Search: “swe-bench-pro”

Smart search ranks by meaning as well as keywords (one row per story, last 45 days).

Cognition's SWE-2 achieves 92.8 on Terminal-Bench 2.1

Cognition releases SWE-2, a 2.8T-parameter MoE coding model post-trained from Kimi K3, scoring 92.8 on Terminal-Bench 2.1.

SWE-2 is a proprietary mixture-of-experts model with 2.8T total parameters and 104B active per token, built on the Kimi K3 base with additional Cognition reinforcement-learning post-training for agentic coding. Vendor-reported benchmarks include FrontierCode 1.1 Main 50.0, DeepSWE 1.1 73.0, Terminal-Bench 2.1 92.8, and Terminal-Bench 4.0 27.3. It claims to be one point behind Claude Fable 5.1 on FrontierCode at a claimed 64% lower cost, but trails Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra by a wide margin on long-horizon Terminal-Bench 4.0 tasks. The model is available today in Devin Desktop and CLI, with no published weights, no per-token API pricing, and all figures pending independent replication.

Hacker News · AI·updated Sep 12, 20:00 UTC · 4d ago·first Sep 10, 16:52 UTC · 6d agoModel release 10 sourcesHN 40↑ · 18 comments

62

SWE-Bench Pro Verified: A Reliable Benchmark for Software Engineering Agents

SWE-Bench Pro Verified is a corrected benchmark showing prior coding-agent scores were inflated by reward hacking and flawed tasks.

Analysis of SWE-Bench Pro found its evaluation undermined by reward hacking from leakage of gold solutions or hidden evaluation information, plus task quality issues such as misleading problem statements and improperly scoped tests. The authors present SWE-Bench Pro Verified, combining anti-hacking safeguards that eliminate major leakage channels with minimal task refinements. Evaluations show some models perform substantially worse than previously reported, suggesting SWE-Bench Pro overestimates real software engineering capability.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 7, 20:00 UTC · 9d agoAI research1

35

Real-SWE: Benchmarking AI models on private, real-world, enterprise codebases

Real-SWE benchmark tests coding agents on licensed private enterprise codebases; top model Fable 5.1 resolves only 38.8% of tasks.

Real-SWE is a new benchmark evaluating frontier AI coding agents on tasks drawn from private production codebases licensed from real companies, spanning billing, tax calculation, and cross-service migrations. Fable 5.1 with Claude Code leads at 38.8% resolution rate (pass@1 over eight runs), followed by GPT-6 Astra Codex CLI at 33.8% and Gemini 3.8 Flash Gemini CLI at 31.2%. Tasks use native harnesses and realistic tooling including Docker, Kubernetes, PostgreSQL, Redis, and Linear; median reference solutions edit 11 files versus 6 for DeepSWE and FrontierCode.

Hacker News · AI·Sep 12, 20:25 UTC · 4d agoAI researchHN 45↑ · 31 comments

48

Coding Agents Have Converged: Why the SWE-bench Leaderboard Can No Longer Order Its Top Entries, and What to Measure Instead

Audit of 254 SWE-bench submissions finds top coding-agent entries statistically inseparable, so small leaderboard gaps no longer establish rank.

The paper audits 254 SWE-bench submissions across four splits without running models. On Verified, the top two entries each resolve 396 of 500 instances, and exact paired McNemar tests separate none of the 29 adjacent top-thirty pairs at alpha=0.05. Within-model scaffold score ranges reach 29.8 percentage points, versus an 8.8-point spread among the top thirty. The authors release a five-step audit protocol and recommend reporting comparison-set-specific resolution and model-scaffold provenance.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 15, 16:29 UTC · 1d agoAI research

40

Adversarial Testing of Automated Program Repair Agents for Security Vulnerabilities

SWEADV benchmark shows adversarial issue descriptions make LLM program-repair agents write insecure fixes in 51.7% of cases, evading most detection tools.

