The DOI matches its DataCite record.
AgentAuditor: Human-Level Safety and Security Evaluation for LLM Agents
Open accessAbstract
Despite the rapid advancement of LLM-based agents, the reliable evaluation of their safety and security remains a significant challenge. Existing rule-based or LLM-based evaluators often miss dangers in agents' step-by-step actions, overlook subtle meanings, fail to see how small issues compound, and get confused by unclear safety or security rules. To overcome this evaluation crisis, we introduce AgentAuditor, a universal, training-free, memory-augmented reasoning framework that empowers LLM evaluators to emulate human expert evaluators. AgentAuditor constructs an experiential memory by having an LLM adaptively extract structured semantic features (e.g., scenario, risk, behavior) and generate associated chain-of-thought reasoning traces for past interactions. A multi-stage, context-aware retrieval-augmented generation process then dynamically retrieves the most relevant reasoning experiences to guide the LLM evaluator's assessment of new cases. Moreover, we developed ASSEBench, the first benchmark designed to check how well LLM-based evaluators can spot both safety risks and security threats. ASSEBench comprises 2293 meticulously annotated interaction records, covering 15 risk types across 29 application scenarios. A key feature of ASSEBench is its nuanced approach to ambiguous risk situations, employing "Strict" and "Lenient" judgment standards. Experiments demonstrate that AgentAuditor not only consistently improves the evaluation performance of LLMs across all benchmarks but also sets a new state-of-the-art in LLM-as-a-judge for agent safety and security, achieving human-level accuracy. Our work is openly accessible at https://github.com/Astarojth/AgentAuditor.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The malicious effect of injected memory records is only activated within a specific context, making them hard to detect when individual memory entries are audited in isolation.
“First, the malicious effect of injected records is only activated within a specific context, making them hard to detect when individual memory entries are audited in isolation.”
From A-MemGuard: A Proactive Defense Framework for LLM-Based Agent Memory (2025) · cites this paper as Luo et al., 2025
The low detection rates reported by the Agent Security Bench (ASB) confirm the systemic failure of the isolated audit paradigm.
“The low detection rates reported by the Agent Security Bench (ASB) confirm the systemic failure of this isolated audit paradigm (Zhang et al., 2024; Luo et al., 2025).”
From A-MemGuard: A Proactive Defense Framework for LLM-Based Agent Memory (2025) · cites this paper as Luo et al., 2025
The AgentAuditor dataset records contain a binary label (0 for benign, 1 for malicious) for each agent-user interaction.
“Each record contains the raw text of an agent-user interaction ('raw record') and a binary 'label' (0 for benign, 1 for malicious).”
From A-MemGuard: A Proactive Defense Framework for LLM-Based Agent Memory (2025) · cites this paper as Luo et al., 2025
The AgentAuditor dataset contains 17 application scenarios.
“For each of the 17 application scenarios, we aggregated all corresponding graph documents into a single, comprehensive directed graph using the NetworkX library.”
From A-MemGuard: A Proactive Defense Framework for LLM-Based Agent Memory (2025) · cites this paper as Luo et al., 2025
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on Autonomy-Induced Security Risks in Large Model-Based Agents
Su, H., Luo, J., Liu, C., Yang, X., Zhang, Y., Dong, Y., & Zhu, J. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2026.3688650 · Cited by 11
A-MemGuard: A Proactive Defense Framework for LLM-Based Agent Memory
Wei, Q., Yang, T., Wang, Y., Li, X., Li, L., Yin, Z., Zhan, Y., Holz, T., Lin, Z., & Wang, X. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.02373 · Cited by 1
“To verify this, we analyzed the relational structure of reasoning paths using knowledge graphs, leveraging the diverse scenarios from the AgentAuditor dataset (Luo et al., 2025).”
InfluentialSelf-citationLLM Fine-Tuned Threat Intelligence Summarization Agent for CVE Report Automation
Giriraju, S. K., Baba, S. K., Mahammad, F. S., & Subramanyam, M. V. (2026) · International Conference on Intelligent and Sustainable AI Systems (ICOSAAS) · doi:10.1109/icosaas68663.2026.11648996
Metadata
- Authors
- Luo, H., Dai, S., Ni, C., Li, X., Zhang, G., Wang, K., Liu, T., & Salam, H.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE)
- Zhejiang University (CN)
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence (AE)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- Pages
- 48268-48325
- ISSN
- 1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2506.00641
- OpenAlex
- W4414891524
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 0.95
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- LLM agents, security threat detection, LLM-based evaluators, chain-of-thought reasoning, retrieval-augmented generation, benchmark
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review