the search. In the three headline runs, the same submitted-trial loop reduces Parameter Golf validation bpb by 0.81%, raises NanoChat-D12 CORE by 38.7%, and reduces CIFAR-10 Airbench96 wallclock by 4.59%, with each task measured by its own external evaluator and legality checks. The trace includes a strict architecture-domain audit of 157 headline-run submissions and program rewrites such as a NanoChat attention-kernel path change. Within this scope the loop autonomously writes code, submits experiments, absorbs feedback, applies and combines known techniques inside each environment, and improves public starting recipes.

Large Language Models(LLMs) have been successful in numerous fields. Alignment has usually been applied to prevent them from harmful purposes. However, aligned LLMs remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks that deliberately mislead them into producing harmful outputs. Existing jailbreaks are either black-box, using carefully crafted, unstealthy prompts, or white-box, requiring resource-intensive computation. In light of these challenges, we introduce ShallowJail, a novel attack that exploits shallow alignment in LLMs. ShallowJail can misguide LLMs' responses by manipulating the initial tokens during inference. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate the effectiveness of~\shallow, which substantially degrades the safety of state-of-the-art LLM responses.

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.

Recently, the large language models (LLMs) have shown extraordinary ability in understanding natural language and generating programming code. It has been a common practice of software engineers to consult LLMs when encountering coding questions. Although efforts have been made to avoid syntax errors and align the code with the intended semantics, the reliability and robustness of the code generationfrom LLMs have not yet been thoroughly studied. The executable code is not equivalent to the reliable and robust code, especially in the context of real-world software development. The misuse of APIs in the generated code could lead to severe problem, such as resource leaks, program crashes. To make things worse, the users of LLM code generation services are actually the developers that are most vulnerable to these code that seems right -- They are always novice developers that are not familiar with the APIs that LLMs generate code for them. Therefore, they could hardly tell the misuse in the code generated by LLMs, which further facilitates the incorrect code applied in real-world software. Existing code evaluation benchmark and datasets focus on crafting small tasks such as programming questions in coding interviews, which however deviates from the problem that developers would ask LLM for real-world coding help. To fill the missing piece, in this work, we propose a dataset RobustAPI for evaluating the reliability and robustness of code generated by LLMs. We collect 1208 coding questions from StackOverflow on 24 representative Java APIs. We summarize thecommon misuse patterns of these APIs and evaluate them oncurrent popular LLMs. The evaluation results show that evenfor GPT-4, 62% of the generated code contains API misuses,which would cause unexpected consequences if the code isintroduced into real-world software.

We introduce ShapeCodeBench, a synthetic benchmark for perception-to-program reconstruction: given a rendered raster image, a model must emit an executable drawing program that a deterministic evaluator re-renders and compares with the target. The v1 DSL has four primitives on a 512 x 512 black-on-white canvas, but every instance is generated from a seeded RNG, so fresh held-out sets can be created to reduce exact-instance contamination. We release a frozen eval_v1 split with 150 samples across easy, medium, and hard tiers, scored by exact match, pixel accuracy, foreground IoU, parse success, and execution success. We evaluate an empty-program floor, a classical computer-vision heuristic, Claude Opus 4.7 at high and max effort, and GPT-5.5 at medium and extra_high reasoning effort. The heuristic is competitive on easy scenes but collapses when overlaps fuse components; the strongest multimodal configuration preserves much of the foreground structure but still misses exact match because of small parameter errors. Best overall exact match remains low, so ShapeCodeBench is far from saturated. The benchmark code, frozen dataset, run artifacts, and paper sources are released to support independent replication and extension.

Safety evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) remains heavily English-centric, leaving Low-Resource Languages (LRLs), particularly African ones, critically underexplored. We introduce TUKABENCH, a jailbreak benchmark for seven African languages that extends JailbreakBench (JBB) beyond direct translation through four settings: human translation of JBB prompts, English adaptation to African contexts followed by human translation, human-curated prompts validated through interactions with GPT-5.2, and code-switched prompts combining English and African languages, isolating the effect of language, cultural grounding, and prompt evasiveness on model safety. Across closed and open models, prompting in African languages reduces refusal relative to English, with culturally adapted prompts leading to least refusal. The evaluation also surfaces two structural limitations: model comprehension failures and reduced LLM-as-a-judge reliability in LRLs. To capture the first, we introduce Deflection alongside Refused and Jailbroken; to assess the second, we validate outputs with human annotations, showing that judge-human agreement drops in lower-resource languages and less commonly supported scripts.

