Organizations: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering · National University of Singapore
Abstract
AI agents augment large language models with external tools such as web retrieval, enabling grounded and up-to-date responses. However, incorporating external content into the generation pipeline can weaken the safety alignment mechanisms that govern model outputs. Prior work shows that enabling retrieval in agents increases compliance with harmful requests. We introduce AgentREVEAL, a diagnostic framework for analyzing retrieval-induced safety degradation in LLM agents. The framework examines two axes: how retrieval is integrated into the agent pipeline and the properties of the retrieved content. Along the integration axis, we find that binding tool invocation and response generation in a single step amplifies harmful outputs. Along the content axis, we uncover the Safe Source Paradox: even oppositional or safety-oriented sources, such as pages containing warnings or risk disclaimers, can increase harmful compliance by an average of 25% compared to the no-retrieval baseline. Finally, we show that relevance acts as a shared activation condition for both vulnerabilities. Similar patterns appear on frontier closed models, and harmful compliance remains elevated under several representative pipeline interventions, with some agents also entering this regime under autonomous retrieval. Because relevance is also what makes retrieval useful, these results expose a safety-utility trade-off for retrieval-enabled agents. We introduce HarmURLBench, a benchmark containing 1,405 real-world URLs paired with 320 harmful behaviors to support future evaluations.
Allowing large language models (LLMs) to retrieve information from a set of trusted documents can increase reliability and reduce hallucination. However, recent work has demonstrated that retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can have unintended side effects on the overall safety of the generated responses, when prompted for harmful or dangerous content. A clearer understanding of the mechanisms leading to this result is needed, as increasing numbers of end users turn to RAG to incorporate corporate documents and knowledge bases into LLM-based systems. We introduce RAG-Safety-Bench, a benchmark to measure the safety impact of RAG on LLM models. By removing the confounding effect of retriever quality, and cleanly separating the problem into four conditions -- non-RAG, RAG with an oracle document containing the answer to the harmful request, RAG with documents related to the harmful request but without the specific answer, and RAG with random, safe documents -- the benchmark isolates the impacts of different factors in the observed safety degradation. We report results across five open-source LLMs, showing an inverse relationship between benign and unsafe capability, strong evidence that baseline safety guardrails do not lead to downstream safety guarantees in the RAG case, and model-specific support for previous findings that even benign documents can lead to unsafe generation in retrieval-enabled systems.
Adithiyan Rajan Indira Saravanan, Kathleen C. Fraser
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.
AI agents extend large language models (LLMs) with external tools, enabling them to perform complex tasks and translate model outputs into consequential real-world actions. Yet LLMs often become substantially less safe when deployed as agents, and the source of this degradation remains poorly understood. In this paper, we identify schema-formatted tool specifications as a primary source of agent safety degradation and show, through white-box representation analysis, that they weaken the model's internal refusal signals and contribute to unsafe tool execution. Building on this finding, we propose SafeKeep, an inference-time safeguard that decouples safety judgment from tool execution: it assesses requests using flattened textual tool specifications while retaining the original schema-formatted specifications for execution. Across two representative benchmarks and four LLMs, including both white-box and black-box models, SafeKeep increases the average refusal rate for harmful requests from 23.8% to 70.6% and reduces the average attack success rate under observation-level prompt injection from 25.6% to 2.5%. It also outperforms existing safeguards and preserves task-handling capability. We release the code and data at https://github.com/snowcatsmoking/SafeKeep .