Beyond single-channel agentic benchmarking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.18456v1
• Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2026 08:22:02 GMT
• Title: Beyond single-channel agentic benchmarking
• Authors: Nelu D. Radpour,
• Abstract summary: This paper argues that evaluating AI agents in isolation systematically mischaracterizes their operational safety when deployed within human-in-the-loop environments.<n>Even imperfect AI systems can nonetheless provide substantial safety utility by functioning as redundant audit layers against well-documented sources of human failure.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Contemporary benchmarks for agentic artificial intelligence (AI) frequently evaluate safety through isolated task-level accuracy thresholds, implicitly treating autonomous systems as single points of failure. This single-channel paradigm diverges from established principles in safety-critical engineering, where risk mitigation is achieved through redundancy, diversity of error modes, and joint system reliability. This paper argues that evaluating AI agents in isolation systematically mischaracterizes their operational safety when deployed within human-in-the-loop environments. Using a recent laboratory safety benchmark as a case study demonstrates that even imperfect AI systems can nonetheless provide substantial safety utility by functioning as redundant audit layers against well-documented sources of human failure, including vigilance decrement, inattentional blindness, and normalization of deviance. This perspective reframes agentic safety evaluation around the reliability of the human-AI dyad rather than absolute agent accuracy, with a particular emphasis on uncorrelated error modes as the primary determinant of risk reduction. Such a shift aligns AI benchmarking with established practices in other safety-critical domains and offers a path toward more ecologically valid safety assessments.

Related papers

• The Necessity of a Holistic Safety Evaluation Framework for AI-Based Automation Features [0.0]
  Safety of Intended Functionality (SOTIF) and Functional Safety (FuSa) analysis of driving automation features has traditionally excluded Quality Management (QM) components from rigorous safety impact evaluations.<n>Recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI) integration reveal that such components can contribute to SOTIF-related hazardous risks.<n>This paper argues for the adoption of comprehensive FuSa, SOTIF, and AI standards-driven methodologies to identify and mitigate risks in AI components.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T00:22:24Z)
• SafeEvalAgent: Toward Agentic and Self-Evolving Safety Evaluation of LLMs [37.82193156438782]
  This paper introduces a new paradigm of agentic safety evaluation, reframing evaluation as a continuous and self-evolving process.<n>We propose a novel multi-agent framework SafeEvalAgent, which autonomously ingests unstructured policy documents to generate and perpetually evolve a comprehensive safety benchmark.<n>Our experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of SafeEvalAgent, showing a consistent decline in model safety as the evaluation hardens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T11:20:41Z)
• AURA: Affordance-Understanding and Risk-aware Alignment Technique for Large Language Models [6.059681491089391]
  AURA provides comprehensive, step level evaluations across logical coherence and safety-awareness.<n>Our framework seamlessly combines introspective self-critique, fine-grained PRM assessments, and adaptive safety-aware decoding.<n>This research represents a pivotal step toward safer, more responsible, and contextually aware AI, setting a new benchmark for alignment-sensitive applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T08:43:24Z)
• Towards provable probabilistic safety for scalable embodied AI systems [79.31011047593492]
  Embodied AI systems are increasingly prevalent across various applications.<n> Ensuring their safety in complex operating environments remains a major challenge.<n>This Perspective offers a pathway toward safer, large-scale adoption of embodied AI systems in safety-critical applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T15:46:25Z)
• Safely Learning Controlled Stochastic Dynamics [61.82896036131116]
  We introduce a method that ensures safe exploration and efficient estimation of system dynamics.<n>After training, the learned model enables predictions of the system's dynamics and permits safety verification of any given control.<n>We provide theoretical guarantees for safety and derive adaptive learning rates that improve with increasing Sobolev regularity of the true dynamics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T11:17:07Z)
• Engineering Risk-Aware, Security-by-Design Frameworks for Assurance of Large-Scale Autonomous AI Models [0.0]
  This paper presents an enterprise-level, risk-aware, security-by-design approach for large-scale autonomous AI systems.<n>We detail a unified pipeline that delivers provable guarantees of model behavior under adversarial and operational stress.<n>Case studies in national security, open-source model governance, and industrial automation demonstrate measurable reductions in vulnerability and compliance overhead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-09T20:14:53Z)
• Domain-Agnostic Scalable AI Safety Ensuring Framework [6.421238475415244]
  We propose the first domain-agnostic AI safety framework that achieves strong safety guarantees while preserving high performance.<n>Our framework includes: (1) an optimization component with chance constraints, (2) a safety classification model, (3) internal test data, (4) conservative testing procedures, (5) informative dataset quality measures, and (6) continuous approximate loss functions with gradient gradient.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T16:38:35Z)
• SafetyAnalyst: Interpretable, Transparent, and Steerable Safety Moderation for AI Behavior [56.10557932893919]
  We present SafetyAnalyst, a novel AI safety moderation framework.<n>Given an AI behavior, SafetyAnalyst uses chain-of-thought reasoning to analyze its potential consequences.<n>It aggregates effects into a harmfulness score using 28 fully interpretable weight parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-22T03:38:37Z)
• EARBench: Towards Evaluating Physical Risk Awareness for Task Planning of Foundation Model-based Embodied AI Agents [53.717918131568936]
  Embodied artificial intelligence (EAI) integrates advanced AI models into physical entities for real-world interaction.<n>Foundation models as the "brain" of EAI agents for high-level task planning have shown promising results.<n>However, the deployment of these agents in physical environments presents significant safety challenges.<n>This study introduces EARBench, a novel framework for automated physical risk assessment in EAI scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T13:19:37Z)
• Safe Inputs but Unsafe Output: Benchmarking Cross-modality Safety Alignment of Large Vision-Language Model [73.8765529028288]
  We introduce a novel safety alignment challenge called Safe Inputs but Unsafe Output (SIUO) to evaluate cross-modality safety alignment.<n>To empirically investigate this problem, we developed the SIUO, a cross-modality benchmark encompassing 9 critical safety domains, such as self-harm, illegal activities, and privacy violations.<n>Our findings reveal substantial safety vulnerabilities in both closed- and open-source LVLMs, underscoring the inadequacy of current models to reliably interpret and respond to complex, real-world scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-21T16:14:15Z)
• ASSERT: Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming for Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models [65.79770974145983]
  ASSERT, Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming, consists of three methods -- semantically aligned augmentation, target bootstrapping, and adversarial knowledge injection. We partition our prompts into four safety domains for a fine-grained analysis of how the domain affects model performance. We find statistically significant performance differences of up to 11% in absolute classification accuracy among semantically related scenarios and error rates of up to 19% absolute error in zero-shot adversarial settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-14T17:10:28Z)
• Evaluating the Safety of Deep Reinforcement Learning Models using Semi-Formal Verification [81.32981236437395]
  We present a semi-formal verification approach for decision-making tasks based on interval analysis. Our method obtains comparable results over standard benchmarks with respect to formal verifiers. Our approach allows to efficiently evaluate safety properties for decision-making models in practical applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-19T11:18:06Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.