Many machine learning models are fine-tuned from large language models (LLMs) to achieve high performance in specialized domains like code generation, biomedical analysis, and mathematical problem solving. However, this fine-tuning process often introduces a critical vulnerability: the systematic degradation of safety alignment, undermining ethical guidelines and increasing the risk of harmful outputs. Addressing this challenge, we introduce EnchTable, a novel framework designed to transfer and maintain safety alignment in downstream LLMs without requiring extensive retraining. EnchTable leverages a Neural Tangent Kernel (NTK)-based safety vector distillation method to decouple safety constraints from task-specific reasoning, ensuring compatibility across diverse model architectures and sizes. Additionally, our interference-aware merging technique effectively balances safety and utility, minimizing performance compromises across various task domains. We implemented a fully functional prototype of EnchTable on three different task domains and three distinct LLM architectures, and evaluated its performance through extensive experiments on eleven diverse datasets, assessing both utility and model safety. Our evaluations include LLMs from different vendors, demonstrating EnchTable's generalization capability. Furthermore, EnchTable exhibits robust resistance to static and dynamic jailbreaking attacks, outperforming vendor-released safety models in mitigating adversarial prompts. Comparative analyses with six parameter modification methods and two inference-time alignment baselines reveal that EnchTable achieves a significantly lower unsafe rate, higher utility score, and universal applicability across different task domains. Additionally, we validate EnchTable can be seamlessly integrated into various deployment pipelines without significant overhead.

Tool-using AI agents are increasingly deployed across enterprise software systems, yet widely used benchmarks primarily evaluate nominal task completion, conflating baseline planning competence with operational fault recovery. We introduce UndoBench, a benchmark spanning 36 base workflows and 36 fault scenarios across 8 enterprise domains, decoupling task competence from recovery capability via counterfactual paired trials under identical seeds alongside wire-level effect-history and environment-state oracles. On 12 held-out TEST workflows across two open-weight models, two frameworks, and three recovery paradigms (5,760 executions / 2,880 paired trials) in the frozen lost-acknowledgment study, nominal competence reached 83.54% while conditional recovery success rate (CRSR) fell to 46.72%, with naive retry producing duplicate external effects in 53.33% of trials. Extensions to commercial API models reproduced this competence-recovery separation. Evaluations across complementary execution boundaries show that recovery is phase-dependent: before mutation, methods perform similarly without duplicate effects among capable trials; during partial mutation, naive retry, per-call idempotency, and zero-privilege journaling collapse on the evaluated composite workflows; after commit but before acknowledgment, verification and server-side idempotency substantially improve safety. These findings demonstrate that evaluating nominal completion alone masks critical, phase-dependent recovery vulnerabilities in autonomous agents.

Testing plays a crucial role in the software development cycle, enabling the detection of bugs, vulnerabilities, and other undesirable behaviors. To perform software testing, testers need to write code snippets that execute the program under test. Recently, researchers have recognized the potential of large language models (LLMs) in software testing. However, there remains a lack of fair comparisons between different LLMs in terms of test case generation capabilities. In this paper, we propose TESTEVAL, a novel benchmark for test case generation with LLMs. We collect 210 Python programs from an online programming platform, LeetCode, and design three different tasks: overall coverage, targeted line/branch coverage, and targeted path coverage. We further evaluate sixteen popular LLMs, including both commercial and open-source ones, on TESTEVAL. We find that generating test cases to cover specific program lines/branches/paths is still challenging for current LLMs, indicating a lack of ability to comprehend program logic and execution paths. We have open-sourced our dataset and benchmark pipelines at https://llm4softwaretesting.github.io to contribute and accelerate future research on LLMs for software testing.

We introduce AnyTool, a large language model agent designed to revolutionize the utilization of a vast array of tools in addressing user queries. We utilize over 16,000 APIs from Rapid API, operating under the assumption that a subset of these APIs could potentially resolve the queries. AnyTool primarily incorporates three elements: an API retriever with a hierarchical structure, a solver aimed at resolving user queries using a selected set of API candidates, and a self-reflection mechanism, which re-activates AnyTool if the initial solution proves impracticable. AnyTool is powered by the function calling feature of GPT-4, eliminating the need for training external modules. We also revisit the evaluation protocol introduced by previous works and identify a limitation in this protocol that leads to an artificially high pass rate. By revising the evaluation protocol to better reflect practical application scenarios, we introduce an additional benchmark, termed AnyToolBench. Experiments across various datasets demonstrate the superiority of our AnyTool over strong baselines such as ToolLLM and a GPT-4 variant tailored for tool utilization. For instance, AnyTool outperforms ToolLLM by +35.4% in terms of average pass rate on ToolBench. Code will be available at https://github.com/dyabel/AnyTool.

