Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Sell Me This Stock: Unsafe Recommendation Drift in LLM Agents

Zekun Wu, Adriano Koshiyama, Sahan Bulathwela, Maria Perez-Ortiz · Mar 13, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

When a multi-turn LLM recommendation agent consumes incorrect tool data, it recommends unsuitable products while standard quality metrics stay near-perfect, a pattern we call evaluation blindness. We replay 23-turn financial advisory conversations across eight language models and find three counterintuitive failure modes. First, stronger models are not safer: the best-performing model has the highest quality score yet the worst suitability violations (99.1% of turns). This points to an alignment-grounding tension: the same property that makes it an effective agent, faithfully grounding its reasoning in tool data, makes it the most reliable executor of bad data. Across all models, 80% of risk-score citations repeat the manipulated value verbatim, and not a single turn out of 1,840 questions the tool outputs. Second, the failures are not cumulative: 95% of violations stem from the current turn's data rather than contamination building up in memory, meaning a single bad turn is enough to compromise safety. Third, while the model internally detects the manipulation (sparse autoencoder probing distinguishes adversarial from random perturbations), this awareness does not translate into safer output. Both representation-level interventions (recovering less than 6% of the gap) and prompt-level self-verification fail, as the agent ultimately relies on the same manipulated data. While incorporating suitability constraints into ranking metrics makes the gap visible, our findings suggest that safe deployment requires independent monitoring against a data source the agent cannot influence.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

25/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"When a multi-turn LLM recommendation agent consumes incorrect tool data, it recommends unsuitable products while standard quality metrics stay near-perfect, a pattern we call evaluation blindness."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"When a multi-turn LLM recommendation agent consumes incorrect tool data, it recommends unsuitable products while standard quality metrics stay near-perfect, a pattern we call evaluation blindness."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"When a multi-turn LLM recommendation agent consumes incorrect tool data, it recommends unsuitable products while standard quality metrics stay near-perfect, a pattern we call evaluation blindness."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"When a multi-turn LLM recommendation agent consumes incorrect tool data, it recommends unsuitable products while standard quality metrics stay near-perfect, a pattern we call evaluation blindness."

Reported Metrics

partial

Ndcg

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"When a multi-turn LLM recommendation agent consumes incorrect tool data, it recommends unsuitable products while standard quality metrics stay near-perfect, a pattern we call evaluation blindness."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Unit of annotation: Ranking (inferred)
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: Long Horizon
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

ndcg

Research Brief

Metadata summary

When a multi-turn LLM recommendation agent consumes incorrect tool data, it recommends unsuitable products while standard quality metrics stay near-perfect, a pattern we call evaluation blindness.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • When a multi-turn LLM recommendation agent consumes incorrect tool data, it recommends unsuitable products while standard quality metrics stay near-perfect, a pattern we call evaluation blindness.
  • We replay 23-turn financial advisory conversations across eight language models and find three counterintuitive failure modes.
  • First, stronger models are not safer: the best-performing model has the highest quality score yet the worst suitability violations (99.1% of turns).

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Tool-augmented LLM agents increasingly operate as multi-turn advisors in high-stakes domains, yet their evaluation relies on ranking metrics that measure what is recommended but not whether it is safe for the user.
  • We present a paired-trajectory protocol that replays real financial dialogues under clean and contaminated tool-output conditions across eight LLMs (7B to frontier), decomposing divergence into information-channel and memory-channel…
  • We observe evaluation blindness: recommendation quality is preserved under contamination (UPR~1.0) while risk-inappropriate products appear in 65-93% of turns, invisible to standard NDCG.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Tool-augmented LLM agents increasingly operate as multi-turn advisors in high-stakes domains, yet their evaluation relies on ranking metrics that measure what is recommended but not whether it is safe for the user.
  • We observe evaluation blindness: recommendation quality is preserved under contamination (UPR~1.0) while risk-inappropriate products appear in 65-93% of turns, invisible to standard NDCG.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: ndcg

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.