AURA-Eval: Evaluation Framework for Acting Under Risk Awareness in LLM Agent Trajectories
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
LLM agents operate in workflows where unsafe actions can have real consequences. Existing safety evaluations often reduce behavior to a single score, obscuring risk recognition, pre-action detection, and safe task completion when a safe solution exists. We introduce AURA-Eval, a framework combining controlled augmentation with granular diagnosis of behavior in tool-use trajectories. Its pipeline identifies safety-critical decision points, generates controlled variations, and constructs counterparts differing in whether a request has a safe fulfillment path. Using 157 sourced trajectories, we generate 1,249 evaluation items and evaluate 20 frontier and open-weight models. We developed rubrics to classify risk detection, action strategy, and scenario-specific action safety. Our results show that LLM agents engage in unsafe behavior more often when no safe fulfillment path exists. In these cases, frontier proprietary models more often recognize risk and exhibit safer behavior by proposing alternatives, while evaluated open-weight models more often directly execute unsafe requests. Increasing impact or reducing opportunities for oversight before execution also exposes greater vulnerability across models.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 19 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Sep 2026.
Builds on
19 of 36 references.
Closest ancestors · 9
Same direction, newest first
- 2026ATBench: A Diverse and Realistic Agent Trajectory Benchmark for Safety Evaluation and Diagnosis2 Apr
- 2026ToolSafe: Enhancing Tool Invocation Safety of LLM-based agents via Proactive Step-level Guardrail and Feedback15 Jan
- 2025When Refusals Fail: Unstable Safety Mechanisms in Long-Context LLM Agents2 Dec
- 2025LM Agents May Fail to Act on Their Own Risk Knowledge19 Aug
- 2025AgentAuditor: Human-Level Safety and Security Evaluation for LLM Agents31 May
- 2024Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agents19 Dec
- 2024R-Judge: Benchmarking Safety Risk Awareness for LLM Agents18 Jan
- 2023Testing Language Model Agents Safely in the Wild17 Nov
- 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox25 Sep
Other references · 10
- 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
- 2023The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Surveycited by 1,439
- 2021A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignmentcited by 1,055
- 2022Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedbackcited by 901
- 2024Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judgescited by 205
- 2024PrivacyLens: Evaluating Privacy Norm Awareness of Language Models in Actioncited by 171
- 2025AgentRewardBench: Evaluating Automatic Evaluations of Web Agent Trajectoriescited by 108
- 2024SafetyPrompts: a Systematic Review of Open Datasets for Evaluating and Improving Large Language Model Safetycited by 77
- 2025SafeToolBench: Pioneering a Prospective Benchmark to Evaluating Tool Utilization Safety in LLMscited by 22
- 2025CASE-Bench: Context-Aware SafEty Benchmark for Large Language Modelscited by 20
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026ForesightSafety-SAGE:A Fully Automated Scenario Generation and Safety Evaluation Framework for LLM Agents
- 2026TRACES: Proactive Safety Auditing for Multi-Turn LLM Agents via Trajectory-State Modeling
- 2026PreAct-Bench: Benchmarking Predictive Monitoring in LLMs
- 2026Toward a Principled Framework for Agent Safety Measurement
- 2026Trust No Tool: Evaluating and Defending LLM Agents under Untrusted Tool Feedback
- 2026AgentBoundary: Counterfactual Evaluation of Safety in Tool-Using LLM Agents
- 2026POLAR: Ontology-Guided Risk Prevention for Tool-Calling LLM Agents
- 2026AgentS4D: Benchmarking Runtime Risks across the Execution Lifecycle of LLM-Based Workspace Agents