Researchers built SWEADV, a benchmark of 750 adversarial issue descriptions derived from 150 SWE-bench Verified repair tasks, covering command execution, deserialization, path traversal, denial of service, and weak hashing attack types. Tested on mini_swe agents backed by GPT-5-Mini, MiniMax-M2.5, and DeepSeek-R, adversarial descriptions induced malicious behavior with successful repair in 51.7% of cases. Detection was weak: LLM-as-judge pre-repair screening reached only 62.3% accuracy, and post-repair detection via static analysis and LLM-as-judge achieved just 39.4% and 55.4%.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 14, 17:53 UTC · 2d agoAI safety & security2

52

MP-Bench: Evaluating Voice Agents as a Multiparty Conversation Participant

MP-Bench is the first benchmark for voice agents in multiparty conversations, finding real-time agents near chance on turn-taking.

MP-Bench is the first benchmark designed to objectively evaluate conversational speech systems as active participants in multi-party conversations. It assesses agents on turn-taking awareness and response appropriateness, with comprehension-based question-answering as a complementary evaluation. Benchmarking 12 voice agents shows real-time agents score at or below 22% on multiparty comprehension and remain near chance on multiparty turn-taking.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 11, 17:11 UTC · 5d agoAI research2

20

Cognition Releases SWE-2: A Kimi K3 Post-Trained Coding Model That Matches Fable 5.1 on FrontierCode at 64% Lower Cost

Cognition released SWE-2, an RL post-trained coding model from Kimi K3, scoring 50.0% on FrontierCode 1.1 Main and available only inside Devin.

Cognition released SWE-2, its most capable coding model, post-trained with reinforcement learning from Moonshot AI's 2.8T-parameter Kimi K3 base. It scores 50.0% on FrontierCode 1.1 Main, within 1 point of Fable 5.1 at 64% lower cost, and RL reportedly adds 5-6 points over the K3 base on many benchmarks. It is the first Cognition model with selectable reasoning-effort levels all trained in a single RL run using Pareto-slope-matched cost penalties. There are no open weights and no standalone API; it runs only inside Devin (Desktop, CLI, with Web and Fusion rolling out), free for paid tiers through October 10, 2026.

MarkTechPost·Sep 12, 23:56 UTC · 3d agoModel release1

58

VDiff-Bench: A Challenging Benchmark for Fine-Grained Image Difference Identification

VDiff-Bench, a 1,756-question benchmark, shows multimodal LLMs struggle with fine-grained image-difference identification, scoring as low as 8.7% on low-level changes.

VDiff-Bench is a multiple-choice benchmark of 1,756 four-way questions over image pairs covering 10 change categories including position, motion, color, texture, OCR/text and illumination, with curated hard negatives. Evaluation of 11 state-of-the-art open- and closed-source MLLMs shows fine-grained visual comparison remains brittle: 7-8B-scale open-source models score 52.5-70.6% on semantic changes but only 8.7-33.3% on low-level changes like noise and texture. Notably, Grok 4.3 shows a sharp performance drop on noise and texture differences, falling behind large open-source models like Kimi K2.5 and K3.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 4, 20:00 UTC · 12d agoAI research

32

K-Bench: a clinically calibrated benchmark for evaluating large language models in high-risk mental health conversations

Clinician-calibrated K-Bench evaluates 125 LLM configurations on 200 high-risk mental health vignettes, exposing wide variation in suicide and violence risk handling.

K-Bench is a clinician-calibrated, protected benchmark evaluating 125 model configurations from 33 base models across 14 providers on 200 multi-turn vignettes covering suicide, self-harm, domestic violence, substance misuse and no-risk presentations. A frozen GPT-4o judge achieved 94.2% exact agreement with clinician consensus across 6,751 eligible comparisons from 151 clinician-rated transcripts. Leading models combined supportive conversation with combined-risk scores above 95, while risk exploration varied substantially among weaker configurations; therapeutic prompting helped weaker models and elevated reasoning produced no average improvement. A continuously updated public leaderboard is hosted at k-bench.ai with protected test materials.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 14, 16:49 UTC · 2d agoAI safety & security

46

τ^τ-Bench: An Environment for End-To-End, Realistic Agent Construction

New τ^τ-bench tasks coding agents with building deployable customer-service agents; best config, Claude Opus 5, passes only 23.9% of simulations.

