Agent Evaluation

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

23 papers in the last four weeks, up 229% on the four weeks before. 0.2% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 97

Oct 5, 2026cs.AI

Measurement-First Auditing of Agentic Leaderboards: Contamination Susceptibility, Matched-Control Re-evaluation, and Scorer Validation

Agentic leaderboards increasingly evaluate systems on public benchmarks whose task statements and solution-bearing artifacts can remain accessible. We propose a measurement-first audit framework that distinguishes contamination claims according to the evidence required to support them. It separates three channels that require different evidence: training-time exposure, evaluation-time retrieval, and pipeline/scaffold leakage. Each channel is coded as open, partial, closed, or unknown under a fail-closed rule. Across nine Holistic Agent Leaderboard (HAL) configurations, none of the 27 channel assessments was coded closed, but incidents were confirmed in four configurations. We then apply the behavioral component of the framework to a reported file-localization gap on SWE-bench Verified, using an outcome-blind, same-repository matched-control design with symmetric prompt-leakage screening, paired and repository-aware uncertainty analyses, and scorer validation, evaluated on GPT-4.1 and DeepSeek-V4-Flash. Among the 100 pairs retained after symmetric screening and the pair-integrity exclusion, GPT-4.1 showed a

+10.0

-point pair-weighted Top-3 benchmark-associated gap, but the 95% intervals from both the prespecified paired-bootstrap procedure and the post-hoc repository-balanced analysis included zero, leaving the benchmark-associated gap inconclusive. The reproduction scorer did not pass its validation gate: against consensus human labels, sufficient scorer sensitivity could not be established for either model, and both DeepSeek-V4-Flash firings on correct-gold comparisons were false positives. Without provenance evidence, appropriate controls, symmetric leakage screening, and validated scorers, stronger contamination claims are not warranted. The results do not establish training-data membership, contamination prevalence, or benchmark-induced score inflation.

Dishu Yang, Qi Su, Hongbo Qin +1

Khoury College of Computer Sciences Northeastern University San Jose, CA, USA · School of Engineering and Applied Science The George Washington University Bellevue, WA, USA · Khoury College of Computer Sciences Northeastern University Boston, MA, USA +1

Benchmark Auditing AI Agent Auditing Benchmark Contamination Agent Evaluation

Oct 1, 2026cs.AI

Continuous Process-Level Evaluation for Evolving Enterprise AI Agent Skills

Enterprise AI agent skills evolve as tool APIs, models, and specifications change, yet final-output evaluation can miss process-level behavioral drift. We present a continuous evaluation framework combining outcome-level and process-level checks, applied to Revenue and Productivity variants of a Business Value Determination skill in an enterprise Value Aware Resiliency system. The framework independently computes per-run ground truth, materializes reusable template tests, and evaluates tool selection, arguments, execution order, and database integrity through programmatic checks and a narrowly scoped LLM judge. We evaluate 240 trials across two skills, two specification variants, two agent harnesses, and three models. Of 175 trials passing all applicable final numerical checks, 162 (92.6 percent; Wilson 95 percent CI: 87.7-95.6 percent) contained another evaluator-detected deviation. Under a broader seven-check final-state definition, 151 of 164 passing runs (92.1 percent; 95 percent CI: 86.9-95.3 percent) still violated a trajectory check. Dependency attribution reduced a mean of 6.34 failed checks per run to 2.65 roots. Specification sensitivity varied by model and harness, with exploratory bootstrap interaction intervals excluding zero for all three Revenue comparisons and one of three Productivity comparisons. Runtime-resolved templates provided reusable regression coverage across the evaluated configurations; longitudinal validation under actual API evolution remains future work.

