cs.AIJul 27, 2026

The Cost of Knowing: A Resource-Aware Protocol for Benchmarking Hallucination Beyond Static Leaderboards

Authors: Keyu Li, Jin Gao, Dequan Wang

Organizations: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Shanghai, China

Abstract

On standard factuality tasks, frontier models now cluster near the top of the scale. The question is therefore shifting from how factual a system is toward how much compute that factuality costs. Static leaderboards score factuality in isolation and treat compute as free, so they cannot tell a genuinely better system apart from one that simply spends more. Consider a ranking reversal. A brute-force Best-of-4 agent posts the higher raw factuality score (H-Score 0.9169 vs 0.9103) and would top a static leaderboard, but once cost is counted it is the worse system, losing on Q-Score (0.5169 vs 0.5217) at roughly four times the tokens and latency, under a reported cost weight whose sensitivity we sweep. So the system that tops a static leaderboard can be the worse one to deploy. To make this trade-off visible, we introduce MAS-HQ (Multi-Agent System Hallucination Quest), a resource-aware evaluation protocol. It wraps any factuality detector and normalizes for cost, and it pits systems against each other rather than scoring them in isolation. The Q-Score measures factuality minus normalized cost under a competitive match. Across summarization and open-domain QA, single-agent baselines drift into resource-heavy over-optimization, while competition elicits more resource-efficient policies. These gains are small but consistent, and stable across 100 trials. The axis stays discriminative for frontier systems (Gemini-2.5-Pro, and GPT-5) whose raw factuality scores are already bunched near the ceiling. MAS-HQ provides a reproducible way to measure how much a factual answer costs.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Aug 1, 2026cs.AI

AgentSLABench: Evaluating and Benchmarking Agentic Systems Under Resource Constraints

We present AgentSLABench, a resource-aware evaluation framework for autonomous AI agents that measures correctness alongside latency, cost, compute, memory, and network usage under declared resource budgets. Unlike standard benchmarks that report only accuracy, AgentSLABench produces a multi-dimensional profile per agent per task - the same way systems profilers (perf, pprof, cProfile) measure resource consumption of code, but extended with task correctness as a first-class dimension. AgentSLABench provides 16 task environments across 6 categories (5 core: multi-hop QA, retail substitution, code generation, web shopping, travel planning; 11 extended) with isolated Docker containers, declared CPU/memory/time/network budgets, sealed test sets with SHA256 hashes, and a standardized profiling protocol. We profile 5 general-purpose baseline agents (ReAct, PlanAndSolve, Reflexion, CoT, Random) plus 4 task-specialized agents, finding that specialized agents achieve 100% success on 3/5 core tasks (fact_qa, web_shopping, travel_planning) and 66.7-83.3% on retail and code_gen, while general baselines fail entirely on 4/5 domain tasks. Crucially, we report the Efficiency-Adjusted Success Rate (EASR) - success weighted by resource consumption relative to declared budgets - revealing that high accuracy at unbounded cost is not production-viable. We release the full infrastructure, sealed test sets, and profiling results to enable reproducible, resource-aware agent evaluation.
Meher Bhaskar Madiraju, Meher Sai Preetam Madiraju
Agentic BenchmarksAgentic EvaluationsMemoryagentbenchProfilingMulti-Hop Reasoning
AskPDF
Oct 19, 2024cs.CL

TrendFact: A Benchmark Towards Hotspot Perception in Automatic Fact-Checking

With the surge of online misinformation, Large Language Models (LLMs) and Reasoning Large Language Models (RLMs) serving as Automatic Fact-Checking (AFC) systems have emerged as a prominent paradigm for reliable, explainable verification. However, our empirical study reveals that this paradigm faces a critical risk asymmetry challenge when deployed in the real world under resource-constrained environments. While Hotspot Perception Ability (HPA), the capacity to dynamically allocate reasoning resources based on social impact, is essential to mitigate this risk, existing benchmarks lack the social metadata and evaluation framework to meet this urgent evaluation needs, thereby hindering the advancement of these AFC systems. To bridge this gap, we introduce TrendFact, the first benchmark capable of evaluating HPA and three fact-checking tasks. It consists of 7,643 curated samples sourced from trending platforms and professional datasets, with an evidence library containing 366,634 entries. To enable HPA assessment, we propose two novel metrics: the Explanation Consistency Score (ECS) to evaluate the reliability of verification reasoning, and the Hotspot Claim Perception Index (HCPI) to quantify the overall HPA of AFC systems. Extensive experiments demonstrate that existing AFC systems exhibit limited performance on TrendFact. Furthermore, our proposed FactISR framework effectively enhances HPA and computational efficiency for RLMs-served AFC systems.
Xiaocheng Zhang, Xi Wang, Yifei Lu +5
Fact-CheckingAsymmetryPerception
AskPDF
Jul 24, 2026cs.AI

Do Agent Benchmarks Measure Capability? Protocol Validity in the Age of Agentic AI

Agent benchmarks increasingly evaluate repository editing, web research, terminal use, and long-horizon interaction. Their scores support capability claims only when the evaluation protocol keeps the intended capability necessary for success. Recent reward-hacking benchmarks and system reports show that agents can instead recover public solutions, read evaluation artifacts, infer generator structure, manipulate feedback, or benefit from invalid scoring paths; existing responses do not provide a common procedure for attributing these shortcuts and quantifying their effect across benchmarks. We formulate protocol validity and introduce HackDetect, a post-hoc audit that identifies an exposure, determines how the agent used it, and assesses whether the resulting score is misleading. We quantify score inflation with the Mislead gap, defined as the exploit score minus the intended score. We audit 2,385 traces across 15 agent benchmarks and find evidence of exposures and reward hacking in 67.0% of Frontier Science traces and 66.7% of AutoLab tasks. Across paired comparisons, we measure score inflation of 0.45-1.00, showing that benchmark reports should provide evidence that scores reflect the intended capability.
Jiaqi Shao, Hanck Chen, Wei Zhang +2
Agentic BenchmarksExploitationAlgorithm AuditingValidity
AskPDF