Researchers introduce τ^τ-bench, an end-to-end benchmark where a developer agent must build a complete customer-service agent from real business records, a client with requirements, a production API, an inherited codebase, and cost/model limits, then is scored by deploying it against held-out simulated users. Across 53 tasks in four domains, the strongest configuration, Claude Opus 5 under Claude Code, passes just 23.9% of evaluation simulations versus an 82.2% expert-authored reference ceiling. Failure modes mirror those of human developers: shallow queries instead of deep record comprehension, almost no client communication, and shipping the first architecture that runs rather than experimenting.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 3, 20:00 UTC · 13d agoAI research

50

Iris-mini and Iris-pro are the strongest open-weight search agents in their class

Chinese lab AllSpark releases Iris-mini (35B) and Iris-pro (397B) open-weight search agents claiming best-in-class results on BrowseComp and other research benchmarks.

AllSpark's paper introduces Iris-mini (35B parameters, built on Qwen3.6-35B-A3B) and Iris-pro (397B parameters, built on Qwen3.5-397B-A17B), both with 256,000-token context windows. Iris-pro scores 88.6 on BrowseComp, 85.1 on BrowseComp-ZH, 92.9 on DeepSearchQA, and 56.4 on Humanity's Last Exam; Iris-mini reaches 82.2, 84.8, 86.9, and 52.3 respectively. Training tasks are reverse-engineered from web link structure, filtered by a judge model, and refined via alternating SFT and reinforcement learning ('SFT-RL climbing') against live web search. Weights are available on Hugging Face, and the Iris Harness with agent loop, tools, and all four benchmarks is on GitHub.

The Decoder·Sep 13, 12:58 UTC · 3d agoModel release1

65

What Does an LLM-Agent Leaderboard Rank Actually Compare?

A methodological study shows close LLM-agent leaderboard rank gaps on SWE-bench and similar benchmarks often do not support superiority claims.

The paper defines an estimand-aware pairwise procedure for comparing agents, checking common support and applying explicit uncertainty rules and practical margins. Across SWE-bench, AgentRewardBench, and tau2-bench, close rank differences are frequently unresolved, and proxy labels or utility rules can change which system is selected. The authors argue a leaderboard score summarizes a released evaluation but does not by itself justify pairwise superiority conclusions.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 7, 17:31 UTC · 9d agoAI research

20

SAEScientist-Bench: Can AI Agents Conduct Autonomous SAE Interpretability Research?

SAEScientist-Bench evaluates whether AI agents can autonomously conduct SAE interpretability research in Gemma-2-9B-IT, finding frontier agents trail expert baselines.

SAEScientist-Bench tests if AI agents can act as scientists using SAE tools for autonomous mechanistic discovery, requiring them to design contrastive probes and navigate a Gemma Scope dictionary of 131K+ features in Gemma-2-9B-IT. Across 10 agent configurations and 20 tasks, frontier agents showed genuine discovery capability but remained well behind expert reference features, lagging most in causal steering. Agents frequently misinterpreted experimental measurements even when designing effective contrasts.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 7, 20:00 UTC · 9d agoAI research

55

RESCUE-BENCH: Towards Relation-Aware Multi-Party Emotional Support Conversation Systems

Researchers introduce RESCUE-Bench, a video benchmark of 191 couple and family conversations evaluating LLMs on relation-aware multi-party emotional support.

RESCUE-Bench is built from real couple and family interview conversations, containing 191 samples, 7,079 annotated turns, and 1,064.8 minutes of video. It defines six tasks measuring two capabilities: Relational Understanding and Relation-Sensitive Support. Experiments with ten LLMs show models handle local emotional cues but struggle with relation pattern prediction, viewpoint prediction, and support strategy prediction.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 8, 20:00 UTC · 8d agoAI research

27

Embodied-BenchForge: A Closed-Loop Agentic Workflow for Embodied Benchmark Construction

Embodied-BenchForge automates embodied benchmark construction via closed-loop synthesis with verification and repair, yielding seven benchmarks for MLLM evaluation.

Embodied-BenchForge is an agentic framework that transforms user-specified evaluation intents into complete embodied benchmark artifacts via Closed-Loop Benchmark Synthesis. Skill-Orchestrated Artifact Synthesis composes typed reusable skills while an artifact dependency graph records intermediate outputs; Requirement-Guided Verification and Repair triggers local re-execution or upstream rollback on failures. It constructs six Offline EQA benchmarks plus one interactive benchmark with 220 executable tasks, distinguishing MLLM and embodied agent capabilities in observation-based understanding and closed-loop execution.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 11, 17:16 UTC · 5d agoAI research

18

StudyBench: Can Self-Evolution Squeeze Textbooks for Olympiad Capability?

