SPADE-Bench: Evaluating Spontaneous Strategic Deception in Agents via Plan-Action Divergence
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
As LLM-based agents expand their operational scope, reliability becomes a prerequisite for real-world deployment. However, in practical applications, human users cannot monitor every immediate behavior; instead, the execution process often remains a black box, leaving users dependent solely on the agent's self-reported updates. This opacity creates a critical risk: agents may present observer-facing reports that diverge from their executed actions, rendering the system uncontrollable, especially in high-stakes autonomous scenarios. We term such self-reported plan-action divergence as agent deception. To assess this, we introduce SPADE-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate spontaneous plan-action divergence. Unlike prior deception benchmarks, SPADE-Bench simultaneously integrates actual tool execution and controlled pressure scenarios. This design ensures ecological validity and rigorously distinguishes strategic deception from mere hallucination through controlled plan-action comparisons under pressure. Experiments across mainstream models confirm that agent deception is a genuine and pressing issue in tool-use contexts. By providing a comprehensive and robust evaluation framework, SPADE-Bench fills a critical gap in agent safety, facilitating the community's progress toward building trustworthy and controllable autonomous systems.
Results and benchmarks
As LLM-based agents expand their operational scope, reliability becomes a prerequisite for real-world deployment.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic tool use | Qwen3-8B | Accuracy | 0.7100 | paper-derived |
| Agentic tool use | + SFT | Accuracy | 0.7900 | paper-derived |
| Agentic tool use | Qwen3-14B | Accuracy | 0.7600 | paper-derived |
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure below.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Datasets
Spaces
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Agentic tool use
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Large Language Models, AI Agents
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.