LLM agents with similar success rates can follow different action sequences. An Agent Behavior Map represents LLM-harness combinations using centered action log-likelihoods on shared reference trajectories, without requiring new environment rollouts from the target agent. We derive error bounds relating squared coordinate distances to trajectory KL under explicit assumptions, and across eight cross-scored models the distances track the directly measured trajectory KL in rank order. Across 100 LLMs and four environments, ALFWorld-based coordinates support performance prediction and identify behavioral similarities. In ALFWorld, these similarities persist after controlling for success rates and model size, including across model families. As an extension, harness-component displacements approximately compose, with accuracy varying across components and environments.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Agents close on the map act alike when run. (a) 100 LLMs with the BASE harness, scored on 500 ALFWorld reference trajectories (t-SNE layout; neighbors computed in the original space). ⋆ : gemma4-31b; green: its five nearest models on the map; orange rings: the five closest in parameter count. (b) Action sequences of these 11 models on one ALFWorld task. All succeed, but four of the five map neighbors share the anchor’s short route, whereas three of the five size-matched models take longer ones. (c) Effect size of the behavioral distance to the k -th nearest model on the map (solid) or in parameter count (dashed), averaged over four aspects and 100 models (§ 3.3 ); positive means more similar than the average pair.
Source
Step
Trajectory
Ratio
Local expansion
61ε3Ei[T]
41ε3Ei[T2]
2Ei[T]3Ei[T2]
Ref. mismatch
21λTmaxε2
21λTmax2ε2
Tmax
Centering
μ2/(2Tˉ)
μ2/2
Tˉ
Sampling
26Tmax−1ε2uN
25Tmax2ε2uN
≈65Tmax
Table 1: Error bounds by source, with constants: approximation error (Theorem 1 , top three rows) and sampling error (Corollary 1 , bottom row, which defines uN ). The trajectory bound is about T times the step bound for every source.
Figure 2: Map estimates, step version 2TˉD^S2 and trajectory version 21D^τ2 , against the directly measured symmetric trajectory KL Ksym : 8 models, 28 pairs, centered coordinates, log–log axes; error bars are standard errors over the 988 shared ALFWorld train tasks. Both track Ksym , the step version more closely.
Baselines
Coordinates
Downstream task
Size
Family
ℓˉ
kNN
Ridge
+size
ALFWorld
.63
.46
.20
.88
.81
.82
TextWorld
.71
.44
.33
.76
.77
.78
BFCL
.48
.34
.32
.69
.69
.65
MiniWoB++
.64
.24
.22
.28
.56
.63
4-bench avg.
.74
.42
.34
.74
.78
.83
Table 2: Predicting success rates without running the agents: Pearson r under leave-one-model-out over 100 models. Baselines use size ( log parameter count), the family mean, or ℓˉ (mean log-likelihood); coordinate methods are kNN, Ridge, and Ridge with size as a covariate (+size). Bold: higher than size, with a bootstrap 95% interval of the difference excluding zero. RMSE and all predictors in Table 7 .
Available without running
Map
Reference
Benchmark / measure
Size
Family
ℓˉ
Coord.
Success
ALFWorld
Success rate
.41 ∗
.49 ∗
.20 ∗
.60 ∗
—
Composition
.23 ∗
.28 ∗
.05
.52 ∗†
.30 ∗
Global
.40 ∗
.62 ∗
.18 +
.88 ∗†
.65 ∗
Local
.41 ∗
.68 ∗
.20 ∗
.96 ∗†
.74 ∗
Table 3: Effect sizes of the behavioral similarity of each model’s five neighbors (§ 3.3 ; positive: neighbors more similar than the remaining models), for the difference in success rate and the four aspects of § 3.3 . Bold: largest of the four columns other than the reference. ∗ : p<0.01 , + : p<0.05 ; † : significantly closer than success-rate neighbors ( p<0.05 ). The success-rate row is omitted for success-rate neighbors. All measures in Table 8 .