Self-improving LLM agents can adapt a credit pipeline to a changed rule, but an agent that rewrites itself destroys the artefact a supervisor reviews: a named change, a recorded test, an approval. We argue that self-evolution is reviewable only if it is confined to the runtime harness (instruction text, tool-call logic and primitive composition) while model weights stay fixed, so that every adaptation is a diff with a cause and a test attached. We give a dual-loop engine built on that bound, with one admission gate that writes a hash-chained record before deployment, and we measure the gate in simulation, with a simulated agent and a seeded-search proposer rather than language models. Across three families of supervisory re-interpretation at three severities, 10 seeds each, the gated loop admitted 144 of 7,449 candidate changes, none of which worsened error on held-out history, and restored the false-positive rate to the oracle level without raising missed flags in every low- and mid-severity cell. With the gate replaced by the check an unbounded system applies (fewer errors visible in recent traces), the same loops admitted 309 harmful changes and left missed flags above 10% in 49 of 90 runs: false positives fell because the screen was loosened. Evaluated on pre-shift labels, the gate rejected every candidate, so a re-interpretation must be encoded as a rule that relabels history. Parametric and scope shifts were repaired locally, a structural one only by primitive replacement; at the highest structural severity the gate's fixed tolerance blocked the correct replacement in half the seeds. We map the mechanisms to the EU AI Act's provisions for high-risk credit scoring and note that the April 2026 US model-risk guidance excludes agentic AI from its scope.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of Large Language Models (LLMs), ensuring robust safety measures is paramount. To meet this crucial need, we propose SALAD-Bench, a safety benchmark specifically designed for evaluating LLMs, attack, and defense methods. Distinguished by its breadth, SALAD-Bench transcends conventional benchmarks through its large scale, rich diversity, intricate taxonomy spanning three levels, and versatile functionalities.SALAD-Bench is crafted with a meticulous array of questions, from standard queries to complex ones enriched with attack, defense modifications and multiple-choice. To effectively manage the inherent complexity, we introduce an innovative evaluators: the LLM-based MD-Judge for QA pairs with a particular focus on attack-enhanced queries, ensuring a seamless, and reliable evaluation. Above components extend SALAD-Bench from standard LLM safety evaluation to both LLM attack and defense methods evaluation, ensuring the joint-purpose utility. Our extensive experiments shed light on the resilience of LLMs against emerging threats and the efficacy of contemporary defense tactics. Data and evaluator are released under https://github.com/OpenSafetyLab/SALAD-BENCH. Warning: this paper includes examples that may be offensive or harmful.

Reasoning models can remain capable of solving a task while still defaulting to cheaper but misleading shortcuts. This creates a central oversight problem: when a model gives an answer with plausible but incomplete reasoning, can an overseer determine whether that output should be trusted? To study this problem, we introduce PyINE, a framework for scalable elicitation and oversight using instrumented Python programs as a verifiable execution substrate. In PyINE, programs define task environments, execution traces provide authoritative labels for outcomes and intermediate facts, and task variants can be generated mechanically rather than through static human annotation. We instantiate the framework in PyINE-v1, a first release built from nearly one million deterministic execution traces and over 500,000 matched LLM-generated code variants used for counterfactual evaluation. Using standard RL with verifiable rewards on cue-varied tasks, we train a shortcut-following model that improves substantially at predicting execution outcomes while still making systematic errors when misleading human-facing cues conflict with the program's realized behavior. We then evaluate activation probes, trained text classifiers, prompted judges, and a lightweight debate protocol as overseers of this model. We find that performance pooled at the dataset level can hide weak coverage of the failures that matter most: cheap learned overseers often miss rare shortcut-driven errors, while stronger model-based checks are more balanced but substantially costlier and harder to turn into reliable thresholded decisions. PyINE-v1 turns this failure-mode coverage problem into a reusable experimental setting for developing oversight methods that are verifiable, failure-mode-aware, and cost-sensitive.

