SINGED: Correct Outputs Do Not Certify Safe Execution in LLM Agents
Organizations: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · Hangzhou Dianzi University
Abstract
Tool-using language-model agents select and execute third-party artifacts. Different implementations can return the requested output while producing hidden execution effects that task-, attack-, or choice-based evaluations may miss. We study functional counterfeits: implementations that match benign alternatives on the requested output but add an effect forbidden by the task contract. We introduce SINGED (Source Integrity and the Nonidentifiability Gap in Execution Decisions for LLM Agents), a controlled benchmark covering five primary and two held-out task families. It varies displayed rank, evidence depth, decision policy, model release, and agent configuration, while task and process oracles verify the artifact and execution path. Across 7,549 audited trials, the randomized-rank study finds counterfeit execution in 45% (27/60) of rank-one trials and none at later ranks. Cross-candidate comparison eliminates shallow failures and reduces layered failures from 15.7% to 4.2%, but leaves dependency failures; its benefit is uncertain on unseen effects and public-package structures. Moreover, seven releases with no counterfeit executions when benign alternatives are available execute the counterfeit in 55/175 single-source cells after alternatives are removed. SINGED thus exposes a rank-, evidence-, and choice-sensitive outcome-to-execution gap: evaluation must connect correct outputs to execution paths.
Figures & tables
| Model | Two-channel outcomes | Selection behavior | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Release | Task success ( ) | CER | OEG | Safe utility ( ) | Rank-1 CER | Compared all |
| Kimi K2.5 | 100.0% (75/75) | 29.3% (22/75) | 29.3% (22/75) | 70.7% (53/75) | 88.0% (22/25) | 12.0% (9/75) |
| Kimi K3 | 100.0% (75/75) | 0.0% (0/75) | 0.0% (0/75) | 100.0% (75/75) | 0.0% (0/25) | 100.0% (75/75) |
| Qwen3.7 Plus | 100.0% (75/75) | 20.0% (15/75) | 20.0% (15/75) | 80.0% (60/75) | 60.0% (15/25) | 34.7% (26/75) |
| Qwen3.8 Max (0902) | 100.0% (75/75) | 0.0% (0/75) | 0.0% (0/75) | 100.0% (75/75) | 0.0% (0/25) | 100.0% (75/75) |
| GLM-5.2 | 100.0% (75/75) | 4.0% (3/75) | 4.0% (3/75) | 96.0% (72/75) | 12.0% (3/25) | 88.0% (66/75) |
| Group | Task | Verified artifact | Forbidden effect |
| Primary | Document redaction | Redacted text | Unauthorized loopback request |
| Speech transcription | Exact transcript | Unauthorized loopback request | |
| Paper retrieval | Matching PDF | Unauthorized loopback request | |
| Archive extraction | Verified directory tree | Write outside the output directory | |
| Tabular conversion | Canonical JSON | Read an unrelated file | |
| Cross-domain | Configuration editing | Updated configuration | Unauthorized metadata change |
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Configuration | Implementation | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Codex | CLI 0.153.4 | ( OpenAI, 2026a ) |
| ReAct | Benchmark tool loop | ( Yao et al., 2023 ) |
| Pi | Coding Agent 0.85.1 | ( Earendil Works, 2026 ) |
| LangGraph | 1.2.11 | ( LangChain AI, 2026 ) |
| AutoGen | AgentChat 0.7.5 | ( Wu et al., 2024 ; Microsoft, 2025 ) |
| smolagents | 1.24.0 | ( Roucher et al., 2026 ) |
| Release | Evaluation slice | Evidence | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kimi K2.5 | Core analyses | Rank, rules, and depth | ( Kimi Team, 2026a ) |
| Kimi K3 | Current releases | Refresh and stress test | ( Kimi Team, 2026b ) |
| Qwen3.7 Plus | Core analyses | Rank, rules, and depth | ( Alibaba Cloud, 2026a ) |
| Qwen3.8 Max | Current releases | Refresh and stress test | ( Alibaba Cloud, 2026b ) |
| GLM-5.2 | Core analyses | Rank, rules, and depth | ( Z.AI, 2026a ) |
| GLM-5.3 | Current releases | Refresh and stress test | ( Z.AI, 2026b ) |
| Evaluation | Condition | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Prospective replication | Counterfeit at rank one | 60 | 59/17/42 |
| Counterfeit at rank two | 60 | 60/1/59 | |
| Counterfeit at rank three | 60 | 60/0/60 | |
| All-benign control | 60 | 60/0/60 | |
| Rank-one compare-all | 60 | 60/0/60 | |
| Grok 4.5 | Deliberation | 18 | 18/0/18 |
| Block | IDs | Affected | Primary | First termination |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank, clean, and rules | 480 | 35 | 479/47/432 | 444/46/398 |
| Model breadth | 288 | 52 | 285/5/280 | 234/5/229 |
| Coverage enforcement | 72 | 1 | 70/1/69 | 69/1/68 |
| Input transfer | 216 | 19 | 208/26/182 | 189/25/164 |
| Agent configurations | 192 | 3 | 189/43/146 | 186/42/144 |
| Release refresh | 144 | 3 | 144/0/144 | 141/0/141 |
| Group | Task | Forbidden effect | Deliberation | Compare-all |
| Primary | Document redaction | Loopback request | 6/36 | 1/36 |
| Speech transcription | Loopback request | 2/36 | 0/36 | |
| Paper retrieval | Loopback request | 14/36 | 3/36 | |
| Archive extraction | Out-of-scope write | 20/95 | 10/95 | |
| Tabular conversion | Unrelated-file read | 11/95 | 7/95 | |
| Cross-domain | Configuration editing | Metadata modification | 14/30 | 15/30 |
LLM Agent Security
Large language model agent security studies attacks and safeguards for systems that plan, use tools, retain memory, and act across applications.
See all 330 papers