VagueBench: Benchmarking the Robustness of Embodied Agents on Ambient Context Illusions
arXiv:2611.03765v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Embodied agents are increasingly deployed in open-world environments, yet current robustness evaluations remain biased toward hazardous instructions and jailbreak vulnerabilities. A more fundamental issue is largely overlooked: agents are rarely tested under semantically sufficient but contextually minimal instructions (i.e., common in real-world human communication), where auxiliary contextual cues are absent. For the first, we identify a novel ph
Read original source
Source record
Research analysis
Research claim
Paper identifier: 2611.03765. Source account: arXiv:2611.03765v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Embodied agents are increasingly deployed in open-world environments, yet current robustness evaluations remain biased toward hazardous instructions and jailbreak vulnerabilities. A more fundamental issue is largely overlooked: agents are rarely tested under semantically sufficient but contextually minimal instructions (i.e., common in real-world human communication), where auxiliary contextual cues are absent. For the first, we identify a novel ph
Evaluation record
Recent records to compare: “Cognitive Bias Signatures in Search-Equipped LLM Agents: A Stage-Resolved Analysis” (arXiv, Nov 5, 2026); “Prospective Memory for Proactive LLM Agents” (arXiv, Nov 5, 2026). Shared themes are navigation hints; they have not been verified as the same need or independent corroboration.
What the result supports
Interpret results only for the reported model version, task, data and inference budget. Community votes, downloads or a benchmark position do not establish reliability in a different workflow.
Validity gaps
Check sample selection, baseline configuration, uncertainty, contamination risk, negative results and access to code or weights. No reproduction by WeWorkBuddy is recorded here.
Verification plan
Read the paper or model card and its evaluation appendix. Reproduce one bounded result against the stated baseline, then test a representative user task and record where the conclusion fails.