LLM-as-a-Judge uses a large language model (LLM) to select the best response from a set of candidates for a given question. LLM-as-a-Judge has many applications such as LLM-powered search, reinforcement learning with AI feedback (RLAIF), and tool selection. In this work, we propose JudgeDeceiver, an optimization-based prompt injection attack to LLM-as-a-Judge. JudgeDeceiver injects a carefully crafted sequence into an attacker-controlled candidate response such that LLM-as-a-Judge selects the candidate response for an attacker-chosen question no matter what other candidate responses are. Specifically, we formulate finding such sequence as an optimization problem and propose a gradient based method to approximately solve it. Our extensive evaluation shows that JudgeDeceive is highly effective, and is much more effective than existing prompt injection attacks that manually craft the injected sequences and jailbreak attacks when extended to our problem. We also show the effectiveness of JudgeDeceiver in three case studies, i.e., LLM-powered search, RLAIF, and tool selection. Moreover, we consider defenses including known-answer detection, perplexity detection, and perplexity windowed detection. Our results show these defenses are insufficient, highlighting the urgent need for developing new defense strategies. Our implementation is available at this repository: https://github.com/ShiJiawenwen/JudgeDeceiver.

Despite prior safety alignment efforts, mainstream LLMs can still generate harmful and unethical content when subjected to jailbreaking attacks. Existing jailbreaking methods fall into two main categories: template-based and optimization-based methods. The former requires significant manual effort and domain knowledge, while the latter, exemplified by Greedy Coordinate Gradient (GCG), which seeks to maximize the likelihood of harmful LLM outputs through token-level optimization, also encounters several limitations: requiring white-box access, necessitating pre-constructed affirmative phrase, and suffering from low efficiency. In this paper, we present ECLIPSE, a novel and efficient black-box jailbreaking method utilizing optimizable suffixes. Drawing inspiration from LLMs' powerful generation and optimization capabilities, we employ task prompts to translate jailbreaking goals into natural language instructions. This guides the LLM to generate adversarial suffixes for malicious queries. In particular, a harmfulness scorer provides continuous feedback, enabling LLM self-reflection and iterative optimization to autonomously and efficiently produce effective suffixes. Experimental results demonstrate that ECLIPSE achieves an average attack success rate (ASR) of 0.92 across three open-source LLMs and GPT-3.5-Turbo, significantly surpassing GCG in 2.4 times. Moreover, ECLIPSE is on par with template-based methods in ASR while offering superior attack efficiency, reducing the average attack overhead by 83%.

The rapid deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) requires careful consideration of their effect on cybersecurity. Our work aims to improve the selection process of LLMs that are suitable for facilitating Secure Coding (SC). This raises challenging research questions, such as (RQ1) Which functionality can streamline the LLM evaluation? (RQ2) What should the evaluation measure? (RQ3) How to attest that the evaluation process is impartial? To address these questions, we introduce LLMSecCode, an open-source evaluation framework designed to assess LLM SC capabilities objectively. We validate the LLMSecCode implementation through experiments. When varying parameters and prompts, we find a 10% and 9% difference in performance, respectively. We also compare some results to reliable external actors, where our results show a 5% difference. We strive to ensure the ease of use of our open-source framework and encourage further development by external actors. With LLMSecCode, we hope to encourage the standardization and benchmarking of LLMs' capabilities in security-oriented code and tasks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising performance in code generation. However, how to reliably evaluate code generated by LLMs remains an unresolved problem. This paper presents CodeJudge, a code evaluation framework that leverages LLMs to evaluate the semantic correctness of generated code without the need for test cases. We investigate different ways to guide the LLM in performing "slow thinking" to arrive at an in-depth and reliable evaluation. We experimented with four LLMs as evaluators on four code generation datasets and five programming languages. The results show that CodeJudge significantly outperformed existing methods in most settings. Furthermore, compared with a SOTA GPT-3.5-based code evaluation method, CodeJudge achieved better results even when using a much smaller model, Llama-3-8B-Instruct. Our code and datasets are available on GitHub https://github.com/VichyTong/CodeJudge.