Ngoc Phuoc An Vo, Aarya Doshi, Vadim Sheinin

IBM · Georgia Institute of Technology · IBM Research

Tool-Use Evaluation AI Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation

Oct 1, 2026cs.AI

MCRI: A Four-Dimensional Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Agent Skills

As agents evolve from single-tool systems into modular, composite architectures, skills are becoming an important mechanism for capability development and distribution. However, the academic community lacks a structured framework for systematically analyzing and evaluating skills. Drawing on information gain and behavioral constraint, we propose the four-dimensional MCRI Framework and operationalize it as MCRI-Eval, a large language model-based evaluation method. We evaluate MCRI-Eval using 63,812 public skills from the OpenClaw skill Hub, with 58,275 skill-conditioned model executions across BigCodeBench, BFCL-Fundamental, and Mind2Web. MCRI-Eval scores are positively associated with community popularity signals and achieve the highest downstream ranking agreement among the evaluated methods. MCRI-Eval also improves top-1 skill selection across all three benchmarks: compared with the strongest baseline on each benchmark, the skills selected by MCRI-Eval advance by 17.7, 22.8, and 19.6 percentile points in downstream performance rank on BigCodeBench, BFCL-Fundamental, and Mind2Web, respectively. These results indicate that MCRI-Eval provides a useful pre-execution signal for prioritizing promising skills before costly execution-based evaluation.

Zongrui Yang, Li Xintong, Runchen Xu +4

LLM Evaluation Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Agentic AI

Oct 1, 2026cs.CL

Auditing Web Agent Evaluation on WebArena-Lite: Human Review of Outcomes and Trajectories

Web agents are an important application of large language models, yet their evaluation often depends on rule based or language model evaluators that inspect only the final outcome. Human verification of task completion and detailed analysis of failed trajectories remain limited. We audit all 165 WebArena Lite tasks under six evaluation conditions built from GPT 5.5 and an untrained Qwen3.5 9B model. The audit retains the original score, corrects false negatives from the automatic evaluator, identifies the first consequential error, and examines progress across the trajectory. We also study a Memory and Analysis Support Mechanism (MASM), which maintains explicit execution state, and Guide Text, which provides task relevant procedural guidance. Across four GPT 5.5 settings, human review recovers 5.45 to 8.49 percentage points of success missed by the evaluator. With a 25 step budget, Guide Text raises corrected success with MASM from 34.55% to 38.18%. On the untrained Qwen3.5 9B model, MASM raises the evaluator score from 13.90% to 18.80%. Review of 102 failed GPT 5.5 trajectories reveals frequent scrolling loops, unfinished exploration, premature answers, invalid actions, and incomplete form workflows. Step level evidence further shows that substantial early progress can coexist with a final failure. These results show why final scores alone provide an incomplete account of web agent behavior and motivate human grounded, trajectory aware verification.

Chengguang Gan, Zimeng He, Yoshihiro Tsujii +3

Techtouch, Inc. · Institute of Science Tokyo

AI Agent Auditing Web Agent Benchmarks Human-in-the-Loop Evaluation Agent Evaluation

Oct 1, 2026cs.AI

Verify Claims, Not Scores: Evidence-Based Verification of Modular Agents

When developers change one component of an agent, such as its controller, a learned model or its verifier, they usually judge the change by an aggregate task score. That score cannot tell whether improvement was attainable, which component lost value, or what the agent's own checks certify. We introduce a claim-specific verification audit for modular agents that plan, act, check and refine. Instead of scoring the agent, the audit scores the evidence: each conclusion is recorded with the evidence behind it, one of four verdicts (supported, unsupported, unresolved or not evaluated) and the boundary within which it holds. Three tools supply that evidence. Oracle policies measure attainable improvement under an explicitly stated action set, so that a low value can be traced to the evaluation rather than to the environment. Replacing one component at a time with a perfect counterpart locates lost value, with null results read as unresolved whenever a downstream component could mask them. A separate test asks whether the verifier's score identifies the quantity it is read as bounding. Applied to a constrained portfolio-allocation agent in a synthetic market with known hidden regimes, the audit shows that the value of perfect regime information depends on the action set used to measure it, that the scenario generator discards most of the regime signal while better local fidelity does not improve decisions, and that the runtime verifier can be bypassed with no visible change in outcomes. The contribution is the protocol and the evidential distinctions it enforces; the empirical findings are specific to the agent and environment studied.

