PreprintCited by 3Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningEthics and Social Impacts of AITopic Modeling

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

AgentAuditor: Human-Level Safety and Security Evaluation for LLM Agents

Open access
Luo, Hanjun, Dai, Shenyu, Ni, Chiming, Li, Xinfeng, Zhang, Guibin, Wang, Kun, Liu, Tongliang, Salam, Hanan·2025·arXiv

Abstract

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2506.00641

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

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)
OpenAlex
W4414891524
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
0.95
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
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