mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

SHADE-Arena: Evaluating Sabotage and Monitoring in LLM Agents

arXiv 2506.15740 ↗First posted 17 Jun 2025cs.AI cs.CR cs.LGcited by 58

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents in complex and long horizon settings, it is critical to evaluate their ability to sabotage users by pursuing hidden objectives. We study the ability of frontier LLMs to evade monitoring and achieve harmful hidden goals while completing a wide array of realistic tasks. We evaluate a broad range of frontier LLMs using SHADE (Subtle Harmful Agent Detection & Evaluation)-Arena, the first highly diverse agent evaluation dataset for sabotage and monitoring capabilities of LLM agents. SHADE-Arena consists of complex pairs of benign main tasks and harmful side objectives in complicated environments. Agents are evaluated on their ability to complete the side task without appearing suspicious to an LLM monitor. When measuring agent ability to (a) complete the main task, (b) complete the side task, and (c) avoid detection, we find that the best performing frontier models score 27% (Claude 3.7 Sonnet) and 15% (Gemini 2.5 Pro) as sabotage agents when overseen by Claude 3.6 Sonnet. For current frontier models, success on the side task relies heavily on having access to a hidden scratchpad that is not visible to the monitor. We also use SHADE-Arena to measure models' monitoring abilities, with the top monitor (Gemini 2.5 Pro) achieving an AUC of 0.87 at distinguishing benign and malign transcripts. We find that for now, models still struggle at sabotage due to failures in long-context main task execution. However, our measurements already demonstrate the difficulty of monitoring for subtle sabotage attempts, which we expect to only increase in the face of more complex and longer-horizon tasks.

Key facts. Cited by 58 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 24 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jun 2025.

Builds on

24 of 40 references.

References · 24

  1. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  2. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  3. 2023The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Surveycited by 1,422
  4. 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,280
  5. 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,211
  6. 2023GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistantscited by 1,084
  7. 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Thinkcited by 388
  8. 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscationcited by 338
  9. 2025PaperBench: Evaluating AI's Ability to Replicate AI Researchcited by 286
  10. 2024Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Schemingcited by 252
  11. 2023An Overview of Catastrophic AI Riskscited by 214
  12. 2024ScienceAgentBench: Toward Rigorous Assessment of Language Agents for Data-Driven Scientific Discoverycited by 208
12 more
  1. 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 207
  2. 2024SciCode: A Research Coding Benchmark Curated by Scientistscited by 172
  3. 2024AssistantBench: Can Web Agents Solve Realistic and Time-Consuming Tasks?cited by 155
  4. 2024LAB-Bench: Measuring Capabilities of Language Models for Biology Researchcited by 138
  5. 2023Harms from Increasingly Agentic Algorithmic Systemscited by 134
  6. 2024Evaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous Capabilitiescited by 121
  7. 2024CORE-Bench: Fostering the Credibility of Published Research Through a Computational Reproducibility Agent Benchmarkcited by 115
  8. 2023Evaluating Language-Model Agents on Realistic Autonomous Taskscited by 94
  9. 2024WorkArena++: Towards Compositional Planning and Reasoning-based Common Knowledge Work Taskscited by 81
  10. 2025Ctrl-Z: Controlling AI Agents via Resamplingcited by 40
  11. 2024Adaptive Deployment of Untrusted LLMs Reduces Distributed Threatscited by 27
  12. 2025Detecting and Preventing Data Poisoning Attacks on AI Modelscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 13; 2026: 45.