Ali Atiah Alzahrani

AI Agent Auditing Agent Evaluation

Sep 30, 2026cs.AI

Agent Evaluation Reliability: More Tasks Won't (Always) Fix An Agent Leaderboard

Agent evaluations are increasingly used to compare LLMs and inform deployment decisions, yet ranks can reflect not only the model but also the effects of the evaluation conditions such as the scaffolds or tasks. This makes reliability claim-dependent: an evaluation that reliably ranks deployed systems may not reliably rank underlying models. We ask which conclusions current agent evaluations reliably support and what additional evaluation would improve them. We develop a Bayesian variance-decomposition framework for sparse, imbalanced agent leaderboards and apply it to 22 benchmarks from the Holistic Agent Leaderboard and Harbor Index. The framework separates signal, performance differences relevant to the intended claim, from noise, irrelevant variation that can still change rankings. We find: (1) Reliability depends on the measurement goal. Fixed model-scaffold systems are ranked reliably (0.935-0.994), while underlying-model reliability is substantially lower (0.148-0.841). (2) Scaffold choice can change conclusions. Inter-scaffold reliability measures whether scaffolds preserve model rankings, showing that scaffold effects vary substantially across evaluations. (3) More tasks cannot resolve all uncertainty. Even infinitely many similarly constructed tasks improve model-ranking reliability of a benchmark by at most 0.097 when uncertainty is dominated by limited scaffold coverage. (4) Pooling diverse benchmarks can improve cross-task rankings at lower cost. For rankings across diverse agentic tasks, pooling benchmarks raises projected reliability from 0.44 to 0.75 at the same task budget and can reduce projected cost by up to 83%. Evaluation design should follow the intended claim: identify what a score or ranking should mean, diagnose what limits its reliability, and spend evaluation budget on the sources of uncertainty that matter.

Michael Hardy, Ruhana Azam, Anka Reuel +2

Stanford University · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Senior Author

AI Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks

Sep 30, 2026cs.LG

Hard-Gate Candidacy in a Deployed Validator Suite

Before a validator can be promoted to a hard gate on a deployment pipeline, it has to be shown that its firing separates outputs that reach users in working order from those that do not. We run that screen on 13 validators in a deployed generative agent, against 550 runtime and 350 static builds labelled by downstream outcome, and report each check's marginal separation

J=\mathrm{TPR}-\mathrm{FPR}

with Newcombe intervals and Fisher exact tests. Two checks survive correction for multiple comparisons, two more are nominal only, and the remaining nine are not distinguishable from zero, three of them because they never fired on any sampled build. Execution itself is not random with respect to the property being gated, and this replicates: across four runs covering 1,867 builds and ten distinct runtime checks, probes were skipped on 144 of 895 broken builds and 1 of 972 acceptable builds (per-run rates 15.6% to 16.6% against at most 0.3%), every skip carrying the same unsafe-to-probe reason. Because a skipped check is recorded as a pass, this imposes a ceiling that no check quality can lift: a check that needs a live artifact cannot operationally detect more than about 84% of broken builds in this harness. For the one check with construct-specific labels, a detector built for blank output fires on 0 of 90 human-labelled blank builds (95% upper bound on sensitivity 3.3%), and the global frame statistic it approximates separates the classes only weakly (AUC 0.59), so the gap is not a threshold that needs tuning. The same gap appears one layer up: on a census of tens of thousands of judge-scored builds, 32.5% of rejections carry no recorded issue at all. We argue that evaluation records must distinguish a check that ran and passed from one that did not run, must carry the evidence for a rejection, and that an inventory of checks is not evidence about a gate.