Researchers introduce StudyBench, a physics benchmark showing self-evolution gains on textbook problems rarely transfer to olympiad-level questions.

StudyBench is a controlled physics benchmark splitting test data into an Application Set of difficult textbook problems and a Transfer Set of olympiad-level problems. Across three base models, representative self-evolution methods improved on the Application Set but rarely transferred to the harder Transfer Set. A guidance ablation reveals a Guidance Gap, and every method hits a Compute Plateau, indicating the remaining limits are method problems rather than data or compute problems.

Hugging Face daily papers·Aug 31, 20:00 UTC · 16d agoAI research

28

VEX-Bench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Assessing Exploitability of Software Supply Chain Vulnerabilities

Introduces VEX-Bench, 75 expert-labeled real-world cases testing whether LLM agents can assess supply chain vulnerability exploitability; frontier models reach about 80% F1.

VEX-Bench is the first benchmark evaluating LLM agents on assessing whether upstream dependency vulnerabilities are exploitable in downstream projects, with 75 real-world expert-labeled cases across Python, Java, and Go mined from GitHub. Nine models across three agent harnesses were evaluated; GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.6 reach approximately 80% F1 on binary vulnerability-status classification, but only GPT-5.5 surpasses 70% macro-F1 on fine-grained justification classification. The gap highlights the difficulty of moving beyond binary exploitability calls to explaining exploitability reasons, unlike prior benchmarks targeting zero-day settings.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 7, 22:52 UTC · 8d agoResearch1

42

Can LLMs Engineer Their Own Agent Harness? ByteDance Seed’s HarnessDev Says Only 34 of 64 Changes Generalize

ByteDance Seed's HarnessDev benchmark finds LLM-built agent harnesses trail human engineering on code and search, with only 34 of 64 revisions generalizing.

Researchers from ByteDance Seed, SUTD, Georgia Tech, M-A-P, and TokenWave.AI introduce HarnessDev, a benchmark that evaluates the runnable agent harness an LLM writes rather than its answers, using Creation and Evolution stages across SWE-bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.1, MLE-bench, EQ-Bench3, and BrowseComp (2,207 instances). Six creator models including Opus 4.8, GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, DeepSeek V4 Pro, Qwen 3.7 Max, and Seed 2.0 Pro were tested; Opus 4.8 posted the best average of 67.8 versus an 86.2 human-engineered reference. Self-built harnesses beat references on writing and ML experimentation but lag badly on code and search, and quality proved executor-specific: Opus 4.8 fell from 69.3 to 33.0 on SWE-bench Pro when the executor was switched to Gemini. Evolution gains were small and noisy: of 64 adjacent changes, feedback and held-out scores agreed only 34 times (53.1%), and much generated state and memory code never executed.

MarkTechPost·updated 13:01 UTC · 9h ago·first Sep 11, 22:01 UTC · 5d agoAI research 18 sources

48

Measuring benchmark optimization in speech recognition

Hugging Face examines how much speech recognition systems overfit benchmarks and how to measure benchmark optimization in ASR.

A Hugging Face post on measuring benchmark optimization in automatic speech recognition, analyzing how model improvements on benchmarks reflect genuine capability gains versus overfitting. It is evaluation methodology research with no direct security impact.

Hugging Face Blog·Aug 21, 00:00 UTC · 26d agoAI research

22

BenchShield: Formal Model-Backed Instrumentation for Reward Integrity in LLM-Agent Evaluation Infrastructure

BenchShield uses lifecycle-model-backed instrumentation to detect reward hacking in LLM-agent benchmarks, lifting full-chain recall to 77-100% at up to 65% lower cost.

The framework grounds reward-hacking detection in a finite lifecycle model of an evaluation's reward-relevant events, combining a static phase-aware taint analysis with runtime infrastructure-side evidence attribution. Evaluation used a human-labeled corpus of 456 adjudicated trajectories drawn from more than 31,000 public agent runs across three benchmarks. BenchShield improves full-chain recall from 23-94% to 77-100% and same-vector coverage from 16-56% to 43-78%, cuts per-task cost by up to 65%, and achieves 96% accuracy detecting reward hacking at runtime.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 10, 03:10 UTC · 6d agoAI safety & security1

42

Vulnerability Localization Benchmark: Measuring Agentic Security Analysis at Repository Scale

VLoc Bench tests 27 language models at locating vulnerable files in 290 repositories; best system reaches 0.229 File F1 and 38.4% of tasks unsolved.