58 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2026AgentLAB: Benchmarking LLM Agents against Long-Horizon Attackscited by 31
  2. 2025MCP-SafetyBench: A Benchmark for Safety Evaluation of Large Language Models with Real-World MCP Serverscited by 28
  3. 2025Reliable Weak-to-Strong Monitoring of LLM Agentscited by 24
  4. 2025Can Reasoning Models Obfuscate Reasoning? Stress-Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitorabilitycited by 18
  5. 2025Async Control: Stress-testing Asynchronous Control Measures for LLM Agentscited by 18
  6. 2026Poison Once, Exploit Forever: Environment-Injected Memory Poisoning Attacks on Web Agentscited by 18
  7. 2025SHIELDA: Structured Handling of Exceptions in LLM-Driven Agentic Workflowscited by 12
  8. 2026Evaluating and Understanding Scheming Propensity in LLM Agentscited by 11
  9. 2026Detecting Safety Violations Across Many Agent Tracescited by 11
  10. 2026SafePro: Evaluating the Safety of Professional-Level AI Agentscited by 10
  11. 2025Evaluating Control Protocols for Untrusted AI Agentscited by 9
  12. 2025Do Large Language Models Know What They Are Capable Of?cited by 9
38 more
  1. 2026AgentForesight: Online Auditing for Early Failure Prediction in Multi-Agent Systemscited by 8
  2. 2025All Code, No Thought: Current Language Models Struggle to Reason in Ciphered Languagecited by 7
  3. 2025Reasoning Under Pressure: How do Training Incentives Influence Chain-of-Thought Monitorability?cited by 7
  4. 2026OMNI-LEAK: Orchestrator Multi-Agent Network Induced Data Leakagecited by 7
  5. 2026Noticing the Watcher: LLM Agents Can Infer CoT Monitoring from Blocking Feedbackcited by 7
  6. 2026MonitorBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Chain-of-Thought Monitorability in Large Language Modelscited by 7
  7. 2025Optimizing AI Agent Attacks With Synthetic Datacited by 6
  8. 2026Attack Selection Reduces Safety in Concentrated AI Control Settings against Trusted Monitoringcited by 6
  9. 2026LinuxArena: A Control Setting for AI Agents in Live Production Software Environmentscited by 6
  10. 2026Safeguarding LLM Agents against Long-Horizon Threats via Shadow Memorycited by 6
  11. 2025STAC: When Innocent Tools Form Dangerous Chains for LLM Agentscited by 5
  12. 2026StepShield: When, Not Whether to Intervene on Rogue Agentscited by 5
  13. 2026MonitoringBench: Semi-Automated Red-Teaming for Agent Monitoringcited by 4
  14. 2026Coding with "Enemy": Can Human Developers Detect AI Agent Sabotage?cited by 4
  15. 2026Basic Legibility Protocols Improve Trusted Monitoringcited by 3
  16. 2026Training Agents to Self-Report Misbehaviorcited by 3
  17. 2026Distributed Attacks in Persistent-State AI Controlcited by 3
  18. 2026Auditing Harness Tampering in Self-Improving Agentscited by 3
  19. 2025Jailbreaking in the Haystackcited by 2
  20. 2026Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Can Be Unreliable in Implicit-Influence Settingscited by 2
  21. 2025Linear probes rely on textual evidence: Results from leakage mitigation studies in language modelscited by 1
  22. 2026Taxonomy and Consistency Analysis of Safety Benchmarks for AI Agentscited by 1
  23. 2026Attack Selection in Agentic AI Control Evaluations Meaningfully Decreases Safetycited by 1
  24. 2026CIAware-Bench: Benchmarking Control Intervention Awareness Across Frontier LLMscited by 1
  25. 2026Decoding Hidden Deception in Reasoning LLMs: Activation Explainers for Deception Auditingcited by 1
  26. 2026Probing the Misaligned Thinking Process of Language Modelscited by 1
  27. 2026Calibration-Family Overfit: Why Trusted Sabotage Monitors Don't Transfer Across Lineagescited by 1
  28. 2026ResearchArena: Evaluating Sabotage and Monitoring in Automated AI R&Dcited by 1
  29. 2026trajectory-judge: What Outcome-Only LLM Judges Miss on Agent Trajectoriescited by 1
  30. 2026Risk Reporting for Developers' Internal AI Model Usecited by 0
  31. 2026CoT-Guard: Small Models for Strong Monitoringcited by 0
  32. 2026Agent-ToM: Learning to Monitor Autonomous LLM Agents via Theory-of-Mind Reasoningcited by 0
  33. 2026Adversarial Prompting Framework for AI Safety Assessmentcited by 0
  34. 2026TrustShiftProbe: Characterizing, Benchmarking, and Defending Staged Trust Attacks on MCP Serverscited by 0
  35. 2026Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness of Reasoning Models Varies with Where and How Preference Cues Are Deliveredcited by 0
  36. 2026Counter-Swarm Doctrine: Containing Coordinated Agent Intrusionscited by 0
  37. 2026MOLE: Detecting Insider Threats in AI Agentscited by 0
  38. 2026SchemeArena: Factorized Stress Testing of Scheming in LLM Agentscited by 0

50 most cited of 58 All 58 (JSON)

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Beyond the Leaderboard: A Synthesis of Tool-Use, Planning, and Reasoning Failures in Large Language Model Agents
  2. 2026AgentLeak: Cloning Stronger LLM Agent Capabilities onto Weaker Agents Beyond Skill Stealing
  3. 2026Constitutional Black-Box Monitoring for Scheming in LLM Agents
  4. 2026FORTIS: Benchmarking Over-Privilege in Agent Skills
  5. 2026Autonomous LLM Agents & CTFs: A Second Look
  6. 2026BekchiAI: Measuring, Observing, and Controlling LLM Agents in One Click
  7. 2025Who's the Mole? Modeling and Detecting Intention-Hiding Malicious Agents in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems
  8. 2026Toward Secure LLM Agents: Threat Surfaces, Attacks, Defenses, and Evaluation