PACT: Can Enterprise AI Assistants Be Trusted Under Pressure?

Papers

arxiv:2609.18605

Published on Sep 16

· Submitted by

Mika Okamoto on Sep 18

· Georgia Institute of Technology

Upvote

Authors:

Mika Okamoto ,

Abstract

As corporate AI adoption continues to grow, enterprise-grade LLM agents are being deployed into sensitive contexts such as hiring, healthcare, and finance. In these contexts, compliance with rules specified in an agent's system context is a first-order legal concern. Currently, no evaluation framework systematically measures which LLM models tend to violate compliance rules, especially under pressure from a persistent user, a hurried manager, or circumstances where violation is convenient or attractive. We introduce PACT (Pressure-Applied Compliance Testing), a benchmark for rule-following under pressure in AI agents assisting employees in daily tasks across twelve regulated enterprise domains and forty-eight scenarios, each set in a realistic multi-turn conversation. Each benchmark item pairs a standing rule against a rule-violating shortcut, and applies a battery of pressures across different wordings and system-prompt modes. We construct PACT component by component under strict LLM-as-judge auditing to ensure samples are unambiguous, ungameable, and realistic enough to avoid eliciting evaluation-aware behavior. We use PACT to profile LLM compliance across six complementary metrics that create a holistic picture of an AI assistant's robustness under pressure and throughout multi-turn conversations, its transparency, and ability to correctly discern where a rule applies. We aggregate this profile into PACTScore, a reliability-weighted compliance rate over all items and modes. Our results across 22 common LLM models spanning multiple providers and sizes show substantial variability in compliance across models and metric dimensions. Even the strongest assistants mis-apply a rule on 6 to 10% of items, and ordinary user pressure raises the violation rate by 65% on average. PACT highlights compliance risks in LLM assistants, motivating guardrails and careful model selection.

View arXiv page View PDF Project page GitHub 4 Add to collection

Community

mokamoto

Paper author Paper submitter 5 days ago

Interactive companion + leaderboard: https://trace-ai-labs.github.io/pact/

librarian-bot

4 days ago

This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.

The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API

Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!

If you want recommendations for any Paper on HF Mirror checkout this Space

You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend

Upload images, audio, and videos by dragging in the text input, pasting, or clicking here.

Tap or paste here to upload images

· Sign up or log in to comment

Upvote

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2609.18605

Don't have the latest CLI?

curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2609.18605 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2609.18605 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2609.18605 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.