Figure 3: Harness displacements add up within an LLM. The 144 τ -bench agents (12 LLMs × 12 harnesses) in their first two principal components (PC1 separates LLMs; axes scaled independently). Squares: BASE; solid arrows: single-component displacements; dashed: their sum, ending at the predicted position of retrieve + think (open circles); filled circles: its measured position. Cosine and norm ratio: medians over the 12 LLMs in the full space.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Trajectory KL (§ 3.1 )
100 LLMs (§ 3.2 , 3.3 )
LLMs
8
100
Reference trajectories
Each model’s own rollouts on the 988 of 1,000 ALFWorld train tasks completed by all 8 models (7,904 trajectories, 187,961 steps)
Rollouts of Qwen3.8-27B and Gemma4-E4B on 250 ALFWorld train tasks (500 trajectories, 10,388 steps)
Reference distribution Q
Equal-weight pool of the 8 models
Equal-weight mixture of the 2 generators
Scoring
Grammar-constrained, canonical tokens; every model scores every trajectory ( 8×8 )
No grammar mask; each model’s chat template
What is compared
Directly measured Ksym (28 pairs)
Success rates and action sequences on ALFWorld valid_unseen, TextWorld, BFCL, MiniWoB++ (50 tasks each; behavior on BFCL uses multi_turn 25); one run per task at temperature 0.7
Appendix
Table 4: The two experiments of § 3 . Both fix the BASE harness. The multi-harness experiment of § 4 is in Table 11 .
Model
B
Family
Model
B
Family
CohereForAI/c4ai-command-r7b-12-2024
8.0
Cohere
allenai/Llama-3.1-Tulu-3-8B-SFT
8.0
Llama
deepseek-ai/deepseek-coder-1.3b-instruct
1.3
DeepSeek
codellama/CodeLlama-13b-Instruct-hf
13.0
Llama
deepseek-ai/deepseek-coder-6.7b-instruct
6.7
DeepSeek
codellama/CodeLlama-34b-Instruct-hf
33.7
Llama
deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-Coder-V2-Lite-Instruct
15.7
DeepSeek
mistralai/Ministral-3-3B-Instruct-2512
3.8
Mistral
deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V2-Lite-Chat
15.7
DeepSeek
mistralai/Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2
7.2
Mistral
deepseek-ai/deepseek-coder-33b-instruct
33.3
DeepSeek
mistralai/Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3
7.2
Mistral
Appendix
Table 5: The 100 open-weight LLMs of § 3.2 – 3.3 , identified by their Hugging Face repository, with parameter counts in billions (total parameters for MoE models) and the family labels used as a baseline. ⋄ : the eight models of the trajectory-KL comparison (§ 3.1 ); ⋆ : the twelve LLMs of the harness experiment (§ 4 ).
r
ρ
RMSE
Step version
Centered
0.90
0.95
2,056
Uncentered
0.83
0.92
3,773
Trajectory version
Centered
0.86
0.94
29,792
Uncentered
0.77
0.92
72,014
Appendix
Table 6: Agreement between the estimates read from the map and the directly measured symmetric trajectory KL Ksym : 8 models, 28 pairs, 988 shared ALFWorld train tasks. The estimates are 2TˉD^S2 for the step version and 21D^τ2 for the trajectory version. RMSE is in nats.
Figure 4: Predicting success rates without running the agents, with leave-one-model-out over 100 models. The horizontal axis is the prediction and the vertical axis the measured success rate. Open gray circles show the size baseline, a regression on log∣θi∣ ; blue points show coordinates alone, a Ridge regression on centered coordinates (the Ridge column of Table 2 ). Panels from left: ALFWorld, TextWorld, BFCL, MiniWoB++, and the four-benchmark average.
Predictor
ALFWorld
TextWorld
BFCL
MiniWoB++
4-bench avg.
3 other envs.
Information available without running
Training mean
16.4 / — ↑
29.0 / — ↑
16.1 / — ↑
27.5 / — ↑
19.2 / — ↑
21.4 / — ↑
Size log∣θi∣
12.6 / 0.63
20.2 / 0.71
13.9 / 0.48
20.9 / 0.64
12.9 / 0.74
14.6 / 0.72
Family mean
14.7 / 0.46
26.8 / 0.44 ↑
15.5 / 0.34
27.6 / 0.24 ↑
17.7 / 0.42 ↑
19.9 / 0.40 ↑
Mean log-likelihood ℓˉ
16.0 / 0.20 ↑
27.2 / 0.33 ↑
15.1 / 0.32
26.6 / 0.22 ↑
18.0 / 0.34 ↑
19.9 / 0.34 ↑
Size + ℓˉ
12.4 / 0.65
19.2 / 0.74
13.4 / 0.54
20.7 / 0.65
12.2 / 0.77
13.8 / 0.76
Appendix
Table 7: All predictors for performance prediction, with leave-one-model-out over 100 models. Each cell gives RMSE in points / Pearson r . ↓ and ↑ mark a 95% bootstrap interval of the RMSE difference from the size baseline that lies below or above zero. The training mean is a constant prediction, so no r is shown.