Xin Xu

Carnegie Mellon University

Agent Reliability Agent Evaluation Fault Detection Runtime Enforcement for AI Agents

Sep 30, 2026cs.AI

Risk-Aware Adaptive Evaluation: Finding High-Impact Failures Under Limited Budgets

Evaluating interactive agents is expensive. Agent behavior is stochastic, so reliability must be measured over repeated trials, but failures are rare and differ widely in how much they matter. Standard benchmarks spend this budget uniformly: a read-only lookup is sampled as often as an irreversible payment action. We instead formulate evaluation as a sequential allocation problem. Given a fixed trial budget and a set of scenarios whose failure behavior is unknown, which scenarios should be run, and run again? We propose a risk-aware contextual Thompson Sampling policy that combines a pre-execution scenario context vector and a fixed impact score with the failure outcomes observed during evaluation, and we test it by offline replay over 70

τ

-bench airline scenarios and 824 recorded trials. Our main result is at the smallest budget: with only 50 trials (

6\%

of the corpus), the policy recovers

86\%

of the impact-weighted failures an oracle could find, compared to

25\%

for uniform allocation. It discovers

3.5\times

more impact-weighted failures (215.4 vs. 62.2) with the same number of trials, delivers

5\times

the discovery per dollar, and cuts the budget wasted on scenarios that never fail from

34\%

to

2.8\%

. The rest of our analysis demonstrates and qualifies this result: a budget sweep shows the advantage shrinks as the budget approaches the corpus size, and paired significance tests show that scenario context helps mainly at small budgets while posterior-based exploration helps at moderate ones. Risk-aware adaptive allocation therefore helps most exactly where evaluation budget is scarcest.

Priyanath Maji, Spandan Ghose Chowdhury

Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332

Thompson Sampling AI Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation Adaptive Sampling Contextual Bandits

Sep 28, 2026cs.SD

CoSE-E: A Benchmark for Code-switched Speech Evaluation in Enterprise Settings

Code-switching (CS), a seamless alternation between languages within a single utterance, remains a critical challenge in automatic speech recognition (ASR). While prior works focus on conversational CS-ASR, enterprise settings demand evaluation of operational impact beyond edit-distance errors: how code-switching transcription errors propagate to downstream voice agent task failures. In this work, we propose (1) a CS-ASR synthetic benchmark and multidimensional evaluation framework tailored to enterprise domains, (2) systematic evaluation of frontier ASR systems across 5 language pairs, (3) diagnostic analysis of the additional transcription errors that code-switching introduces across language pairs and models. We release COSE-E to support enterprise-focused CSASR evaluation for multilingual voice agents in enterprise deployment.

Shama Gupta, Hoang H Nguyen, Chelsea Huang +2

ServiceNow AI Research · Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.

Code-Switching Speech Recognition ASR Evaluation Agent Evaluation Multilingual ASR

Sep 28, 2026cs.CL

Almost Human, Except When It Matters: VoxParity and the Decisions a Voice Should Change

A voice agent can handle almost every call on the words alone and still fail the few its sector's rules were written for. Emergency-call standards, fraud guidance, radio phraseology and vulnerability rules recognise that how a caller sounds, or what else is audible, can change the right action. VoxParity tests whether agents act on it. In 183 scenarios from 14 sectors, one transcript stays fixed while the audio changes (a coaching voice, a medical monitor beeping, a mayday under a radio check, noise over a drug name, a child's voice placing a bet, a frightened whisper), and with it the correct typed tool call. A words-only null test credits a system only if hearing the call moves its actions more than it moves a pipeline that only reads the words. Only 11 of the 23 systems that can also be run on the transcript pass. Descriptively, errors run toward the words: when the audio calls for protection, all 28 systems carry out the routine request more often than they over-react on clean calls (41% against 12% pooled; the words-only pipeline, 58% against 15%). Exploratory analyses place most of the leading systems' misses on cues they heard; systems beat the null almost entirely on items that state the rule; the leading systems overrule heard resignation or confusion far more often than acute alarm; and, in the models tested, describing the voice and stating the rule each recover part of the shortfall, leaving a gap on emotion.