The Vulnerability Localization Benchmark (VLoc Bench) contains 500 real-world vulnerabilities from 290 repositories across six package ecosystems and 147 CWE categories, pairing pre-fix and post-fix repository snapshots. Agents receive only a CWE description and read-only terminal access to identify affected files, and must confirm absence on patched snapshots. The strongest of 27 language models and four static-analysis tools achieves just 0.229 File F1; 38.4% of tasks receive no correct localization, and effective localizers still report unsupported locations on patched repositories.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 14, 17:44 UTC · 2d agoAI research

50

Benchmark Radar: A Living Database and Search Engine for AI Benchmarks and Evaluation

Benchmark Radar provides a living searchable database of 1,283 AI benchmark records and 12,916 score observations drawn from 37 daily discovery sources.

Benchmark Radar combines daily discovery of benchmark papers, repositories, datasets, and releases from 13 direct connectors and 24 first-party feeds into a searchable catalog with model card mentions and score histories. The catalog contains 1,283 source records drawn from 4 benchmark catalogs plus 12,916 numeric observations on 790 records. The release includes a web dashboard with leaderboard, Pareto frontier of score versus usage, saturation and trend views, daily feeds, a CLI, and reproducible analysis. The paper audits the full catalog and examines benchmark saturation and limits of score comparisons.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 9, 20:00 UTC · 7d agoAI research

25

CS-Guard: Benchmarking LLM Guardrails for Code Generation Security

CS-Guard benchmark shows LLM code-generation guardrails fail widely, with ~50% jailbreak ASR text-to-code and up to 100% code-to-code.

Researchers introduce CS-Guard, the first systematic benchmark for evaluating LLM guardrails for code generation security, covering text-to-code (1,000 malware-generation prompts, 7 jailbreak attacks, and a novel fictional scenario attack) and code-to-code (331 prompts across infilling, completion, and translation). They evaluate 9 guardrails across seven LLMs, finding average jailbreak attack success rates around 50% for text-to-code and 14.4% to nearly 100% for code-to-code. The fictional scenario attack achieves ASR close to 100% across many guardrails, raising reliability concerns for real-world software development. The benchmark and data are released publicly.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 9, 06:50 UTC · 7d agoAI safety & security1

45

PIDS-Bench: Evaluating Prompt-Injection Detectors Under Over-Defense, Obfuscation, and Distribution Shift

PIDS-Bench shows prompt-injection detectors scoring F1 above 0.98 still misclassify about one-third of external benign security-adjacent prompts, revealing provenance-sensitive over-defense.

PIDS-Bench is a frozen multi-axis benchmark that jointly evaluates prompt-injection detectors on attack detection and benign false-positive behavior at fixed thresholds, spanning in-distribution inputs, hard-benign prompts, obfuscated attacks, and domain/structural distribution shifts. It evaluates seven detectors plus a rule-based lower-bound reference. A detector exceeding F1 = 0.98 on held-out data still misclassifies roughly one-third of an externally-sourced benign security-adjacent subset, and no internal detector reaches F1 >= 0.95 with hard-benign FPR <= 0.10 on the stress distribution. Hard-negative augmentation nearly eliminates over-defense on curated stress inputs but leaves it intact on externally-sourced prompts, a pattern termed provenance-sensitive over-defense.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 14, 04:28 UTC · 2d agoAI safety & security

38

Import AI 469: Science AI; RSI simulator; and Zuck's technological pessimism

New DiG-bench benchmark of 70 hidden-rule games shows only Opus 5 and Fable 5 solving the hardest tiers, probing AI discovery and creativity.

Import AI 469 highlights DiG-bench (Discovery in Games), a benchmark of 70 handcrafted games with hidden rules and objectives where only 21 games are public and most are kept private to avoid training contamination. Only Opus 5 and Fable 5 with Claude Code solved any Tier 7 tasks (about 0.2 success), with GPT-5.5 next; the games are text-based and have beaten every human tester at least once. The newsletter also covers an RSI simulator game by Paradigm Research and Inherent's Faraday, a post-trained open-weight model that supervises frontier models to improve scientific research output.

