SovereignNegotiation-Bench: Evaluating User-Owned Personal Agents In Delegated Bargaining Under Privacy, Consent, Evidence, And Institutional Pressure
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Personal AI agents are beginning to negotiate for people, from refunds and bills to deposits and sales. A human agent in that position is judged by the duties owed to the principal, not by whether a deal was struck. We introduce SovereignNegotiation-Bench, a controlled benchmark that operationalizes five such duties from agency law--loyalty, obedience to actual authority, confidentiality, candor and diligence--as deterministic checks on episode logs; the first three enter a single headline metric. The benchmark contains 1,764 paired scenarios (252 situations in 18 consumer and peer-to-peer domains, each under 7 counterparty tactics). The counterparty's economics are a fixed function of the agent's structured actions and of the disclosures detected in its messages, so outcomes are comparable across agents and a disclosed limit has a measurable, causal price. A simulated principal grants or withholds consent and tightens its mandate midepisode. Rule-based agents show that the benchmark is solvable from the observable state (92% faithful success) and that a single disclosing sentence erases the entire negotiated surplus (0.70 to 0.00). Across 17 open-weight models, faithful success ranges from 6% to 75%; models disclose the principal's reservation value in 2-80% of episodes, agree or share a protected document without a required approval in 2-23%, and follow an instruction injected into the counterparty's message in 5-57% of injection episodes. Deal rate ranks models much like faithful success does, but it does not certify individual agreements: pooled over models, 48% of the agreements breach at least one duty (18-96% per model). Within families, faithful success tends to rise with size, but no size trend is significant, and on the model we test, neither prompting nor a code-level guard raises faithful success substantially. Code, scenarios and all episode logs will be released.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 43 of its 61 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jul 2026.
Builds on
43 of 61 references.
References · 43
- 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,767
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,500
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
- 2023MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systemscited by 1,295
- 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,280
- 2024OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environmentscited by 1,134
- 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 988
- 2025τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environmentcited by 558
- 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agentscited by 476
- 2024AndroidWorld: A Dynamic Benchmarking Environment for Autonomous Agentscited by 450
- 2023SOTOPIA: Interactive Evaluation for Social Intelligence in Language Agentscited by 350
31 more
- 2024WorkArena: How Capable Are Web Agents at Solving Common Knowledge Work Tasks?cited by 348
- 2024TheAgentCompany: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Consequential Real World Taskscited by 306
- 2023Can LLMs Keep a Secret? Testing Privacy Implications of Language Models via Contextual Integrity Theorycited by 218
- 2017Deal or No Deal? End-to-End Learning for Negotiation Dialoguescited by 202
- 2023Augmenting Language Models with Long-Term Memorycited by 186
- 2024PrivacyLens: Evaluating Privacy Norm Awareness of Language Models in Actioncited by 161
- 2018Decoupling Strategy and Generation in Negotiation Dialoguescited by 156
- 2023Cooperation, Competition, and Maliciousness: LLM-Stakeholders Interactive Negotiationcited by 94
- 2024How Well Can LLMs Negotiate? NegotiationArena Platform and Analysiscited by 93
- 2024AirGapAgent: Protecting Privacy-Conscious Conversational Agentscited by 90
- 2025AgentDAM: Privacy Leakage Evaluation for Autonomous Web Agentscited by 79
- 2024Visibility into AI Agentscited by 77
- 2021CaSiNo: A Corpus of Campsite Negotiation Dialogues for Automatic Negotiation Systemscited by 60
- 2025PersonaLens: A Benchmark for Personalization Evaluation in Conversational AI Assistantscited by 44
- 2024CI-Bench: Benchmarking Contextual Integrity of AI Assistants on Synthetic Datacited by 34
- 2025Firewalls to Secure Dynamic LLM Agentic Networkscited by 34
- 2025MAGPIE: A benchmark for Multi-AGent contextual PrIvacy Evaluationcited by 27
- 2026AgentLeak: A Benchmark for Internal-Channel Privacy Leakage in Multi-Agent LLM Systemscited by 20
- 2025Magentic Marketplace: An Open-Source Environment for Studying Agentic Marketscited by 15
- 2025ConVerse: Benchmarking Contextual Safety in Agent-to-Agent Conversationscited by 14
- 2026Persona2Web: Benchmarking Personalized Web Agents for Contextual Reasoning with User Historycited by 14
- 2026ASTRA-bench: Evaluating Tool-Use Agent Reasoning and Action Planning with Personal User Contextcited by 14
- 2025The Automated but Risky Game: Modeling and Benchmarking Agent-to-Agent Negotiations and Transactions in Consumer Marketscited by 12
- 2025AI Agents and the Lawcited by 9
- 2023Designing Fiduciary Artificial Intelligencecited by 8
- 2020AI loyalty: A New Paradigm for Aligning Stakeholder Interestscited by 7
- 2026TERMS-Bench: Diagnosing LLM Negotiation Agents Beyond Deal Ratecited by 6
- 2026ToolPrivacyBench: Benchmarking Purpose-Bound Privacy in Tool-Using LLM Agentscited by 6
- 2026POLAR-Bench: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Privacy-Utility Trade-offs in LLM Agentscited by 4
- 2026Whose Side Is Your Agent On? Multi-Party Principal Loyalty in LLM Agentscited by 3
- 2026Used Car Salesbots? Honesty and Credulity of LLMs as Bargaining Agents under Partial Informationcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.