Bhavik Mangla

Independent Research

Spoken Dialogue Systems Audio Reasoning Agent Evaluation Tool Use

Sep 23, 2026cs.CL

Persuaded, Not Informed: Incentive-Misaligned Witnesses Defeat In-Context Grounding

Language-model agents increasingly answer questions over customer-relationship management (CRM) records, such as whether to qualify a sales lead. We identify a failure mode not addressed by a stronger model: when the context contains an assertion by a party with an incentive toward optimism - here the sales representative, a witness recorded in the CRM - the model treats the assertion as evidence and clears deals the company's own records deem unacceptable. Across 100 lead-qualification tasks from CRMArena-Pro, the representative asserts an acceptable timeline in every call and an acceptable budget in 76; on the 31 tasks where such an assertion contradicts the price list and installation policy, a model reading only the transcript clears the deal in 29 of 31 cases. The signature is consistent across seven models from four providers (misled on 87-97%); scale and explicit reasoning confer no resistance. Only 3 of 35 genuine failures involve no assertion: the failure is persuasion, not missing information. We contribute a diagnostic method rather than an architecture: (i) a bucket analysis that separates persuasion from information gaps, (ii) a same-information control showing that supplying the records to the model lowers strict accuracy from 41 to 18 while raising recall - precision collapses - and (iii) a compute-step control that holds extraction fixed and varies only who computes Budget and Timeline. The margin ranges from 42 points on an inexpensive model to 2-5 points on models that already compute correctly; on the strongest models the arms are within confidence intervals, so the pattern is a consistent direction and a soundness property, not a proved performance floor. We pre-specify a generalization test that returns a negative result, characterize the precondition (a policy exactly specified in the inputs), and release all evaluation artifacts.

Rahul Balakavi

AmpUp Research

Knowledge Conflicts in Language Models Agent Evaluation Persuasion in Language Models

Sep 23, 2026cs.CL

Reward Hacking Challenges Oversight of Autonomous Research Agents

Autonomous research agents can design experiments, evaluate results, and write reports, giving them control over both a scientific result and the evidence used to support it. This creates a risk of reward hacking: meeting the reward criteria without achieving the intended goal. We study (1) how often models reward-hack without instructions to do so, (2) how effective and detectable their methods are when hacking is allowed, and (3) how they adapt when an LLM review panel returns its decision and reasons. Across 17 language models and 38 tasks, the spontaneous reward-hacking rate is 30.5% on open-ended research-pipeline tasks and 2.9% on task-specific kernels. When hacking is allowed on tasks whose pass thresholds exceed our best compliant baselines, 505/677 attempts (74.6%) are confirmed reward hacks: they both clear the threshold and receive mechanism-verification panel confirmation of an evaluation exploit. An LLM panel reviewing only submitted code and reported scores misses 33/505 confirmed hacks (6.5%). Direct methods that achieve the highest scores are often easy to detect, while less direct methods evade more often. In a five-round loop, the number of model-task pairs with an evasion rises from 7 to 56. Among 79 pairs evaluated under two feedback conditions, cumulative evasion reaches 40.5% with detailed feedback and 20.3% with generic rejection. The detailed condition includes the review decision, reasons, and attempt history, so this comparison does not isolate the effect of explanations. These findings highlight the need for stronger defenses, including metrics kept outside the agent's control and independent recomputation on data chosen to expose likely exploits.

