REDAgentBench: Executable Red Teaming and Faithful Measurement of LLM Agent Systems
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code
also in 2 more
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 19 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Aug 2026.
Builds on
19 of 30 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 18
- 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agentscited by 406
- 2024R-Judge: Benchmarking Safety Risk Awareness for LLM Agentscited by 268
- 2025The Attacker Moves Second: Stronger Adaptive Attacks Bypass Defenses Against Llm Jailbreaks and Prompt Injectionscited by 108
- 2025Toward an Evaluation Science for Generative AI Systemscited by 42
- 2025Probing and Steering Evaluation Awareness of Language Modelscited by 31
- 2026Unsafer in Many Turns: Benchmarking and Defending Multi-Turn Safety Risks in Tool-Using Agentscited by 28
- 2025How to Correctly Report LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluationscited by 25
- 2025Know Thy Judge: On the Robustness Meta-Evaluation of LLM Safety Judgescited by 19
- 2024Re-evaluating Automatic LLM System Ranking for Alignment with Human Preferencecited by 16
- 2026Comparison requires valid measurement: Rethinking attack success rate comparisons in AI red teamingcited by 15
- 2025STACK: Adversarial Attacks on LLM Safeguard Pipelinescited by 14
- 2026The Blind Spot of Agent Safety: How Benign User Instructions Expose Critical Vulnerabilities in Computer-Use Agentscited by 12
6 more
- 2025Breaking the Code: Security Assessment of AI Code Agents Through Systematic Jailbreaking Attackscited by 7
- 2026FinVault: Benchmarking Financial Agent Safety in Execution-Grounded Environmentscited by 6
- 2026PRECISE: Reducing the Bias of LLM Evaluations Using Prediction-Powered Ranking Estimationcited by 6
- 2026Safety Testing LLM Agents at Scale: From Risk Discovery to Evidence-Grounded Verificationcited by 6
- 2026BraveGuard: From Open-World Threats to Safer Computer-Use Agentscited by 4
- 2025SceneJailEval: A Scenario-Adaptive Multi-Dimensional Framework for Jailbreak Evaluationcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.
4 papers.
- 2026HazardAuditor: From Executable Threats to Safer Computer-Use Agentscited by 0
- 2026Attack Success Rate Is Not a Number: On Measurement Validity in Agentic AI Security Evaluationcited by 0
- 2026CoSec: Benchmarking Agent Security in Communitiescited by 0
- 2026When AI Finds Hidden Messages, Does It Report?cited by 0
- 2026When AI Finds Hidden Messages, Does It Report?7 Oct 2026
- 2026CoSec: Benchmarking Agent Security in Communities28 Sep 2026
- 2026Attack Success Rate Is Not a Number: On Measurement Validity in Agentic AI Security Evaluation21 Sep 2026
- 2026HazardAuditor: From Executable Threats to Safer Computer-Use Agents14 Sep 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025SIRAJ: Diverse and Efficient Red-Teaming for LLM Agents via Distilled Structured Reasoning
- 2025Security Challenges in AI Agent Deployment: Insights from a Large Scale Public Competition
- 2026Autonomous Adversary: Red-Teaming in the age of LLM
- 2026PI-Hunter: Automated Red-Teaming for Exposing and Localizing Prompt Injections
- 2026Co-RedTeam: Orchestrated Security Discovery and Exploitation with LLM Agents
- 2026Black-Box Red Teaming of Agentic AI: A Taxonomy-Driven Framework for Automated Risk Discovery
- 2026BekchiAI: Measuring, Observing, and Controlling LLM Agents in One Click
- 2026CART: Closed-Loop Adaptive Red Teaming for Large Language Models