跳到主要內容
AI News HubLIVE
站內改寫3 分鐘閱讀

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

文章摘要

AI 服務暫時不可用,以下為來源摘要,待恢復後補全翻譯: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…

來源arXiv AI作者: Shane Caldwell, Max Harley, Ads Dawson, Michael Kouremetis, Vincent Abruzzo, Will Pearce
待翻譯:ScopeBench: Do Agents Preserve Engagement Boundaries Under Goal Pressure?
報告錯誤

更正渠道尚未開通,可先複製下方文章資訊留存。

查看更正說明
直接讀正文

AI 服務暫時不可用,以下為來源正文,待恢復後補全翻譯。

[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?)

展開要點與分析

文章情報

工程師進階

要點

  • AI 服務暫時不可用,系統已先保留來源內容與降級元數據。
  • 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…

技術影響

可能影響 Agent 架構、工具調用、工作流自動化和產品集成。

要點與分析由自動化流程生成,可能有誤,請結合原始來源核實。