Composition
Global
Local
Early steps
Outcome
Type JS
Profile
Edit
2-gram
First
Cond.
Diverg.
Success
Pattern
A Choice of neighbors
ALFWorld
Coordinates
0.52
0.63
0.88
0.96
0.61
0.51
0.70
0.60
0.32
Size
0.23
0.40
0.40
0.41
0.30
0.26
0.34
0.41
0.27
Family
0.28
0.48
0.62
0.68
0.49
0.43
0.62
0.49
0.35
Appendix
Table 8: Neighbor effect sizes for all behavioral distances, including those not in the main text; definitions as in Table 3 , 100 models. A: raw behavioral distances, comparing how neighbors are chosen; bold marks the largest value among the four neighbor types available without running. B: effect of coordinate neighbors on residuals after regressing out success rate and size. Unmarked values have p<0.01 , + marks p<0.05 , and gray values are not significant.
Composition
Global
Local
Early steps
Outcome
Type JS
Profile
Edit
2-gram
First
Cond.
Diverg.
Success
Pattern
Neighbors in uncentered coordinates
Raw behavioral distance
ALFWorld
0.32
0.51
0.65
0.73
0.45
0.38
0.52
0.64
0.45
TextWorld
0.19
0.49
0.37
0.40
0.12 +
0.39
0.27 +
0.66
0.68
BFCL
0.12
0.31
0.21
0.31
0.22
0.22
0.45
0.47
0.35
Appendix
Table 9: Variants of coordinate neighbors, with definitions as in Table 8 . Top: neighbors in uncentered coordinates. Bottom: coordinate neighbors restricted to models from other families. Neighbors in centered coordinates are in Table 8 . Unmarked values have p<0.01 , + marks p<0.05 , and gray values are not significant.
ALFWorld
TextWorld
BFCL
MiniWoB++
Reliability correlation across task halves
Type JS
0.97
0.89
0.89
0.95
Edit distance
0.91
0.92
0.89
0.92
2-gram
0.88
0.90
0.87
0.85
First action
0.78
0.82
0.70
0.91
Divergence
0.76
0.90
0.62
0.91
Appendix
Table 10: Reliability of the behavioral distances: correlation between distance matrices computed on two random halves of the tasks, averaged over 30 splits; all standard deviations are at most 0.08. The profile and conditional disagreement cannot be split by task and are omitted.
Reference trajectories (source)
N / steps
LLMs scored
τ -bench
HAL airline
359 / 4,213
12
ALFWorld
own, 3 LLMs × 12 harnesses
210 / 2,299
6
SWE-Bench
HAL SWE-agent
100 / 3,916
6
Appendix
Table 11: Setup of the multi-harness experiment: 12 LLMs × 12 harnesses, scored on the benchmarks that have reference trajectories (ALFWorld and SWE-Bench use 6 of the 12 LLMs). N is the number of reference trajectories and “steps” the number of reference steps scored by all agents.
τ -bench
ALFWorld
SWE-Bench
cos
Norm ratio
Rel. error
cos
Norm ratio
Rel. error
cos
Norm ratio
Rel. error
retrieve + replan
0.97
0.99
0.25
0.62
0.95
0.94
0.97
0.97
0.25
retrieve + think
0.94
1.00
0.34
0.61
0.95
0.95
0.96
0.96
0.28
summarize + replan
0.91
0.96
0.45
0.60
0.89
1.00
0.78
0.89
0.72
summarize + think
0.87
0.98
0.51
0.63
0.91
0.93
0.77
0.86
0.76
replan + think
0.81
0.74
0.77
0.70
0.73
1.03
0.74
0.73
0.95
Appendix
Table 12: Full additivity table (medians over LLMs: cosine, norm ratio, relative reconstruction error). τ -bench uses 12 LLMs; ALFWorld and SWE-Bench use 6 of the 12 LLMs (ALFWorld uses only the 2,299 reference steps scored by all 72 agents). The pooled rows take the median over all LLM–harness cases: the five two-component harnesses (60 cases on τ -bench, 30 on ALFWorld and SWE-Bench) and the two three-component harnesses (24 / 12 / 12 cases).
