Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2601.15679

Improving Methodologies for Agentic Evaluations Across Domains: Leakage of Sensitive Information, Fraud and Cybersecurity Threats

Ee Wei Seah·Yongsen Zheng·Naga Nikshith·Mahran Morsidi·Gabriel Waikin Loh Matienzo·Nigel Gay·Akriti Vij·Benjamin Chua·En Qi Ng·Sharmini Johnson·Vanessa Wilfred·Wan Sie Lee·Anna Davidson·Catherine Devine·Erin Zorer·Gareth Holvey·Harry Coppock·James Walpole·Jerome Wynee·Magda Dubois·Michael Schmatz·Patrick Keane·Sam Deverett·Bill Black·Bo Yan·Bushra Sabir·Frank Sun·Hao Zhang·Harriet Farlow·Helen Zhou·Lingming Dong·Qinghua Lu·Seung Jang·Sharif Abuadbba·Simon O'Callaghan·Suyu Ma·Tom Howroyd·Cyrus Fung·Fatemeh Azadi·Isar Nejadgholi·Krishnapriya Vishnubhotla·Pulei Xiong·Saeedeh Lohrasbi·Scott Buffett·Shahrear Iqbal·Sowmya Vajjala·Anna Safont-Andreu·Luca Massarelli·Oskar van der Wal·Simon Möller·Agnes Delaborde·Joris Duguépéroux·Nicolas Rolin·Romane Gallienne·Sarah Behanzin·Tom Seimandi·Akiko Murakami·Takayuki Semitsu·Teresa Tsukiji·Angela Kinuthia·Michael Michie·Stephanie Kasaon·Jean Wangari·Hankyul Baek·Jaewon Noh·Kihyuk Nam·Sang Seo·Sungpil Shin·Taewhi Lee·Yongsu Kim
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The rapid rise of autonomous AI systems and advancements in agent capabilities are introducing new risks due to reduced oversight of real-world interactions. Yet agent testing remains nascent and is still a developing science. As AI agents begin to be deployed globally, it is important that they handle different languages and cultures accurately and securely. To address this, participants from The International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science, including representatives from Singapore, Japan, Australia, Canada, the European Commission, France, Kenya, South Korea, and the United Kingdom have come together to align approaches to agentic evaluations. This is the third exercise, building on insights from two earlier joint testing exercises conducted by the Network in November 2024 and February 2025. The objective is to further refine best practices for testing advanced AI systems. The exercise was split into two strands: (1) common risks, including leakage of sensitive information and fraud, led by Singapore AISI; and (2) cybersecurity, led by UK AISI. A mix of open and closed-weight models were evaluated against tasks from various public agentic benchmarks. Given the nascency of agentic testing, our primary focus was on understanding methodological issues in conducting such tests, rather than examining test results or model capabilities. This collaboration marks an important step forward as participants work together to advance the science of agentic evaluations.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ee Wei Seah, Yongsen Zheng, Naga Nikshith, Mahran Morsidi, Gabriel Waikin Loh Matienzo, Nigel Gay, Akriti Vij, Benjamin Chua, En Qi Ng, Sharmini Johnson, Vanessa Wilfred, Wan Sie Lee, Anna Davidson, Catherine Devine, Erin Zorer, Gareth Holvey, Harry Coppock, James Walpole, Jerome Wynee, Magda Dubois, Michael Schmatz, Patrick Keane, Sam Deverett, Bill Black, Bo Yan, Bushra Sabir, Frank Sun, Hao Zhang, Harriet Farlow, Helen Zhou, Lingming Dong, Qinghua Lu, Seung Jang, Sharif Abuadbba, Simon O'Callaghan, Suyu Ma, Tom Howroyd, Cyrus Fung, Fatemeh Azadi, Isar Nejadgholi, Krishnapriya Vishnubhotla, Pulei Xiong, Saeedeh Lohrasbi, Scott Buffett, Shahrear Iqbal, Sowmya Vajjala, Anna Safont-Andreu, Luca Massarelli, Oskar van der Wal, Simon Möller, Agnes Delaborde, Joris Duguépéroux, Nicolas Rolin, Romane Gallienne, Sarah Behanzin, Tom Seimandi, Akiko Murakami, Takayuki Semitsu, Teresa Tsukiji, Angela Kinuthia, Michael Michie, Stephanie Kasaon, Jean Wangari, Hankyul Baek, Jaewon Noh, Kihyuk Nam, Sang Seo, Sungpil Shin, Taewhi Lee, Yongsu Kim. 2026-01-22. Improving Methodologies for Agentic Evaluations Across Domains: Leakage of Sensitive Information, Fraud and Cybersecurity Threats. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.15679

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