# Evaluating Frontier AI Agents as Autonomous Clinical Security Auditors

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.13411 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.13411/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Medical and scientific domain agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 19 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 15 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Medical and scientific domain agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/medical-and-scientific-domain-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 19 of 19)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6572/) (2014)
- [Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.06083/) (2017)
- [XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.02754/) (2016)
- [Intriguing properties of neural networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1312.6199/) (2013)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.04644/) (2016)
- [Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.12261/) (2019)
- [Membership Inference Attacks against Machine Learning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.05820/) (2016)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12983/) (2023)
- [Membership Inference Attacks From First Principles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.03570/) (2021)
- [The Limitations of Deep Learning in Adversarial Settings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1511.07528/) (2015)
- [Decision-Based Adversarial Attacks: Reliable Attacks Against Black-Box Machine Learning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1712.04248/) (2017)
- [Revisiting the Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.07998/) (2021)
- [Evaluating Language-Model Agents on Realistic Autonomous Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.11671/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Clinical AI models can expose patients to harm when adversarial vulnerabilities go undetected, yet formal security auditing requires statistical expertise, specialized tools, and significant time. We present an open evaluation task, built on METR Task Standard v0.3.0, that tests whether frontier AI agents can autonomously implement a structured clinical AI security audit. Given a pre-trained clinical prediction model, a patient dataset, and written instructions, each agent must implement four attacks from pseudocode, compute a Security Posture Score covering FGSM robustness, membership inference resistance, expected calibration error, and boundary attack resistance, and write a structured JSON report in a Docker container using only a bash interface and no scaffolding code. Six variants span the Wisconsin Diagnostic Breast Cancer and MIMIC-IV ICU mortality datasets across three model architectures with increasing defense strength, with reference scores from 55.60 to 90.41. We ran 54 evaluations across three frontier models, with three runs per variant. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-4.1 completed all 18 runs and received perfect evaluator scores. GPT-4o completed 61 percent of runs and used about five times the per-run token count of Claude, although provider tokenization differs. Total API costs were 8 US dollars for GPT-4.1, 12 US dollars for Claude Sonnet 4.6, and 27 US dollars for GPT-4o. GPT-4o failures involved premature session termination, an aggregation error, and an empty submission file. The task, scoring infrastructure, and Wisconsin Breast Cancer assets are publicly released; MIMIC-IV variants require separate PhysioNet access.