mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Agentic Commerce Bench: Measuring Fraud Detection for Agents That Spend Money

arXiv 2609.35886 ↗First posted 27 Sep 2026cs.CR cs.AI cs.CYcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance also fits: Financial trading and forecasting agents

Abstract (arXiv)

AI agents now hold spend authority and settle payments without per-action human confirmation. The resulting loss is often not a security failure: a counterparty with the correct domain, the correct settlement address and a genuinely delivered service can charge more than it should, and no check keyed on identity will see it. We present three artefacts for measuring and reducing that loss. First, a taxonomy of agentic commerce fraud that separates five observation levels (agent reasoning, wire, settlement rail, counterparty, principal) from the request-level and history-level evidence available at each, and records which levels can observe which attacks. Second, Agentic Commerce Bench (ACB), a benchmark of twenty fraud classes generated from production aggregates, 1,647 catalogued service operations and 1,068 settlements, of which six involve a counterparty that is exactly who it claims to be. Third, gordonguard, an open-source detector stack and offline harness with which an operator can audit an agent configuration, replay hostile counterparties without an account, and run the same detectors inline. Calibrating to a stated false-positive budget on clean training traffic gives a 6.5% clean flag rate, replicated across three independent generations, and leaves eight of twenty classes no better than chance. On the four classes a reasoning layer can observe, a widely used agent security scanner run over its jailbreak-detection panel scores zero on all four, while correctly scoring 1.0 on a jailbreak supplied as a control. A measured median payment of 0.007 places a hard constraint on deployment: one human review costs 143 times the value of the payment it examines.

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 1 of its 11 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Sep 2026.

Builds on

1 of 11 references.

References · 1

  1. 2019Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?cited by 1,515

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Protocol-Level Attacks on Agentic Commerce Platforms: A Cross-Platform Taxonomy, AIP-Bench, and Unified Defense
  2. 2026A Decision-Centered Reference Architecture for Trustworthy Agentic Commerce
  3. 2026SR-Fraud: An Outcome-Supervised Reflective LLM Agent Framework for Non-Stationary Payment Fraud Detection
  4. 2026SAGE: An LLM-driven Self Reflective Agentic Framework for Fraud Detection
  5. 2026TessPay: Verify-then-Pay Infrastructure for Trusted Agentic Commerce
  6. 2026Get In, Decide, Prove: A Merchant-Side Readiness Benchmark for Agentic Commerce
  7. 2026How Agentic Is Agentic Commerce? A Population-Scale Measurement of x402 Adoption and Authenticity
  8. 2026I must delete the evidence: AI Agents Explicitly Cover up Fraud and Violent Crime