Yue Huang, Zhangchen Xu, Yuchen Ma +12

Bake AI · University of Notre Dame · University of Washington +6

Reward Hacking AI Agent Auditing Agent Evaluation Autonomous Research Agents

Sep 21, 2026cs.CL

OSWorld-Pro: Process-based Evaluation for Computer Use Agents

Evaluation of Computer-Use Agents (CUAs) is often limited to the final deliverables they create (at the end of hundreds of steps) and assessed with functional verifiers, as seen in OSWorld. However, such evaluation of end-state performance lacks transparency into how and why agents fail in various tasks, obfuscating critical insight for subsequent improvement. For instance, agents that err during keyboard inputs would require a different mitigation strategy from those that fail to precisely provide click-based inputs on the graphical UI. We introduce OSWorld-Pro: a set of over 300 tasks containing over 2800 subgoals to enable the procedural evaluation of CUAs grounded in over 67,000 human annotations. We use robust human-aligned LLM-Judges to evaluate the fulfillment of OSWorld-Pro subgoals and thereby reveal the progress that models make throughout a series of sequentially dependent subgoals. Our findings reveal that OSWorld-Pro is challenging even for state-of-the-art LLMs, with top performers like Claude Opus 5 achieving only 75.7% vs. 83.4% on OSWorld. Furthermore, we identify critical process-focused failure modes of various models (e.g. subgoal-irrelevant actions and click-based mistakes) to provide insights to improve performance and efficiency of CUAs.

Zhilin Wang, Shaokun Zhang, Yifan Zhang +9

NVIDIA

Computer-Use Agent Benchmarks Computer-Use Agents Agent Evaluation

Sep 17, 2026cs.AI

MTVA-Bench: Evaluating the Language Model Inside Cascaded Voice Agents

Generally, most voice agents are cascaded systems, i.e., an ASR model transcribes the caller's audio, a language model reads the transcript and decides what to say and which backend tools to call, and a TTS model speaks the reply. Nearly all of the decision making happens in the language model, but existing evaluations measure it either too broadly or too narrowly. End-to-end voice benchmarks score the full pipeline, so recognition errors and model errors mix into a single number. LLM benchmarks isolate the model but they do not evaluate what makes real phone calls hard, such as transcription issues, caller's voice being split across messages and the requirement that replies follow the language and script specified. We introduce the Multi-Turn Voice Agent Benchmark (MTVA-Bench), which evaluates the language model on the same conditions it faces inside a cascaded system. The caller is played by an LLM following a set of rubrics and tool calls are answered by a mock backend which responds to the arguments the model actually sent. The benchmark contains 49 agents working across 490 reviewed scenarios and supports 7 languages. Scoring is a combination of deterministic checks on tool calls with two LLM judges, one that scores scenario specific rules and one that grades conversation quality without access to the task. Both judges must cite specific messages from the transcript. Task and conversation scores are weighted equally, since a call can complete its task and still go badly for the caller. In a seven-model study, six of the models select the correct tool within 6.4 points of one another, but their overall scores span 24.4 points. Most of the gap comes from argument values, action ordering, rule compliance, and what the model says around its tool calls.

Pritish Mishra, Ishaan Kumar, Akshat Mandoli +1

Smallest AI

Voice Agent Evaluation Multilingual Language Model Evaluation LLM Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Multi-Turn Dialogue Evaluation+1

Sep 15, 2026cs.HC

Lexara-RF: Reference-Free Metrics for Evaluating Conversational Visual Analytics Agents

Conversational visual analytics (CVA) agents powered by large language models generate visualizations and natural-language explanations from open-ended queries. Evaluating these multimodal outputs is challenging: curated reference benchmarks are costly to author, cannot comprehensively capture the space of valid responses, and are unavailable in production. Building on the Lexara evaluation framework, we introduce Lexara-RF, a reference-free set of metrics that scores CVA outputs using only the prompt, data, and model response. We reformulate evaluation as verification: 13 metrics operationalize visualization design theory and Gricean cooperative principles as computable consistency, intent-alignment, and design validity checks. On a human-rated corpus of CVA test-cases, Lexara-RF achieves alignment comparable to reference-based formulations, outperforms surface-similarity NLG baselines, and localizes structurally grounded failures with high accuracy.

