cs.CLAug 10, 2026

Similarity Gates Approve Reversals: A Validity Audit of Embedding-Cosine Thresholds in Agent Systems

Authors: Scott E. Frias

Organizations: Eigenforma · Freemind Labs

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Agent frameworks ship quality gates that compare text blocks by embedding-cosine similarity and decide at a fixed cutoff. Deduplication filters, semantic caches, drift guards, and answer grader gates deploy to answer the question: "Does this text still mean the same thing?" But the score answers a different question: "How much did the wording change?" We audit this gate class as a measurement instrument. In the cases these gates exist to catch, the two can run in opposite ways. Many times, reversing an instruction is a single word edit, while agreement often rephrases a sentence. The consequence is a safety check that fires backwards. The production drift guard we audited caught 0 of 56 meaning-breaking mutations, and one approved item, "withhold the study drug" -> "administer the study drug", came in at cosine 0.9608. We observed five shipped operating points, and balanced accuracy across 90 configuration-threshold-task cells never exceeded 0.700 (median 0.525). The same confounder also corrupted evaluations. A naively built corpus inherits this confounder and can return an inverted verdict, with a decision AUROC exactly 0.000 in 13 of 18 configuration-task cells (at most 0.040 in all 18) against 0.440-0.815 for the same nine configurations under a balanced 2x2 design. Twice in the effort it captured our own headline claims. Obvious repairs fail: an encoder swap and an overlap-conditioned gate (0.750 in-sample, 0.533 held-out) land at chance on separately authored held-out data, and an NLI drop-in did no better. Embeddings do still bear hope here, as the strongest two of nine configurations separated reversal from paraphrase at matched overlap (AUROC 0.79-0.90), but only a matched-pair audit reveals the deployment regime. We release the corpus method, harness, and frozen results, and contend that scores gated this way measure the wrong thing. We believe a valid instrument is buildable.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jul 5, 2026cs.AI

Agent Step Value: Auditing Evaluator-Channel Reversals in Black-Box Agent Traces

When evaluator-derived step rewards are pooled or compared across scoring channels, their sign is treated as transportable. Yet the same frozen transition can change sign with the scoring channel. Process rewards vary agent states, while evaluator audits vary scoring configurations; neither first difference isolates their interaction. We define Agent Step Value (ASV) as channel-indexed target-margin gain and identify the missing state-by-channel interaction by replaying complete faces. Of 1,100 PubMed open question-answering transitions, 1,004 were complete across four cyclic layouts. Their mean update is positive under direct scoring (+0.163 [0.102, 0.218]) and negative with an externally generated view (-0.160 [-0.244, -0.079]), giving an interaction of -0.323 [-0.418, -0.232]. Across paired transitions, 507/1,004 cross zero in one direction or the other. Matched templates isolate a generated-minus-quote interaction of -1.121 [-1.534, -0.703]. Its direction remains negative after the readout and evaluator-stack changes, and quote yields a higher paired area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for stored success at all three bridge vertices. Because the two views preserve the same task information conditional on the retained state, a representation-invariance null predicts equal responses and success rankings across them. ASV provides a transport audit for evaluator-derived step measurements; causal actor credit lies outside its estimand.
Andrew Zhang, Chengzhan Li
Action TracesReasoning TracesLarge Language Model EvaluationObservationSurprisal
AskPDF
Sep 14, 2026cs.CL

GAUGE: When Not to Trust LLM-as-a-Judge in User-Simulated Evaluation of Task-Oriented Agents

Comparing and selecting task-oriented LLM agents increasingly relies on a low-cost offline evaluation gate: persona-driven LLM user-simulators converse with each candidate, an LLM-as-a-judge scores the transcripts, and the higher-scoring agent is promoted. We introduce GAUGE, a reusable offline protocol that measures whether this gate's ranking matches a grounded verifiable reward across 25 agents from six providers on the τ2\tau^2-bench and SimulatorArena benchmarks, separating two kinds of evaluation validity that release practices conflate: ranking validity and construct validity. First, a satisfaction-success gap: satisfaction carries essentially no information about task success, as conversations rated satisfied by our blind panel are decorrelated from actual success, with 57.5% of them failing the customer's task, a pattern consistent across five rater populations, both benchmarks, and every subjective dimension we rated. Second, while the gate's ranking is robust across the broad capability span, it loses resolution among the near-equal strong agents: this decision-disagreement rate jumps from <<1% on wide-reward pairs to 31% on close pairs. The gate is thus human-validated yet mis-anchored. As a remedy, we propose a calibrate-then-trust cadence in which a judge-free completion bit is a zero-cost tripwire for truncation regressions.
Umesh Bodhwani, Thanh Tran, Kai Wei
Agentic EvaluationsLlm-As-A-JudgePersonalized Large Language Model AgentsMean Opinion ScoresGaugeShared Rewards+1
AskPDF
Jun 9, 2026cs.CL

Catching One in Five: LLM-as-Judge Blind Spots in Production Multi-Turn Transaction Agents

LLM-as-judge is the default instrument for evaluating conversational agents, yet its reliability is almost always reported as agreement with human ratings, not recall of real defects. We study a deployed multi-turn food-and-beverage ordering agent and measure how many genuine quality problems its built-in LLM judge catches, using exhaustive human transcript review as ground truth. Across three batches the judge surfaces well under a quarter of human-confirmed systematic problems -- 2 of 9 patterns (22%) in one batch, and its operational gate flagged zero of 100 rounds in a batch where humans confirmed 23 distinct defects and 7 new cross-cutting patterns. Our blind-spot taxonomy shows the failure is structured, not random: the judge catches turn-local issues (a fabricated statistic, a wrong language) but misses cross-turn state issues (confirm-gate lockout, cart hallucination, escalation lockout, stale referents). The mechanism: the scoring rubric exposes only three coarse axes (intent, brand-voice, personalization) and has no category for the behavioural dimensions -- state-tracking, guardrails, recovery -- where most defects cluster. The failure is routing, not perception: 113 of 114 rounds whose raw judge note describes a confirm-gate or cart-state defect are scored "brand voice", and none reach an operational failure -- the gate is wired to hangs and hard assertions, not the rubric -- so the 0% is a routing-and-wiring failure, not blindness. The consequence for prevalence estimation is sharp: when the apparent defect rate is zero the Rogan-Gladen correction degenerates -- no signal can recover the true rate -- while where the gate reports a nonzero rate the same estimator implies a 3-6x undercount under our measured sensitivity. For production multi-turn agents, automated judging is a regression floor, not a substitute for human review.
Sawyer Zhang, Alexander Wang, Sophie Lei
Llm-As-A-JudgeBlind SpotsHuman OversightDefect
AskPDF