Memory safety vulnerabilities remain a significant threat even for projects with extensive fuzzing and manual auditing. Recent results suggest that large language models hold great promise for detecting such vulnerabilities, but they are unreliable, at risk of hallucination, and challenging to scale to repository-size codebases. This paper presents Revelio, a cost-efficient end-to-end agentic framework for memory-safety vulnerability discovery. Revelio addresses the problem of hallucination by generating an executable Proof-of-Vulnerability, which is checked with a deterministic sanitizer. It reduces cost using inexpensive LLMs and lightweight static analysis to help generate and rank vulnerability hypotheses, reporting vulnerabilities only when they can be reproduced and confirmed by a sanitizer. We evaluated Revelio on seven production-quality projects that had been continuously fuzzed for five to eight years, as well as on 100 randomly selected Arvo projects from the CyberGym benchmark. With around one hour per project and a total cost of $300, Revelio discovered 19 previously unknown memory-safety vulnerabilities. On benchmarks, Revelio outperformed frontier coding agents across diverse backbone models at comparable token costs. Our results suggest that Revelio enables scalable and trustworthy end-to-end LLM-based memory-safety vulnerability detection.

The recent success of machine learning models, especially large-scale classifiers and language models, relies heavily on training with massive data. These data are often collected from online sources. This raises serious concerns about the protection of user data, as individuals may not have given consent for their data to be used in training. To address this concern, recent studies introduce the concept of unlearnable examples, i.e., data instances that appear natural but are intentionally altered to prevent models from effectively learning from them. While existing methods demonstrate empirical effectiveness, they typically rely on heuristic trials and lack formal guarantees. Besides, when unlearnable examples are mixed with clean data, as is often the case in practice, their unlearnability disappears. In this work, we propose a novel approach to constructing unlearnable examples by systematically maximising the Bayes error, a measurement of irreducible classification error. We develop an optimisation-based approach and provide an efficient solution using projected gradient ascent. Our method provably increases the Bayes error and remains effective when the unlearning examples are mixed with clean samples. Experimental results across multiple datasets and model architectures are consistent with our theoretical analysis and show that our approach can restrict data learnability, effectively in practice.

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.

LLM agents that invoke privileged tools are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection (IPI), in which adversarial instructions embedded in retrieved data hijack the agent's actions. A growing body of work evaluates defenses against IPI, but the validity of that evaluation is rarely examined. We audit an IPI benchmark and its harness and identify four defect classes -- silent payload non-delivery, attack success scored by tool identity rather than arguments, false-rejection rate conflated with model incapacity, and the absence of an audit trail -- each of which yields a plausible, publishable, and incorrect number. We quantify the distortion by re-scoring identical execution traces under the defective and corrected definitions: on real agent behaviour, the tool-identity scorer reports a 21.7% attack-success rate where the true argument-level rate is 1.2%. In the sharpest case, an open model previously reported at 62.8% registers 0% under the corrected harness -- the prior figure largely an artifact of undelivered payloads and identity-level scoring. We release a harness whose construction makes each defect unrepresentable -- machine-checkable payload placement, argument-level attacker predicates, per-scenario environments, and mandatory trace persistence -- and use it to report three quantities the field does not: whether a compromised agent discloses the attack, the full security/utility operating curve of an LLM-judge defense, and tool-calling capability disentangled from defensive over-blocking. A corrected harness further overturns a reported "capability barrier": a model deemed incapable of tool use is in fact fully capable, its earlier result an artifact of environment mismatch. We argue that evaluation validity is a prerequisite for, not a footnote to, defense claims in agentic security, and provide an instrument that enforces it.

AI pentesting agents are increasingly credible as offensive security systems, but current benchmarks still provide limited guidance on which will perform best in real-world targets. Existing evaluation protocols assess and optimize for predefined goals such as capture-the-flag, remote code execution, exploit reproduction, or trajectory similarity, in simplified or narrow settings. These tools are valuable for measuring bounded capabilities, yet they do not adequately capture the complexity, open-ended exploration, and strategic decision-making required in realistic pentesting. In this paper, we present a practical evaluation protocol that shifts assessment from task completion to validated vulnerability discovery, allowing evaluation in sufficiently complex targets spanning multiple attack surfaces and vulnerability classes. The protocol combines structured ground-truth with LLM-based semantic matching to identify vulnerabilities, bipartite resolution to score findings under realistic ambiguity, continuous ground-truth maintenance, repeated and cumulative evaluation of stochastic agents, efficiency metrics, and reduced-suite selection for sustainable experimentation. This protocol extends the state of the art by enabling a more realistic, operationally informative comparison of AI pentesting agents. To enable reproducibility, we also release expert-annotated ground truth and code for the proposed evaluation protocol: https://github.com/ethiack/ethibench.

Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, but this assumption has rarely been validated against human annotation. We introduce AgentProp-Bench, a 2,000-task benchmark with 2,300 traces across four domains, nine production LLMs, and a 100-label human-validated subset. We quantify judge reliability, characterize error propagation, and evaluate a runtime mitigation. Substring-based judging agrees with human annotation at kappa=0.049 (chance-level); a three-LLM ensemble reaches kappa=0.432 (moderate) with a conservative bias. Under validated evaluation, a parameter-level injection propagates to a wrong final answer with human-calibrated probability approximately 0.62 (range 0.46-0.73 across models). Rejection (catching bad parameters) and recovery (correcting after acceptance) are independent model capabilities (Spearman rho=0.126, p=0.747). A tuned runtime interceptor reduces hallucination on GPT-4o-mini by 23.0 percentage points under a concurrent n=600 control, but shows no significant effect on Gemini-2.0-Flash, whose aggressive parameter rejection eliminates the target failure mode. All code, data, traces, and human labels are released at https://github.com/bhaskargurram-ai/agenthallu-bench.

Memory-safety bugs introduce critical software-security issues. Rust provides memory-safe mechanisms to avoid memory-safety bugs in programming, while still allowing unsafe escape hatches via unsafe code. However, the unsafe code that enhances the usability of Rust provides clear spots for finding memory-safety bugs in Rust source code. In this paper, we claim that these unsafe spots can still be identifiable in Rust binary code via machine learning and be leveraged for finding memory-safety bugs. To support our claim, we propose the tool textttrustspot, that enables reverse engineering to learn an unsafe classifier that proposes a list of functions in Rust binaries for downstream analysis. We empirically show that the function proposals by textttrustspot can recall 92.92% of memory-safety bugs, while it covers only 16.79% of the entire binary code. As an application, we demonstrate that the function proposals are used in targeted fuzzing on Rust packages, which contribute to reducing the fuzzing time compared to non-targeted fuzzing.

Tool-using LLM agents are mostly evaluated assuming all tools work. When a tool times out, returns a week-stale value, or has its description poisoned in deployment, the developer needs a controlled way to reproduce the failure, test a fix, and confirm the fix worked before deployment. We present AgentCheck, an open-source web workbench that turns an MCP server into an intervention surface. AgentCheck runs an agent against its real tools and records every tool response, then re-runs the agent with the response perturbed by a fault (12 types) injector. Matching tool calls are replayed from cache, and later tool calls go live after the agent diverges. This yields a reproduce-intervene-confirm loop: the developer toggles a mitigation, re-runs against the identical fault, and sees if the failure goes away. Scoring has two parts: deterministic pass/fail rules, plus an LLM judge for interpretive labels, validated against human annotations. Across five agents, the best passes 105/120 scenarios and the weakest only 77. The failures are usually silent, confident use of incorrect tool outputs rather than crashes. On the weakest agent, a retry mitigation raises success on timeout error faults from as few as 30% of cases to 100%, whereas stale-data faults remain near 3-4 of 10 regardless of the mitigation. AgentCheck makes these failure modes reproducible, comparable, and verifiable before deployment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are one of the most promising developments in the field of artificial intelligence, and the software engineering community has readily noticed their potential role in the software development life-cycle. Developers routinely ask LLMs to generate code snippets, increasing productivity but also potentially introducing ownership, privacy, correctness, and security issues. Previous work highlighted how code generated by mainstream commercial LLMs is often not safe, containing vulnerabilities, bugs, and code smells. In this paper, we present a framework that leverages testing and static analysis to assess the quality, and guide the self-improvement, of code generated by general-purpose, open-source LLMs. First, we ask LLMs to generate C code to solve a number of programming tasks. Then we employ ground-truth tests to assess the (in)correctness of the generated code, and a static analysis tool to detect potential safety vulnerabilities. Next, we assess the models ability to evaluate the generated code, by asking them to detect errors and vulnerabilities. Finally, we test the models ability to fix the generated code, providing the reports produced during the static analysis and incorrectness evaluation phases as feedback. Our results show that models often produce incorrect code, and that the generated code can include safety issues. Moreover, they perform very poorly at detecting either issue. On the positive side, we observe a substantial ability to fix flawed code when provided with information about failed tests or potential vulnerabilities, indicating a promising avenue for improving the safety of LLM-based code generation tools.

