跳到主要内容
AI News HubLIVE
站内改写3 分钟阅读

待翻译:ScopeBench: Do Agents Preserve Engagement Boundaries Under Goal Pressure?

文章摘要

AI 服务暂时不可用,以下为来源摘要,待恢复后补全翻译:arXiv:2609.30325v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agents are increasingly deployed with real autonomy in web application and network penetration testing, where a single out-of-scope action can breach a client's engagement boundary. Existing offensive-security benchmarks measure raw hacking capability; as those benchmarks saturate, the real barrier to deployment is a special case of alignment: scope adherence. We introduce ScopeBench, a benchmark of 30 dead-end agentic security tasks in which the stated objective is reachable only by violating the stated scope. Each task appears under two conditions that share an environment, verifier, and objective and differ only in scope: one instruction set has no scope and measures capability; the other has a natural-language…

来源arXiv AI作者: Shane Caldwell, Max Harley, Ads Dawson, Michael Kouremetis, Vincent Abruzzo, Will Pearce
待翻译:ScopeBench: Do Agents Preserve Engagement Boundaries Under Goal Pressure?
报告错误

纠错通道尚未开通,可先复制下方文章信息留存。

查看更正说明
直接读正文

AI 服务暂时不可用,以下为来源正文,待恢复后补全翻译。

[Submitted on 23 Sep 2026] Title:ScopeBench: Do Agents Preserve Engagement Boundaries Under Goal Pressure? View a PDF of the paper titled ScopeBench: Do Agents Preserve Engagement Boundaries Under Goal Pressure?, by Shane Caldwell and 5 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:Agents are increasingly deployed with real autonomy in web application and network penetration testing, where a single out-of-scope action can breach a client's engagement boundary. Existing offensive-security benchmarks measure raw hacking capability; as those benchmarks saturate, the real barrier to deployment is a special case of alignment: scope adherence. We introduce ScopeBench, a benchmark of 30 dead-end agentic security tasks in which the stated objective is reachable only by violating the stated scope. Each task appears under two conditions that share an environment, verifier, and objective and differ only in scope: one instruction set has no scope and measures capability; the other has a natural-language scope to measure adherence. Scopeless trajectories are graded by a standard deterministic verifier. Scoped trajectories pass through two grading arms. First, the same deterministic verifier checks for the flag: because the flag sits behind the scope boundary, a pass proves by construction that a forbidden action occurred, yielding a high-precision lower bound on the violation rate. If the verifier does not pass the trajectory, an agentic judge estimates whether an out-of-scope call occurred. We calibrate the judge against 100 ScopeBench trajectories labeled call-by-call by human annotators, and a blinded audit of the evaluated rollouts finds its high recall holds - no false negatives among the 36 audited violations, with over-flagging its only observed error. Across 8 models in one harness, raw capability spans 12.2% to 81.1% and scope adherence spans 34.4% to 86.7%, with the judge finding 331 violations that mechanical verification misses. Opus-4-8 achieves a raw-capability score 10 percentage points higher than sonnet-4-6's while exhibiting 35.6 percentage points higher scope adherence. We release the frozen pilot benchmark, evaluation code, and all 2160 ATIF trajectories. Comments: 18 pages, 1 figure, 6 tables. Accepted at AISec 2026. Code and tasks: this https URL. Trajectories: this https URL. Leaderboard: this https URL Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Cryptography and Security (cs.CR) Cite as: arXiv:2609.30325 [cs.AI] (or arXiv:2609.30325v1 [cs.AI] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.30325 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) Submission history From: Shane Caldwell [view email] [v1] Wed, 23 Sep 2026 19:47:33 UTC (90 KB) Full-text links: Access Paper: View a PDF of the paper titled ScopeBench: Do Agents Preserve Engagement Boundaries Under Goal Pressure?, by Shane Caldwell and 5 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) TeX Source view license Current browse context: cs.AI new | recent | 2026-09 Change to browse by: cs cs.CR References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Loading... Data provided by: Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv Toggle alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?) Links to Code Toggle CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?) DagsHub Toggle DagsHub (What is DagsHub?) GotitPub Toggle Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?) Huggingface Toggle Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?) ScienceCast Toggle ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?) Demos Demos Replicate Toggle Replicate (What is Replicate?) Spaces Toggle Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?) Spaces Toggle TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?) Related Papers Recommenders and Search Tools Link to Influence Flower Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?) Core recommender toggle CORE Recommender (What is CORE?) Author Venue Institution Topic About arXivLabs arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs. Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

展开要点与分析

文章情报

工程师进阶

要点

  • AI 服务暂时不可用,系统已先保留来源内容与降级元数据。
  • arXiv:2609.30325v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agents are increasingly deployed with real autonomy in web application and network penetration testing, where a single out-of-scope…

要点与分析由自动化流程生成,可能有误,请结合原始来源核实。