Figure 5: Additivity for all seven compositions on τ -bench (12 LLMs), in the PC1–PC2 projection of Figure 3 ; axes are scaled independently. The last panel identifies the LLMs by their BASE positions (gray: the other harnesses). Two-component compositions are drawn as parallelograms, three-component ones as chains BASE+ΔA+ΔB+ΔC . Titles give the cosine and norm ratio in the full coordinate space (medians over LLMs).
Behavioral consistency across repeated executions provides an informative signal for assessing the reliability of large language model (LLM) agents. However, existing approaches typically summarize consistency with a single task-level score, without identifying where behavioral differences occur or whether actions are compared under equivalent decision contexts. We propose a graph-based framework for fine-grained behavioral consistency measurement and uncertainty quantification. Given multiple rollouts of the same task, we merge equivalent states into a directed, action-labeled graph, enabling action comparisons at shared decision states. We introduce node-level and global measures of action consistency, using the global consistency score as a proxy for uncertainty to predict task success or failure. Experiments across three LLMs on ALFWorld, AppWorld, and WebShop demonstrate that our measure is positively associated with task success and achieves an average AUROC of 0.811 for task-success prediction, outperforming the strongest behavioral-consistency baseline (0.729) and verbalized confidence (0.769). These results highlight the effectiveness of state-conditioned behavioral consistency and pinpoint where agent actions agree.
Large language model (LLM) agents assist users with everyday tasks that can be completed in many reasonable ways. Even when their answers are useful, how agents carry out these tasks may not match users' preferences and needs. For example, agents differ in whether they ask clarifying questions or search the web. We introduce HABIT, a taxonomy of 23 behavioral axes in five categories, which three authors and three LLMs derive bottom-up from 408 agent trajectories across 17 domains. On held-out tasks, HABIT distinguishes models more clearly than existing taxonomies of human values and agent actions while supporting comparably consistent annotation. Building on HABIT, we construct AgentHABIT, a benchmark that profiles each agent's behavioral tendencies from its trajectories on 86 everyday tasks. Profiling 18 models with AgentHABIT reveals a range of distinctive tendencies. For example, most GPT and Claude models state their assumptions and offer alternatives when requirements conflict, whereas Qwen and Google's models more often leave assumptions or changes to requirements unstated. These profiles remain recognizable even when built from entirely different sets of tasks, indicating that they reflect general tendencies rather than task-specific behavior. Prompting agents to adopt specific behaviors shifts some axes readily but barely changes others, while fine-tuning on another model's trajectories changes only part of a model's profile and leaves much of it intact. Overall, HABIT and AgentHABIT provide a systematic framework for characterizing how agents carry out everyday tasks beyond task success, offering insights to guide the development of agents whose behavior better fits users' needs.
Woojung Song, Hoyeol Yang, Jeonghoon Shim +4
Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Model distillation is a primary driver behind the rapid progress of LLM agents, yet it often leads to behavioral homogenization. Many emerging agents share nearly identical reasoning steps and failure modes, suggesting they may be distilled echoes of a few dominant teachers. Existing metrics, however, fail to distinguish mandatory behaviors required for task success from non-mandatory patterns that reflect a model's autonomous preferences. We propose two complementary metrics to isolate non-mandatory behavioral patterns: Response Pattern Similarity (RPS) for verbal alignment and Action Graph Similarity (AGS) for tool-use habits modeled as directed graphs. Evaluating 18 models from 8 providers on τ-Bench and τ2-Bench against Claude Sonnet 4.5 (thinking), we find that within-family model pairs score 5.9 pp higher in AGS than cross-family pairs, and that Kimi-K2 (thinking) reaches 82.6% Snode and 94.7% Sdep, exceeding Anthropic's own Opus 4.1. A controlled distillation experiment further confirms that AGS distinguishes teacher-specific convergence from general improvement. RPS and AGS capture distinct behavioral dimensions (Pearson r = 0.491), providing complementary diagnostic signals for behavioral convergence in the agent ecosystem. Our code is available at https://github.com/Syuchin/AgentEcho.
Chenghao Yang, Yuning Zhang, Zhoufutu Wen +4
School of Cyber Science and Technology, USTC · Anhui Province Key Laboratory of Digital Security · 3M-A-P +1