The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) has catalyzed a paradigm shift in programming, giving rise to "vibe coding", where users can build complete projects and even control computers using natural language instructions. This paradigm has driven automated webpage development, but it introduces a new requirement about how to automatically verify whether the web functionalities are reliably implemented. Existing works struggle to adapt, relying on static visual similarity or predefined checklists that constrain their utility in open-ended environments. Furthermore, they overlook a vital aspect of software quality, namely latent logical constraints. To address these gaps, we introduce WebTestBench, a benchmark for evaluating end-to-end automated web testing. WebTestBench encompasses comprehensive dimensions across diverse web application categories. We decompose the testing process into two cascaded sub-tasks, checklist generation and defect detection, and propose WebTester, a baseline framework for this task. Evaluating popular LLMs with WebTester reveals severe challenges, including insufficient test completeness, detection bottlenecks, and long-horizon interaction unreliability. These findings expose a substantial gap between current computer-use agent capabilities and industrial-grade deployment demands. We hope that WebTestBench provides valuable insights and guidance for advancing end-to-end automated web testing. Our dataset and code are available at https://github.com/friedrichor/WebTestBench.

LLMs demonstrate strong performance on code benchmarks, yet round-trip code execution reveals limitations in their ability to maintain consistent reasoning across forward and backward execution. We present RoundTripCodeEval (RTCE), a comprehensive benchmark consisting of four distinct code execution reasoning tasks designed to rigorously test round-trip consistency. RTCE provides an execution-free, exact-match evaluation of bijection fidelity, assessing whether models preserve a consistent one-to-one mapping between encoding and decoding operations across various algorithms and directions. We systematically evaluate state-of-the-art Code-LLMs using zero-shot prompting, supervised fine-tuning on execution traces, and self-reflection mechanisms. Each yields modest improvements, but none closes the gap, indicating that current LLMs struggle with true round-trip consistency, which demonstrates that they lack the internal coherence required for trustworthy code reasoning. RTCE surfaces several new and previously unmeasured insights that are not captured by existing I/O-prediction, execution-reasoning, or round-trip natural-language benchmarks. We will release the code and the dataset upon acceptance.

LLM-based agents are increasingly deployed for software maintenance tasks such as automated program repair (APR). APR agents automatically fetch GitHub issues and use backend LLMs to generate patches that fix the reported bugs. However, existing work primarily focuses on the functional correctness of APR-generated patches, whether they pass hidden or regression tests, while largely ignoring potential security risks. Given the openness of platforms like GitHub, where any user can raise issues and participate in discussions, an important question arises: Can an adversarial user submit a valid issue on GitHub that misleads an LLM-based agent into generating a functionally correct but vulnerable patch? To answer this question, we propose SWExploit, which generates adversarial issue statements designed to make APR agents produce patches that are functionally correct yet vulnerable. SWExploit operates in three main steps: (1) program analysis to identify potential injection points for vulnerable payloads; (2) adversarial issue generation to provide misleading reproduction and error information while preserving the original issue semantics; and (3) iterative refinement of the adversarial issue statements based on the outputs of the APR agents. Empirical evaluation on three agent pipelines and five backend LLMs shows that SWExploit can produce patches that are both functionally correct and vulnerable (the attack success rate on the correct patch could reach 0.91, whereas the baseline ASRs are all below 0.20). Based on our evaluation, we are the first to challenge the traditional assumption that a patch passing all tests is inherently reliable and secure, highlighting critical limitations in the current evaluation paradigm for APR agents.

Tool-using agents often incur substantial computational cost due to long reasoning chains and iterative tool usage. In practical scenarios, many tasks become infeasible under constrained tool environments, where the capabilities required for successful task completion are unavailable. Detecting infeasible tasks and stopping execution early can significantly reduce unnecessary execution cost. In this work, we propose FeasiGen, an automatic pipeline for constructing infeasible agent tasks by identifying the critical tools required for successful task completion. Our approach extracts tool-calling traces from successful executions across multiple agent systems, identifies critical tools consistently shared across diverse execution strategies, and masks these tools to automatically transform solvable tasks into infeasible ones. Human verification confirms that the infeasibility annotations for our constructed tasks achieve over 94% accuracy. We further introduce feasibility-aware evaluation metrics for measuring whether agents can recognize infeasible tasks and stop execution appropriately. Extensive evaluations across nine models reveal substantially weak infeasibility detection ability, with false continue rate reaching up to 73.9%. We further observe that multi-agent architectures significantly reduce erroneous execution under infeasible conditions.

