CAVEAT-Harness is developed, which targets failures and raises the optimal purchase rate by up to 80.0 percentage points, and targeted post-training further improves a smaller open model, to establish incentive robustness as a distinct challenge for delegated agents and diagnose failure modes.
Abstract
Computer-use agents (CUAs) increasingly act on behalf of users online. What happens when the environments they operate in have incentives of their own? Online marketplaces, for example, may favor some products over others, steering agents away from the user's objective. Existing CUA benchmarks cover cooperative settings or explicit attacks, but do not test whether agents preserve user objectives when the environment itself has a stake in the outcome. We introduce CAVEAT, a controlled benchmark spanning nine marketplace environments and a taxonomy of eight common steering mechanisms. Across five model families, agents purchase the user-optimal product in 78.6% of matched-control episodes but only 17.3% when steering mechanisms are enabled. Larger models and more reasoning improve robustness, but substantial failures persist. Trajectory analysis and targeted ablations identify three weaknesses in how agents decide: they (1) prematurely narrow the set of alternatives they consider, (2) impose priorities the user never stated, and (3) commit before resolving decision-relevant evidence. Guided by this diagnosis, we develop CAVEAT-Harness, which targets these failures and raises the optimal purchase rate by up to 80.0 percentage points, and show that targeted post-training further improves a smaller open model. These results establish incentive robustness as a distinct challenge for delegated agents, diagnose failure modes, and show how targeted interventions can substantially improve robustness.
Language-model agents favor their own group because they have watched their members favor each other. The group label alone does little once the decision has a cost; what drives favoritism is observed behavior, and an individual's own record can override it. We test this in small societies with arbitrary group labels,...
In a suite of 325K experiments on 13 agents across three types of economic decisions, it is found that 8 models systematically choose more expensive options for wealthier users when requests are identical, in which the very conditions that make a personal AI agent useful - access to personal information - enable it to...
Aman Priyanshu, Supriti Vijay, Brian Jabarian et al.· 0 citations
Agent evaluations increasingly go beyond a single success rate, reporting metrics such as cost, consistency, and robustness. Yet they typically treat the agent itself as fixed. In practice, an agent is a configurable system: users decide what to tell it, how long to let it run, and which model to use, and each of these...
Luis Wiedmann, Leander Girrbach, Cordelia Schmid et al.· 0 citations
As agents take on long-horizon tasks, users shift from making individual decisions to overseeing autonomous execution. Yet the volume of agent activity and the fragmentation of supporting evidence make it difficult to determine which decisions warrant user verification. We study monitors that identify consequential dec...
Zhong-Xiang Sun, Jia-Hao Yan, Hong-Kang Zhao et al.· 0 citations
A knowledge-verified benchmark that first confirms through a neutral probe that an agent knows a user's entitlement, and then evaluates whether it makes false claims once an incentive to deny that entitlement is introduced, which reduces the confound between lying and not knowing and enables more rigorous auditing and...
Zhe-Yuan Liu, Wei-Liang Zhao, Xiangchi Yuan et al.· 1 citation
Proactive personal agents increasingly decide what to recommend, how to personalize advice, and what follow-up assistance to offer, creating a new user-decision attack surface for provider-side indirect prompt injection. We show that an external provider need not access private user context, compromise the agent, or ga...
Rui Wang, Chao Wang, Xin-Chen Wang et al.· 0 citations