Why Does Agentic Safety Fail to Generalize Across Tasks?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06992v1
• Date: Thu, 07 May 2026 22:16:03 GMT
• Title: Why Does Agentic Safety Fail to Generalize Across Tasks?
• Abstract summary: AI agents are increasingly deployed in multi-task settings, where the task to perform is specified at test time, and the agent must generalize to unseen tasks.<n> Empirical evidence suggests that even when the ability to execute generalizes to unseen tasks, the ability to do so safely frequently does not.<n>This paper provides theory and experiments indicating that failures of agentic safety to generalize across tasks are not merely due to limitations of training methods, but reflect an inherent property of safety itself.
• Score: 3.5870827272767496
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI agents are increasingly deployed in multi-task settings, where the task to perform is specified at test time, and the agent must generalize to unseen tasks. A major concern in such settings is safety: often, an agent must not only execute unseen tasks, but do so while avoiding risks and handling ones that materialize. Empirical evidence suggests that even when the ability to execute generalizes to unseen tasks, the ability to do so safely frequently does not. This paper provides theory and experiments indicating that failures of agentic safety to generalize across tasks are not merely due to limitations of training methods, but reflect an inherent property of safety itself: the relationship between a task and its safe execution is more complex than the relationship between a task and its execution alone. Theoretically, we analyze linear-quadratic control with $H_{\infty}$-robustness, and prove that the mapping from task specification to an optimal controller has higher Lipschitz constant with safety requirements than without, yielding a Lipschitz bound of independent interest. Empirically, we demonstrate our conclusions in simulated quadcopter navigation with a neural network agent and in CRM with an LLM agent. Our findings suggest that current efforts to enhance agentic safety may be insufficient, and point to a need for fundamentally different approaches.

Related papers

• AgentAbstain: Do LLM Agents Know When Not to Act? [19.223843408018997]
  Existing evaluations mostly focus on task success rather than whether agents know when to abstain.<n>We present the first systematic evaluation framework for agentic abstention: the calibrated ability of tool-using LLM agents to recognize when not to act.<n>AgentAbstain is a paired-task benchmark built on an agent-native taxonomy of 8 abstention scenarios across pre-execution reasoning and runtime discovery.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-11T00:57:36Z)
• AgentLens: Interpretable Safety Steering via Mechanistic Subspaces for Multi-Turn Coding Agent [53.82005364479556]
  Coding agents based on large language models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable autonomous capabilities.<n>Existing safety mechanisms mainly rely on external guardrails.<n>We propose AgentLens, a white-box defense framework that performs runtime safety detection and representation-level mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-21T21:13:55Z)
• AgentCanary: A Security Evaluation Framework for Autonomous AI Agents in Real Executable Environments [32.982317538632806]
  We propose AgentCanary, a comprehensive security evaluation framework for autonomous AI agents.<n>AgentCanary provides a systematic solution along three contributions.<n>We evaluate a broad set of frontier models on AgentCanary against multiple established adversarial attack methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-09T06:55:37Z)
• The Cold-Start Safety Gap in LLM Agents [25.95386115331387]
  We study whether tool-calling agents are equally safe throughout a conversation.<n>We find they are most vulnerable at the start of a session and become substantially safer after a few regular agentic tasks.<n>We recommend having the agent complete a few regular agentic tasks before possible exposure to safety-critical requests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T21:58:19Z)
• SeClaw: Spec-Driven Security Task Synthesis for Evaluating Autonomous Agents [87.26967184869198]
  SeClaw is a framework that combines specification-driven security task synthesis with execution-based security evaluation for Autonomous agents.<n> benchmark covers risks arising from resources, user tasks, environments, and intrinsic agent behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T14:23:42Z)
• The Why Behind the Action: Unveiling Internal Drivers via Agentic Attribution [63.61358761489141]
  Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents are widely used in real-world applications such as customer service, web navigation, and software engineering.<n>We propose a novel framework for textbfgeneral agentic attribution, designed to identify the internal factors driving agent actions regardless of the task outcome.<n>We validate our framework across a diverse suite of agentic scenarios, including standard tool use and subtle reliability risks like memory-induced bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T15:22:21Z)
• RoboSafe: Safeguarding Embodied Agents via Executable Safety Logic [56.38397499463889]
  Embodied agents powered by vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly capable of executing complex real-world tasks.<n>However, they remain vulnerable to hazardous instructions that may trigger unsafe behaviors.<n>We propose RoboSafe, a runtime safeguard for embodied agents through executable predicate-based safety logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-24T15:01:26Z)
• How Brittle is Agent Safety? Rethinking Agent Risk under Intent Concealment and Task Complexity [55.441602598245744]
  Current safety evaluations for LLM-driven agents primarily focus on atomic harms, failing to address sophisticated threats where malicious intent is concealed or diluted within complex tasks.<n>We address this gap with a two-dimensional analysis of agent safety brittleness under the pressures of intent concealment and task complexity.<n>Our findings reveal two critical phenomena: safety alignment degrades sharply and predictably as intent becomes obscured, and a "Complexity Paradox" emerges, where agents seem safer on harder tasks only due to capability limitations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-11T17:27:27Z)
• OpenAgentSafety: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Real-World AI Agent Safety [58.201189860217724]
  We introduce OpenAgentSafety, a comprehensive framework for evaluating agent behavior across eight critical risk categories.<n>Unlike prior work, our framework evaluates agents that interact with real tools, including web browsers, code execution environments, file systems, bash shells, and messaging platforms.<n>It combines rule-based analysis with LLM-as-judge assessments to detect both overt and subtle unsafe behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-08T16:18:54Z)
• AGrail: A Lifelong Agent Guardrail with Effective and Adaptive Safety Detection [47.83354878065321]
  We propose AGrail, a lifelong guardrail to enhance agent safety.<n>AGrail features adaptive safety check generation, effective safety check optimization, and tool compatibility and flexibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T05:12:33Z)
• SafeAgentBench: A Benchmark for Safe Task Planning of Embodied LLM Agents [58.65256663334316]
  We present SafeAgentBench -- the first benchmark for safety-aware task planning of embodied LLM agents in interactive simulation environments.<n>SafeAgentBench includes: (1) an executable, diverse, and high-quality dataset of 750 tasks, rigorously curated to cover 10 potential hazards and 3 task types; (2) SafeAgentEnv, a universal embodied environment with a low-level controller, supporting multi-agent execution with 17 high-level actions for 9 state-of-the-art baselines; and (3) reliable evaluation methods from both execution and semantic perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T18:55:58Z)

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.