The A-R Behavioral Space: Execution-Level Profiling of Tool-Using Language Model Agents in Organizational Deployment
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as tool-augmented agents capable of executing system-level operations. While existing benchmarks primarily assess textual alignment or task success, less attention has been paid to the structural relationship between linguistic signaling and executable behavior under varying autonomy scaffolds. This study introduces an execution-layer be-havioral measurement approach based on a two-dimensional A-R space defined by Action Rate (A) and Refusal Signal (R), with Divergence (D) capturing coor-dination between the two. Models are evaluated across four normative regimes (Control, Gray, Dilemma, and Malicious) and three autonomy configurations (di-rect execution, planning, and reflection). Rather than assigning aggregate safety scores, the method characterizes how execution and refusal redistribute across contextual framing and scaffold depth. Empirical results show that execution and refusal constitute separable behavioral dimensions whose joint distribution varies systematically across regimes and autonomy levels. Reflection-based scaffolding often shifts configurations toward higher refusal in risk-laden contexts, but redis-tribution patterns differ structurally across models. The A-R representation makes cross-sectional behavioral profiles, scaffold-induced transitions, and coordination variability directly observable. By foregrounding execution-layer characterization over scalar ranking, this work provides a deployment-oriented lens for analyzing and selecting tool-enabled LLM agents in organizational settings where execution privileges and risk tolerance vary.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 12 of its 13 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Apr 2026.
Builds on
12 of 13 references.
References · 12
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
- 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 2,914
- 2022Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language modelscited by 1,970
- 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 1,908
- 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,565
- 2022Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluationscited by 805
- 2022Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learnedcited by 702
- 2024ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilitiescited by 272
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026Operational Hallucination and Safety Drift in AI Agentscited by 0
- 2026Operational Hallucination and Safety Drift in AI Agents20 Jul 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026The Emergence of Lab-Driven Alignment Signatures: A Psychometric Framework for Auditing Latent Bias and Compounding Risk in Generative AI
- 2026AgentBoundary: Counterfactual Evaluation of Safety in Tool-Using LLM Agents
- 2026Measuring Cross-Task Behavioral Consistency in Language Model Agents
- 2026Mind the GAP: Text Safety Does Not Transfer to Tool-Call Safety in LLM Agents
- 2026AgentHabit: Characterizing Distinct Behaviors of Agents on Everyday Tasks
- 2026Questionnaire Responses Do not Capture the Safety of AI Agents
- 2026When Agents Look the Same: Quantifying Distillation-Induced Similarity in Tool-Use Behaviors
- 2026Instrumental Choices: Measuring the Propensity of LLM Agents to Pursue Instrumental Behaviors