ConflictBench: Evaluating Human-AI Conflict via Interactive and Visually Grounded Environments

As LLMs increasingly act through tools, they must reconcile user instructions, parametric knowledge, and dynamic environmental observations before taking actions. We introduce KC-Bench, a controlled multi-turn benchmark for measuring this capability across world-knowledge conflicts, input inconsistencies, and multi-source temporal conflicts. Its 238 tasks are manually screened from more than 1,000 generated candidates and combine a user simulator, stateful tools, deterministic environment assertions, an open-source natural-language evaluator, and human trajectory verification. Evaluation of nine models, including DeepSeek-V4-Flash, GLM-5.2, and MiniMax-M3, shows substantial cross-domain variation: no model handles factual correction, identity consistency checking, and temporal conflict resolution reliably across all settings. In the simulated environments, missed conflicts can propagate to tool calls or synthetic protected-data flows. KC-Bench isolates this model-level behavior rather than ranking complete agent frameworks, and provides a reproducible diagnostic for developing conflict-aware reasoning and execution safeguards.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed in multi-agent systems to automate complex computer-use workflows, yet existing benchmarks mostly assume consistent, cooperative environments. In contrast, real-world collaboration rarely runs on consistent information: peer or sub-agents frequently report outdated states, issue contradictory instructions, or compete over shared permissions and files, forcing agents to check others' outputs and verify ground truth in the environment. Evaluating such conflict resolution remains challenging: manual authoring cannot scale across complex systems, while unconstrained LLM generation produces narrative drift, answer leakage, and unsatisfiable rubrics. We introduce CLASHarness (Conflict-Loaded Agent Scenario Harness), a controllable framework for generating verifiable multi-agent conflicts in computer use, with a benchmark of 600 multi-round tasks. By combining hierarchical scenario planning with an eight-step verified micro-pipeline, CLASHarness pre-commits decisive visual facts before rendering and compiles hybrid code and semantic graders directly from executed reference trajectories, guaranteeing every task is solvable by construction. Evaluating 15 frontier models on CLASHarness reveals three core bottlenecks. First, when sub-agent outputs conflict with the environment, weaker models blindly follow misleading information, whereas stronger models inspect visual evidence to verify ground truth. Second, resolving conflicts is much harder than finding them: while agents can spot inconsistencies, actively fixing system state drops task success significantly. Third, coordination protocols remain a universal bottleneck: even frontier models fail over 58% of closing actions, often forgetting to release shared locks or hand off tasks. CLASHarness provides a scalable, verifiable foundation for building reliable multi-agent systems.

AI models are already deployed in societies affected by armed conflict, and journalists, humanitarian workers, governments and ordinary citizens rely on them for information or for their work processes. No established practice exists for checking whether their outputs can make those conflicts worse. We tested nine model configurations from four providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepSeek, xAI) on 90 multi-turn scenarios designed to surface misaligned behaviour in conflict contexts: false equivalence between documented atrocities, denial of genocide, and failure to recognise ethnic slurs, among others. When such outputs feed into journalism, humanitarian reporting, or public debate, they can deepen divisions in fragile societies. Failure rates span 6% to 47% between the best and worst performing models, which makes model choice a safety question in its own right and when users pushed for ``balance'' in cases where international courts have already assigned responsibility, five of nine configurations failed 80 to 100 percent of the time. We release the first evaluation framework for this domain and propose adding it to alignment evaluation portfolios.