What Benchmarks Don't Measure: The Case for Evaluating Abstention Competence in Autonomous Agents

Agent systems based on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for autonomous tasks, yet existing evaluations mostly focus on task success rather than whether agents know when to abstain. This gap poses real risks: under ambiguity, conflicting constraints, or tool failures, agents may execute unintended and irreversible actions. To close this gap, we present the first systematic evaluation framework for agentic abstention: the calibrated ability of tool-using LLM agents to recognize when not to act. At its core, AgentAbstain is a paired-task benchmark built on an agent-native taxonomy of 8 abstention scenarios across pre-execution reasoning and runtime discovery. It contains 263 paired tasks across 42 executable sandbox environments, where each pair consists of a should-act task and a should-abstain variant produced through a controlled perturbation to the instruction, tool, or environment state. To scale this paired design and resist data contamination, we propose AbstainGen, a fully automated pipeline that synthesizes sandbox environments and generates paired tasks end-to-end, validated by deterministic replay and semantic LLM judges; fresh task instances can be regenerated on demand, and three independent annotators rate 94-98% of sampled tasks as well-designed. Across 17 frontier LLMs in 4 agent harnesses, the best agent (Gemini 3.1 Pro) achieves only 59.5% paired accuracy (correct on both the act and abstain sides of each paired task). More importantly, abstention capability is largely independent of general task-solving capability, indicating that scaling task-solving alone will not close this gap. We further identify failure modes such as post-hoc abstention, in which agents execute irreversible actions before recognizing abstention triggers. Our code and dataset are open-sourced at agentabstain.github.io.

Agent benchmarks increasingly evaluate repository editing, web research, terminal use, and long-horizon interaction. Their scores support capability claims only when the evaluation protocol keeps the intended capability necessary for success. Recent reward-hacking benchmarks and system reports show that agents can instead recover public solutions, read evaluation artifacts, infer generator structure, manipulate feedback, or benefit from invalid scoring paths; existing responses do not provide a common procedure for attributing these shortcuts and quantifying their effect across benchmarks. We formulate protocol validity and introduce HackDetect, a post-hoc audit that identifies an exposure, determines how the agent used it, and assesses whether the resulting score is misleading. We quantify score inflation with the Mislead gap, defined as the exploit score minus the intended score. We audit 2,385 traces across 15 agent benchmarks and find evidence of exposures and reward hacking in 67.0% of Frontier Science traces and 66.7% of AutoLab tasks. Across paired comparisons, we measure score inflation of 0.45-1.00, showing that benchmark reports should provide evidence that scores reflect the intended capability.

Agent-safety benchmarks measure different behaviors, and their scores get quoted interchangeably as an agent's safety. We treat four of them (R-Judge, InjecAgent, AgentHarm, AgentDojo) as measurements to be validated, running each under its official implementation and author-provided scorer on up to 22 models, with MMLU and GPQA measured by us under one protocol as a capability composite. The metric is the first problem. On any binary trace-judgment benchmark scored by $F_1$, an ``always positive'' policy attains $F_1 = 2π/(1+π)$; on R-Judge that is $0.690$, above five of the 21 models that actually discriminate. The three broad-coverage benchmarks then rank the same 18 models differently, and the trade-off behind that disagreement is a small-panel artifact: R-Judge specificity against AgentHarm safety correlates $-0.64$ at $n{=}7$ and $+0.02$ at $n{=}18$, and a quarter of random size-7 subsets reach $|ρ| \geq 0.5$ around that near-zero value. Held-out validity turns on which outcome you pick. Capability predicts task success ($ρ{=}{+}0.60$) but correlates negatively with misalignment safety ($ρ{=}{-}0.44$, $n{=}21$). On their paired $n{=}20$ panel, the corresponding contrast is $Δ{=}{-}1.00$ (95% CI $[-1.48, -0.49]$, $p<0.001$), and it survives leave-one-organization-out and organization-clustered bootstrap analyses. On an expanded 41-model panel, the misalignment correlation weakens to $-0.16$ (95% CI $[-0.54, +0.22]$) and jailbreak strengthens to $+0.34$, though neither change is significant. \mbox{AgentHarm} shows the strongest held-out association, $ρ{=}{+}0.72$ with three-template jailbreak safety after controlling capability. But both instruments score harmful compliance, so this is evidence of convergent validity rather than general safety. Naming the benchmark, metric, target behavior, and model panel is the minimum a safety claim needs.