[2604.15597] LLMs Corrupt Your Documents When You Delegate
Abstract:Large Language Models (LLMs) are poised to disrupt knowledge work, with the emergence of delegated work as a new interaction paradigm (e.g., vibe coding). Delegation requires trust - the expectation that the LLM will faithfully execute the task without introducing errors into documents. We introduce DELEGATE-52 to study the readiness of AI systems in delegated workflows. DELEGATE-52 simulates long delegated workflows that require in-depth document editing across 52 professional domains, such as coding, crystallography, and music notation. Our large-scale experiment with 19 LLMs reveals that current models degrade documents during delegation: even frontier models (Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude 4.6 Opus, GPT 5.4) corrupt an average of 25% of document content by the end of long workflows, with other models failing more severely. Additional experiments reveal that agentic tool use does not improve performance on DELEGATE-52, and that degradation severity is exacerbated by document size, length of interaction, or presence of distractor files. Our analysis shows that current LLMs are unreliable delegates: they introduce sparse but severe errors that silently corrupt documents, compounding over long interaction.
# link_2dphnixq533.pdf ## Metadata - PDFFormatVersion=1.7 - IsLinearized=false - IsAcroFormPresent=false - IsXFAPresent=false - IsCollectionPresent=false - IsSignaturesPresent=false - Author=Philippe Laban; Tobias Schnabel; Jennifer Neville - Creator=arXiv GenPDF (tex2pdf:a6404ea) - Custom.DOI=https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.15597 - Custom.License=http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/ - Custom.PTEX.Fullbanner=This is pdfTeX, Version 3.141592653-2.6-1.40.28 (TeX Live 2025) kpathsea version 6.4.1 - Custom.arXivID=https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15597v1 - Producer=pikepdf 8.15.1 - Ti
saved by
related reading
- [2604.22082] Removing Sandbagging in LLMs by Training with Weak Supervisionarxiv.org
- Modifying LLM Beliefs with Synthetic Document Finetuningalignment.anthropic.com
- [2312.06942] AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversionarxiv.org
- [2502.17424] Emergent Misalignment: Narrow finetuning can produce broadly misaligned LLMsarxiv.org
- [2602.11865] Intelligent AI Delegationarxiv.org
- [2604.16812] Introspection Adapters: Training LLMs to Report Their Learned Behaviorsarxiv.org
- [2606.04071] Covert Influence Between Language Modelsarxiv.org
- Predicting LLM Safety Before Release by Simulating Deploymentcdn.openai.com
- [2608.09867] Stealing Reasoning Traces from Proprietary LLM APIsarxiv.org
- [2502.05209] Model Tampering Attacks Enable More Rigorous Evaluations of LLM Capabilitiesarxiv.org
- [2607.14345] Value Leakage: An LLM's Answers Are Silently Shaped by Its Own Valuesarxiv.org
- 2308.03958arxiv.org