AgentMisalignment: Measuring the Propensity for Misaligned Behaviour in LLM-Based Agents
Authors: Akshat Naik, Emma Gouné, Patrick Quinn, Guillermo Bosch, Francisco Javier Campos Zabala, Jason Ross Brown, Edward James Young
Abstract
As Large Language Model (LLM) agents become more widespread, associated misalignment risks increase. While prior research has studied agents' ability to produce harmful outputs or follow malicious instructions, it remains unclear how likely agents are to spontaneously pursue unintended goals in realistic deployments. In this work, we approach misalignment as a conflict between the internal goals pursued by the model and the goals intended by its deployer. We introduce a misalignment propensity benchmark, \textsc{AgentMisalignment}, a benchmark suite designed to evaluate the propensity of LLM agents to misalign in realistic scenarios. Evaluations cover behaviours such as avoiding oversight, resisting shutdown, sandbagging, and power-seeking. Testing frontier models, we find that more capable agents tend to exhibit higher misalignment on average. We also systematically vary agent personalities through different system prompts and observe that persona characteristics can strongly and unpredictably influence misalignment, sometimes more than the choice of model itself. Our results reveal the limitations of current alignment methods for autonomous LLM agents and underscore the need to rethink misalignment in realistic deployment settings.
Safety alignment in LLMs aims to align models with human values, but which values take precedence when they conflict? We investigate this question in the context of tool-calling LLM agents deployed in regulated industries, where agents processing confidential documents may encounter content that triggers safety-trained values (e.g., public welfare) that conflict with deployment-context instructions (e.g., internal logging). To empirically verify this phenomenon, we build a benchmark of 128 scenarios across 16 domains. We find that safety-aligned open-source models override their deployment instructions up to 43.4% of the time, engaging in whistleblowing, data exfiltration, and evidence tampering when processing documents that suggest organizational wrongdoing. We also find that abliteration reduces rates of external whistleblowing. These results reveal a fundamental tension in pluralistic alignment, where the same safety training that protects users can cause agents to act against deployment instructions in ways that create unpredictable liability risks. We release our benchmark as a framework to support evaluation of agent behavior under competing legitimate interests.
As LLM agents gain increasing access to powerful tools, ensuring that their actions are aligned with the user's intent becomes critical. When an agent's proposed tool invocation deviates from the user's intent -- a phenomenon called misalignment -- it may lead to harmful consequences that are difficult to undo. Existing runtime guardrails rely on an LLM-as-a-judge paradigm that lacks a systematic framework for reasoning about alignment, often producing judgments that are inconsistent or difficult to audit. Motivated by provenance analysis, we propose a provenance-based conceptual framework that formalizes misalignment detection as determining whether a proposed tool call is supported by traceable evidence in the agent's context. Building on this framework, we propose ProvenanceGuard, a multi-stage pipeline that analyzes the agent's action for three types of misalignment before the selected tool is executed and only allows the action to take place when it is considered aligned with the user's input query. We evaluated our proposed approach on two different benchmarks, Agent-SafetyBench and WorkBench, across 10 backbone LLMs. Compared to the LLM-as-a-judge baseline, ProvenanceGuard reduces error rate on misaligned traces from 42.9% to 1.8% on Agent-SafetyBench and from 32.1% to 17.3% on WorkBench, while reducing intervention burden on task-successful traces from 30.5% to 12.8% and introducing no statistically significant increase in unnecessary interventions on aligned traces. These results demonstrate that structured, provenance-based reasoning provides an effective and practical foundation for safeguarding LLM agents from misalignment.
Large Language Models have enabled increasingly capable autonomous agents, yet personalization remains critical for making such agents practically useful. Recent benchmarks have begun evaluating personalization in agents, but they largely rely on static preference snapshots, fixed interaction logs, or question answering over predefined user profiles. Such designs fail to capture the complexity of evolving user preferences and neglect preference-conditioned task execution-a discrepancy we term as the knowledge-to-action gap. To address this challenge, we introduce IBA-Bench, a benchmark for implicit behavioral alignment constructed from longitudinal interaction histories that contain noise, implicit cues, and temporal inconsistencies. Unlike prior work, IBA-Bench evaluates whether an agent can execute tasks while satisfying implicit user constraints inferred from historical interactions. We further propose IBA-Agent, an agent framework that reconciles conflicting priorities through broad retrieval and trajectory-level alignment. Experiment results on IBA-Bench show that effective personalization remains a significant challenge for state-of-the-art LLM agents, and the proposed IBA-Agent substantially improves behavioral alignment in complex scenarios across nine application domains.