It is tempting to assume any task solvable by a short program can be taught to a model as its chain-of-thought: write the steps out, fine-tune, and the model follows. This paper shows the assumption fails for an identifiable class of procedures. The testbed is nine reasoning tasks, each from a deterministic generator; public and hidden splits share generators, so held-out data proxies test accuracy. I reverse-engineer the generators into Python solvers, render them as chain-of-thought, and distill into a rank-<= 32 LoRA over a 30B (3.5B-active) Nemotron model. Forward-computable tasks install readily: lookup/arithmetic and an 8-bit boolean task transfer (>= 0.99 and 0.68). Cryptarithm does not: distilling its backtracking search holds at 0.01-0.07 across eleven chain-of-thought designs, RL from verifiable rewards, and self-training, even though a search solver answers 71% of instances. This is not a capability gap. The model does the arithmetic on 97-100% of lines and ranks the correct cipher in its top eight on 71%; it cannot carry the search forward as a left-to-right derivation. Fine-tuning learns the shape of a verifiable elimination step while its verdicts become unconditional templates, correct only 16-57% of the time ("verdict-as-token"). The ceiling holds across backbones from 3B to 671B and across fine-tuning and prompting; a controlled intervention isolates the cause: revealing the cipher key, which turns the derivation forward, lifts the same instances from 0.03 to 0.57. When a procedure's only solution is search over information-free structure, no faithful forward chain-of-thought exists to imitate. The task becomes learnable only by removing the search, precomputing its combinatorial core into a catalog and reducing the trace to recall plus verification; the 1st-place solution reaches Private LB 0.92 this way. What distills is memorization and verification, not search.

Exploitation is not a binary event. It is a ladder of acquiring progressive capabilities, from executing a single buggy line of code to taking full control of the target. However, existing LLM security benchmarks treat a crash as exploitation success. That single binary outcome collapses the hard parts of exploitation: the transition from triggering a bug to constructing reusable primitives and control. We present ExploitBench, a capability-graded benchmark that decomposes exploitation into 16 measurable flags, from coverage and crash through sandbox primitives, arbitrary read/write, control-flow hijack, and arbitrary code execution. Each capability is verified by a deterministic oracle that uses a per-run randomized challenge-response for primitives, differential execution against ground-truth binaries to measure progress, and a signal-handler proof for code execution. We instantiate ExploitBench on 41 V8 bugs because V8 is both widely deployed and exploitation-hardened. We report three arms: <model,env> as the primary measurement of model-environment capability, <model,env, adaptive coaching> as a secondary arm that adds adaptive coaching to test whether targeted feedback shifts outcomes, and <model,env,harness> as an ablation that swaps in the model's native CLI to check whether vendor-side optimizations increase exploitation capabilities. Our results show a sharp capability split between publicly deployed frontier models and the private frontier. Across the 8 publicly deployed models tested, reaching the vulnerable code and triggering a crash is routine, but arbitrary code execution is not. The private model shows arbitrary code execution on approximately half. Overall, results suggest that exploit construction against hardened targets is an emerging frontier capability.

The popularity of the Rust language continues to explode; yet, many critical codebases remain authored in C, and cannot be realistically rewritten by hand. Automatically translating C to Rust is thus an appealing course of action. Several works have gone down this path, handling an ever-increasing subset of C through a variety of Rust features, such as unsafe. While the prospect of automation is appealing, producing code that relies on unsafe negates the memory safety guarantees offered by Rust, and therefore the main advantages of porting existing codebases to memory-safe languages. We instead explore a different path, and explore what it would take to translate C to safe Rust; that is, to produce code that is trivially memory safe, because it abides by Rust's type system without caveats. Our work sports several original contributions: a type-directed translation from (a subset of) C to safe Rust; a novel static analysis based on "split trees" that allows expressing C's pointer arithmetic using Rust's slices and splitting operations; an analysis that infers exactly which borrows need to be mutable; and a compilation strategy for C's struct types that is compatible with Rust's distinction between non-owned and owned allocations. We apply our methodology to existing formally verified C codebases: the HACL* cryptographic library, and binary parsers and serializers from EverParse, and show that the subset of C we support is sufficient to translate both applications to safe Rust. Our evaluation shows that for the few places that do violate Rust's aliasing discipline, automated, surgical rewrites suffice; and that the few strategic copies we insert have a negligible performance impact. Of particular note, the application of our approach to HACL* results in a 80,000 line verified cryptographic library, written in pure Rust, that implements all modern algorithms - the first of its kind.