Behavior Beyond Text: Evaluating Refusal Transfer Failure in LLM Agents
arXiv:2610.28982v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While large language models are increasingly deployed as tool-calling agents, their safety evaluations still focus primarily on their ability to refuse harmful requests in text. We investigate whether the refusal behavior in text transfers to tool use. We construct a benchmark of 2,304 prompts across four domains, consisting of matched triplets that present the same harmful or benign request in text-only, standard tool-enabled, and adversarially fr
阅读原始来源
来源记录
研究分析
研究主张
论文标识：2610.28982。 来源描述：arXiv:2610.28982v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While large language models are increasingly deployed as tool-calling agents, their safety evaluations still focus primarily on their ability to refuse harmful requests in text. We investigate whether the refusal behavior in text transfers to tool use. We construct a benchmark of 2,304 prompts across four domains, consisting of matched triplets that present the same harmful or benign request in text-only, standard tool-enabled, and adversarially fr
评测与比较记录
可供比较的近期同类记录：“Paper: Nubank cuts AI agent update cycles from 3 weeks to under 5 days” (Hacker News, 2026年11月6日)；“Cognitive Bias Signatures in Search-Equipped LLM Agents: A Stage-Resolved Analysis” (arXiv, 2026年11月5日)。主题相近仅用于导航，未核验其是否属于同一需求或独立证据。
结论适用范围
结论只能在所述模型版本、任务、数据与推理预算内解释。社区票数、下载量或榜单位置不能证明另一工作流中的可靠性。
有效性与复现缺口
需核对样本选择、基线配置、不确定性、数据污染风险、负面结果以及代码或权重可获取性；此处没有本站复现实验记录。
复核路线
阅读论文或模型卡及评测附录，针对明确基线复现一个有限结论，再测试代表性用户任务并记录结论失效的场景。