Measuring Cross-Task Behavioral Consistency in Language Model Agents
Authors: Amritesh Banerjee, Pranil Raichura
Organizations: University of Massachusetts Amherst · Mantis AI Research (MIT CSAIL)
Abstract
Agent evaluation relies almost entirely on outcome metrics such as success rate, which capture whether an agent succeeds but not how consistently it behaves. We argue that behavioral consistency across tasks is a distinct and measurable property, and we introduce the Behavioral Consistency Metric (BCM) to quantify it. BCM trains a model to predict task success from behavioral features of agent execution traces, derives a per-trajectory feature-attribution vector, and measures the mean pairwise similarity of these vectors within an agent system. Across roughly 9,000 trajectories from six language model agents on software engineering tasks, our central finding is that cross-task and within-task consistency are distinct axes that can diverge: some systems are locally reproducible, behaving similarly on repeated attempts at one task, yet globally fragmented, with no stable strategy across different tasks, while others are consistent at both scales. Prior work measures only same-task reproducibility and so cannot observe this separation. We further find that consistency is not reducible to success rate, since systems with comparable success can differ sharply in consistency, and that the frontier-versus-open-source consistency gap persists under a within-task control that holds task difficulty constant. We position BCM as a process-level reliability signal that complements outcome metrics, and we are explicit about the conditions under which it is meaningful.
Running the same LLM agent on identical inputs yields 2.3-4.2 distinct action sequences per 10 runs; this behavioral variance constitutes a training-free, black-box uncertainty signal that instantiates selective classification and distribution-free calibration for agentic systems. Across 8,000 runs of four models on 200 HotpotQA questions, consistent tasks (at most 2 unique paths) achieve 82-87% accuracy while inconsistent tasks (4 or more paths) achieve 41-65%, a gap that survives controls for task difficulty. Divergence concentrates at step 2 (50.5% of Llama tasks), and consistency metrics detect failures with AUROC 0.62-0.78. Exploiting this signal, selective prediction (answering only when k=3 runs agree) achieves 87-88% accuracy at 54-62% coverage, a 6-14pp gain over single-run baselines, and matches a split-conformal baseline without a held-out calibration set. A cross-benchmark validation on SWE-bench (50 tasks, 1,000 runs) preserves the consistency hierarchy while revealing an ~8x spread in mean trajectory length across models, and bootstrap analysis shows single-run evaluations misrank models 29.3% of the time.
Large language model (LLM) agents with tool-calling capabilities are increasingly deployed in production systems, yet a fundamental reliability question remains under-explored: does the same agent behave the same way twice? We present a systematic empirical study of behavioral consistency in multi-step tool-calling agents, measuring whether agents select the same tools, in the same order, with the same arguments, across repeated identical invocations. Unlike prior work on consistency in ReAct-style agents(search-only, free-text actions), we study the richer setting of structured tool-calling interfaces with typed parameters and consequential side effects.
This paper establishes a rigorous measurement science for AI agent reliability, providing a foundational framework for quantifying consistency under semantically preserving perturbations. By leveraging U-statistics for output-level reliability and kernel-based metrics for trajectory-level stability, we offer a principled approach to evaluating agents across diverse operating conditions. Our proposal highlights the important distinction between the core capability and execution robustness of an agent, showing that minor task-level variations can induce complete strategy breakdowns despite the agent possessing the requisite knowledge for the task. We validate our framework through extensive experiments on three agentic benchmarks, demonstrating that trajectory-level consistency metrics provide far greater diagnostic sensitivity than traditional pass@1 rates. By providing the mathematical tools to isolate where and why agents deviate, we enable the identification and rectification of architectural concerns that hinder the deployment of agents in high-stakes, real-world environments.