Large language model agents increasingly take consequential actions in digital and physical environments, where safety risks may emerge only after multiple interaction steps. This has motivated world-model-driven predictive safety guardrails, which anticipate future consequences before execution. However, existing evaluations largely focus on end-to-end safety outcomes, leaving unclear whether safety gains arise from reliable prediction and faithful use of predicted risks. In this work, we systematically diagnose the prediction-to-action pipeline along three dimensions: how world-model predictions are integrated into decision making, whether the predictions themselves are reliable, and whether their content is faithfully used. Across seven policy models and two safety environments, we find that stronger prediction involvement does not yield monotonic safety gains and can reduce task completion while substantially increasing inference cost. We further find that world-model predictions remain insufficiently reliable, especially over longer horizons, where safety prediction degrades substantially relative to near-term forecasting. Finally, we find that safety gains can persist even under corrupted predictions, while locally verified predictions still leave subsequent safety violations, showing that predictive content is not faithfully incorporated into the decision process. Together, these findings expose a fundamental prediction-to-action gap in current predictive guardrails: producing more or seemingly accurate foresight is insufficient unless that foresight is both reliable and faithfully translated into safer decisions.
Jiahe Guo, Xiangran Guo, Yulin Hu, Zimo Long, Xingyu Sui Harbin Institute of Technology, Xuda Zhi, Yongbo Huang, Hao He 等 11 位作者
Long-term memory enables large language model (LLM) agents to support personalized and sustained interactions.However, most work on personalized agents prioritizes utility and user experience, treating memory as a neutral component and largely overlooking its safety implications.In this paper, we reveal intent legitimation, a previously underexplored safety failure in personalized agents, where benign personal memories bias intent inference and cause models to legitimize inherently harmful queries.To study this phenomenon, we introduce PS-Bench, a benchmark designed to identify and quantify intent legitimation in personalized interactions.Across multiple memory-augmented agent frameworks and base LLMs, personalization increases attack success rates by 15.8%–243.7% relative to stateless baselines.We further provide mechanistic evidence for intent legitimation from internal representation space, and propose a lightweight detection–reflection method that effectively reduces safety degradation.Overall, our work provides the first systematic exploration and evaluation of intent legitimation as a safety failure mode that naturally arises from benign, real-world personalization, highlighting the importance of assessing safety under long-term personal context. WARNING: This paper may contain harmful content.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表
Xingyu Sui Harbin Institute of Technology, Yanyan Zhao Harbin Institute of Technology, Yulin Hu, Jiahe Guo, Weixiang Zhao Harbin Institute of Technology, Bing Qin Harbin Institute of Technology
Emotional Support Conversation requires not only affective expression but also grounded instrumental support to provide trustworthy guidance. However, existing ESC systems and benchmarks largely focus on affective support in text-only settings, overlooking how external tools can enable factual grounding and reduce hallucination in multi-turn emotional support. We introduce TEA-Bench, the first interactive benchmark for evaluating tool-augmented agents in ESC, featuring realistic emotional scenarios, an MCP-style tool environment, and process-level metrics that jointly assess the quality and factual grounding of emotional support. Experiments on nine LLMs show that tool augmentation generally improves emotional support quality and reduces hallucination, but the gains are strongly capacity-dependent: stronger models use tools more selectively and effectively, while weaker models benefit only marginally. We further release TEA-Dialog, a dataset of tool-enhanced ESC dialogues, and find that supervised fine-tuning improves in-distribution support but generalizes poorly. Our results underscore the importance of tool use in building reliable emotional support agents.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表