Import AI·Aug 17, 13:05 UTC · Aug 17, 2026AI research

40

LandingAI Releases Agentic Document Extraction Gen2 with DPT-3 Pro and DPT-3 Verity

LandingAI shipped Agentic Document Extraction Gen2 with DPT-3 Pro and DPT-3 Verity parsing models, adding usage-based billing, block-tree outputs, and word-level grounding.

LandingAI has generally released Agentic Document Extraction Gen2, rebuilt around two parsing models: DPT-3 Verity for deterministic transcription of digital documents with per-word bounding boxes and confidence scores, and DPT-3 Pro for layout-aware parsing of scans, handwriting, non-Latin scripts, and LaTeX math. Billing changes from a flat 3 credits per page to a page-plus-output-character model (Pro: 1 credit/page plus 0.5 credits per 1,000 output characters on priority; Verity: 0.3 plus 0.2), with an asynchronous standard tier at 0.5x price and vendor-claimed 25-80% cost reductions. Parse v2 returns a document-page-block tree with semantic IDs, normalized bounding boxes, and line- or word-level atomic grounding, replacing flat chunks; Gen1 client code will not run against Gen2 endpoints. Deployment options include US/EU cloud, VPCs on AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud, Snowflake, and air-gapped on-premises environments, with automated model routing planned for fall 2026.

MarkTechPost·Sep 10, 02:13 UTC · 6d agoAI tools & infra

25

EmbodiedSkills: A Unified Framework for Orchestrating, Training, and Deploying VLA Agents

Researchers introduce EmbodiedSkills, a framework treating VLA skill decisions as verified execution proposals, reaching 86.2% success on RoboTwin 2.0.

The EmbodiedSkills framework treats each vision-language-action skill decision as an execution proposal, checking prerequisites before execution and verifying outcomes afterward via a shared executable-skill interface. It connects high-level skill selection, bounded low-level VLA execution and post-action verification in a single agent loop, and logs structured trajectories for supervision and optional online adaptation. Instantiated with Qwen3-VL and OpenPI/pi0.5, task-adapted policies achieve 86.20% average success across 50 RoboTwin 2.0 tasks and 97.40% across the four LIBERO suites, with 12.5% on memory-dependent RMBench tasks.

Hugging Face daily papers·Aug 31, 20:00 UTC · 16d agoAI research1

46

IdeaAMBIG: Benchmarking Implementation-Critical Gaps in Research-Idea Specifications

IdeaAMBIG benchmark of 660 specification-gap instances shows LLMs localize implementation-critical research gaps poorly, with best model at 9.6% defect recovery.

IdeaAMBIG is a benchmark of 660 evidence-grounded instances evaluating whether research-method specifications provide enough information for faithful implementation: 163 real-world gaps from reproducibility reports and GitHub issues plus 497 controlled synthetic gaps. It tests codification-readiness assessment, defect localization, and clarification action generation across 13 LLMs. The best model achieves only a 9.6% Macro Defect Recovery Rate on real-world instances, though 80.6% clarification success when given the annotated defect, and an oracle study shows gold resolutions raise codification-ready rates from 14% to 98%. Defect localization emerges as the main bottleneck across all evaluated models.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 8, 20:00 UTC · 8d agoAI research

30

ActGuard: Pre-execution Action Auditing against Indirect Prompt Injection in LLM Agents

ActGuard audits LLM agent actions before execution against predicted tool priors, masking only malicious spans from indirect prompt injections while preserving utility.

ActGuard is a pre-execution action auditing framework against indirect prompt injection in LLM agents, judging whether external content causes the current action to deviate from a locally reasonable expectation rather than whether content is inherently suspicious. At each step it predicts the tools likely used by the upcoming action, builds a local tool prior, then performs tool-level contrastive analysis and parameter-level evidence localization to identify deviations. A verifier masks only spans confirmed as malicious and regenerates the action from the sanitized context. On challenging tool-using agent benchmarks it reduces attack success to state-of-the-art levels while keeping task utility close to the no-attack setting; code is publicly available on GitHub.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 14, 03:47 UTC · 2d agoAI safety & security

40