cs.CLSep 9, 2026

IBIB: A Protocol for Measuring Enterprise AI Systems by Serving Route, Not Model Identifier

Authors: Blake Stenstrom, Charangan Vasantharajan, Brian Sathianathan

Abstract

Enterprises deploy systems, not checkpoints. Usable capability depends jointly on weights, serving route, precision, output contract, and harness, yet all 18 audited benchmarks score advertised model identifiers. We treat this as measurement error and give a protocol that makes it reportable. It has three parts. A gold-blind capability-binding preflight verifies that a route can execute the evaluation contract before any task reaches it; a reliability-inclusive first-pass scoring rule keeps failure in the score while keeping unsupported capability out; and adjudication is structurally score-blind. We call the protocol IB2 and release its algorithms, classification tables, request contract, and manifest schemas. Its reference instantiation, 128 locked tasks and 987 assertions over document, spreadsheet, chart, tool and database work, stays sealed: the procedure is the artifact, not the corpus. Across eleven systems, four results. Capability availability is measurable: two complete single-route runs on identical weights later failed distinct predicates of the finalized binding gate, while a third passed that gate before a fresh run. The advertised identifier exposed neither limit. Discrimination is not uniform: four of seven suites saturate under a six-system band, with the spread almost entirely from governed database work and multi-tab joins, so we report interval-backed resolution groups, not ranks; two of the nominal five-label output's four cuts fail multiplicity adjustment. Serving-arm choice moved one declared revision and precision from 77.38 to 82.54, paired interval [0.11,10.60], though the arms differ in access mode, harness generation, and the serving tool-call parser, and harness generation is a property of our evaluator, not any endpoint. Excluding failed responses from denominators changes the point ordering, so reliability inclusion changes a conclusion, not its wording.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jun 8, 2026cs.AI

Evaluation Cards: An Interpretive Layer for AI Evaluation Reporting

AI evaluation results are produced at scale but reported inconsistently across leaderboards, model cards, benchmark papers, and company blogs. The cost is interpretive: readers cannot reliably compare results across sources, identify what a report omits, or trace an aggregate claim to its underlying evidence. Recent efforts address isolated components but leave three gaps: they cover only narrow slices of the evaluation lifecycle and do not compose into a single interpretable record; they specify static representations that do not differentiate the questions different stakeholders bring to the same evidence; and they remain proposals on paper, lacking the extraction infrastructure required for adoption at scale. We present \EvalCards{}, an operational reporting layer that composes benchmark metadata, evaluation run data, and model metadata into a unified record. We (1) derive a reporting schema from a structured review of 52 papers and 10 stakeholder interviews, (2) implement four interpretive signals (reproducibility, documentation completeness, provenance and risk, and score comparability), rendered through reader modes calibrated to research and non-research audiences, and (3) deploy a monitoring tool that applies \EvalCards{} across 5,816 models, 635 benchmarks, and 101,843 results, surfacing systematic gaps in current reporting practice.
Avijit Ghosh, Anka Reuel, Jenny Chim +45
Artificial Intelligence EvaluationReportInterpretive OpennessLifecycle
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 Auditing
AskPDF
Aug 3, 2026cs.LG

Evaluation Blindness: How Silent Measurement Failures Corrupt AI Systems from Training to Deployment

AI systems can fail silently. The failure propagates through training loops, evaluation pipelines, and production monitoring stacks until downstream harm makes it visible. This paper introduces evaluation blindness: a measurement function M exhibits evaluation blindness with respect to failure class F when it produces readings indistinguishable from a healthy state while the system is actually failing, with no auxiliary signal flagging the gap. The problem surfaces at two lifecycle stages the literature has treated separately. At training time, reward models are gamed, importance-sampling corrections are silently miscalculated, and benchmark contamination inflates fine-tuning evaluations, all while loss curves look healthy and gradient updates proceed normally. At deployment time, monitoring fails to catch six classes of production failure, including an Operational category that is 100% silent by structural definition. We provide a formal detectability predicate unifying both stages. Four training-time case studies trace concrete breakdowns, including a real implementation bug in TRL PR #6594 where gradients are corrupted as loss decreases normally. A six-class taxonomy validated against 50 real-world incidents from court documents and regulatory filings finds that 53% of verifiable public failures were silent. A failure budget framework ties acceptable failure rates to use-case risk class. The implication is direct: measurement infrastructure is a correctness concern across the full AI lifecycle, not just at evaluation time. Data, code, and taxonomy schema are at https://github.com/priyanka25aug/llm-failure-taxonomy.
Priyanka Bajaj
Artificial Intelligence EvaluationBlind SpotsArtificial Intelligence Governance
AskPDF