Large language model (LLM) coding agents increasingly operate with shell access, allowing them to write scripts, move files, alter permissions, and modify system configurations. However, an agent may achieve a user's goal while causing unintended harm, such as deleting unrelated files, weakening access controls, or corrupting data, in response to benign inputs without explicit jailbreaking. This failure mode is particularly important because apparent task success may reassure users that an agent behaved correctly, causing harmful side effects to go unnoticed. We call this harmful success: the agent successfully completes the intended benign task while simultaneously causing unintended harm. Despite its importance, harmful success is difficult to measure because conventional task-success metrics overlook harmful behaviors, while existing safety evaluations are often designed solely to assess harmful outcomes. We introduce VeriHarm, an automatic framework for constructing programmatically verifiable benchmarks that directly measure harmful success. VeriHarm minimally perturbs coding tasks to elicit unintended harmful behavior while maintaining the benignity of the task and preserving the original task objective. It then synthesizes executable harm tests that, together with the original task-correctness tests, evaluate both task accuracy and harmful outcomes. Frontier agents, including GPT-5.6-Sol and Claude-Opus-5, achieve an average task accuracy of 95% on our curated VeriHarm-Bench, yet still struggle to complete tasks safely: their safe success rate, the fraction of tasks completed successfully without triggering the designated harm, averages only 37%. These results suggest that successful task completion can frequently coexist with unintended harm, and that task-success metrics alone may substantially understate the potential safety risks of coding agents.
Realizing Embodied AI for Science requires robots to translate experimental goals into reliable physical procedures, reducing hazardous and repetitive human work while generating evidence for scientific discovery. Although language-based planning and learned manipulation provide complementary capabilities, their integration requires robots to adapt subsequent operations to actual execution outcomes. For example, an unsuccessful placement changes what must be done next, even when the experimental goal remains unchanged. Existing benchmarks assess planning, manipulation, and laboratory workflows through task completion and reasoning or execution metrics; however, aggregate performance leaves the connection between outcome-dependent choices and physical execution unresolved. To address this evaluation gap, we introduce Labference, a benchmark for evaluating how observed physical outcomes guide subsequent choices and how those choices translate into robotic laboratory actions. Its evaluation protocol is designed to test outcome-dependent behavioral adaptation through controlled evidence variations, while independently measuring operation selection, physical execution, and task completion. Matched Oracle-assisted continuations from shared checkpoints then assess which forms of support improve subsequent choices and task completion. Initial weighing evaluations reveal target-selection errors in the tested VLA policies despite successful object transfers, whereas GPT-driven control achieves correct selection but encounters execution failures and substantial computation costs. Together, these findings highlight the need to connect task-appropriate reasoning with reliable, timely action. By making this connection measurable and diagnosable, Labference supports targeted improvements toward autonomous experimentation for Embodied AI for Science.
Shangjian Yin University of California, Riverside, Zhepei Wei University of Virginia, Xinyu Zhu University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Wei-Lin Chen University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Yu Meng University of Virginia
Traditional reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) for large language models (LLMs) relies on expensive human-annotated datasets, while Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) also incurs significant costs, requiring the collection of diverse prompts and corresponding responses, often necessitating external reward models or proprietary models like GPT-4 to annotate preference pairs. In this work, we introduce Self-Alignment Optimization (SAO), a fully self-synthetic framework for LLM alignment, where all training data, including prompts (i.e., user queries), responses, and preferences, are generated by the model itself. Specifically, SAO first instructs the LLM to engage in persona role-play and generate diverse prompts and responses, which are then self-evaluated for preference optimization. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SAO effectively enhances the model’s chat capabilities on standard benchmarks like AlpacaEval 2.0, while maintaining strong performance on downstream objective tasks (i.e.,, question-answering, math reasoning). Our work provides a practical solution for self-improvement in aligning LLMs, and the code for reproducing our results is available at: https://github.com/SJY8460/SAO.
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