mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

CAVEAT: Towards Robust Computer-Use Agents in Incentive-Misaligned Environments

arXiv 2609.27273 ↗First posted 23 Sep 2026cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate also fits: Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

Computer-use agents (CUAs) increasingly act on behalf of users online. What happens when the environments they operate in have incentives of their own? Online marketplaces, for example, may favor some products over others, steering agents away from the user's objective. Existing CUA benchmarks cover cooperative settings or explicit attacks, but do not test whether agents preserve user objectives when the environment itself has a stake in the outcome. We introduce CAVEAT, a controlled benchmark spanning nine marketplace environments and a taxonomy of eight common steering mechanisms. Across five model families, agents purchase the user-optimal product in 78.6% of matched-control episodes but only 17.3% when steering mechanisms are enabled. Larger models and more reasoning improve robustness, but substantial failures persist. Trajectory analysis and targeted ablations identify three weaknesses in how agents decide: they (1) prematurely narrow the set of alternatives they consider, (2) impose priorities the user never stated, and (3) commit before resolving decision-relevant evidence. Guided by this diagnosis, we develop CAVEAT-Harness, which targets these failures and raises the optimal purchase rate by up to 80.0 percentage points, and show that targeted post-training further improves a smaller open model. These results establish incentive robustness as a distinct challenge for delegated agents, diagnose failure modes, and show how targeted interventions can substantially improve robustness.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 20 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Sep 2026.

Builds on

20 of 36 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025A Framework for Studying AI Agent Behavior: Evidence from Consumer Choice Experiments30 Sep
  2. 2025ShoppingBench: A Real-World Intent-Grounded Shopping Benchmark for LLM-based Agents6 Aug

Other references · 18

  1. 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 2,006
  2. 2022WebShop: Towards Scalable Real-World Web Interaction with Grounded Language Agentscited by 1,251
  3. 2023Mind2Web: Towards a Generalist Agent for the Webcited by 1,242
  4. 2024OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environmentscited by 1,195
  5. 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agentscited by 538
  6. 2024WebVoyager: Building an End-to-End Web Agent with Large Multimodal Modelscited by 438
  7. 2024WorkArena: How Capable Are Web Agents at Solving Common Knowledge Work Tasks?cited by 363
  8. 2025Know Me, Respond to Me: Benchmarking LLMs for Dynamic User Profiling and Personalized Responses at Scalecited by 178
  9. 2025WASP: Benchmarking Web Agent Security Against Prompt Injection Attackscited by 157
  10. 2025Do LLMs Recognize Your Preferences? Evaluating Personalized Preference Following in LLMscited by 148
  11. 2023How Bad is Top-K Recommendation under Competing Content Creators?cited by 27
  12. 2025Systematic Failures in Collective Reasoning under Distributed Information in Multi-Agent LLMscited by 19
6 more
  1. 2025Magentic Marketplace: An Open-Source Environment for Studying Agentic Marketscited by 19
  2. 2025DECEPTICON: How Dark Patterns Manipulate Web Agentscited by 15
  3. 2025SusBench: An Online Benchmark for Evaluating Dark Pattern Susceptibility of Computer-Use Agentscited by 8
  4. 2024Can Probabilistic Feedback Drive User Impacts in Online Platforms?cited by 5
  5. 2022Product Ranking for Revenue Maximization with Multiple Purchasescited by 3
  6. 2026Benchmarking Web Agent Safety under E-commerce Deceptive Interfacescited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026ADeptS-Bench: Measuring the Trustworthiness of Computer Use Agents Across Devices
  2. 2026SovereignPA-Bench: Evaluating User-Owned Personal Agents under Evolving Intent, Platform Mediation, and Consent Constraints
  3. 2025Just Do It!? Computer-Use Agents Exhibit Blind Goal-Directedness
  4. 2026AcCoRD: Evaluating User-Agent Collaboration Under Realistic User Preference Dynamics
  5. 2026Welcome to the Age of Agent Ads: Using On-Policy Attacks to Steer Agentic Decisions
  6. 2025It's a TRAP! Task-Redirecting Agent Persuasion Benchmark for Web Agents
  7. 2026Norm Enforcement for AI Agents: Robustly Shaping Behavior in Multi-Agent Systems
  8. 2026From Migration to Calibration: Aligning Agents with Deployment Requirements