Srishti Palani, Vidya Setlur

Tableau Research, Palo Alto, CA, USA

Agent Evaluation Visual Analytics Reference-Free Evaluation

Sep 15, 2026cs.AI

Skill-based Agentic Evaluation for Real-time Data Science Tasks

We present a framework for evaluating data-science agents on live, continuously updated data using executable ground truth and format-agnostic factoid scoring. Consider this example query: "what were last week's audience sizes"---the reference answer changes as the underlying data changes, so static references become outdated and standard LLM-as-a-judge pipelines cannot verify responses against a fixed ground truth. Our central contribution, ground-truth-as-code, encodes each expected answer as an executable reference function that recomputes the answer directly from live data at evaluation time, ensuring the reference remains consistent with the system it describes. We combine this with a factoid-level, format-agnostic judge that decomposes both the agent's response and the computed ground truth into atomic claims and scores precision, recall, and accuracy over them, irrespective of the response format (prose, list, table, HTML, etc.). The approach is applicable to agents whose expected outputs can be expressed as executable data computations. We validate the framework through a human--LLM agreement study on an internally developed machine learning skill deployed in production, using a synthetic database constructed to reproduce production schemas and entity relationships. Relative to a natural-language ground-truth baseline, our method achieves a 29% improvement in the Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC)---a class-balanced measure of agreement between expert annotators and LLM-as-a-judge predictions---and a 16% reduction in token consumption per test case, while a self-directed baseline lacking explicit ground truth is anti-correlated with human judgment. Agents that perform multi-source data integration and computation over non-stationary data are routinely deployed in industry; we propose ground-truth-as-code as a practical methodology for their evaluation.

Aniruddha Tamhane, Raghavendra Addanki, Ayushi Aggarwal +4

Adobe

LLM-as-a-Judge LLM Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation Data Analysis Agents

Sep 14, 2026cs.LG

Evaluating Open-Weight E-Commerce Agents with Environment-Grounded Verification

A shopping conversation has many routes to the same cart, and a task-success rate reduces all of them to one score. We build a deterministic and reproducible e-commerce environment that precommits each trial's customer and trajectory parameters, including the persona, difficulty, target cart, and an item reveal schedule. A simulated consumer attempts to buy a target cart from the environment with assistance from the evaluated model. The environment guides the simulator's actions and records every assistant action alongside the environment state at that point. After the trial, these records allow the evaluator to assess individual parts of the conversation against the retained evidence. For example, the evaluator penalizes a search for failing to surface a target product only when the customer has already mentioned that product. We further use this evidence to apply different penalties to tool calls depending on how the assistant's actions compare with an expected tool-call set. Our environment also interacts with the simulator bidirectionally, reading its output to stop the trial when the simulator determines that the customer has become too frustrated and injecting directives in real time that specify when to explore, defer buying an item, or recall a previous exchange. This interaction creates an open-ended and verifiable simulation. Across eight open-weight agents from 20B to 35B parameters, with 160 trials per agent and 44 metrics, the resulting capability profiles distinguish under-action, over-purchase, unsupported product attributes, and poor search, all of which terminal success obscures.

Nimit Shah, Haitz Sáez de Ocáriz Borde

AION

Tool-Use Evaluation LLM Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation Agentic Commerce

Sep 14, 2026cs.IR

Clean Scores, Buried Evidence, and Confident Wrong: A Receipt-Based Audit of Frontier Agentic QA

Frontier models score well on shallow document/chart reading tasks. In a controlled data-room audit, moving evidence into buried conditions reduced accuracy, increased forced declarations, increased tool calls, and increased cost per correct answer. Confidence and benchmark calibration did not fully capture wrong answers; a documented production incident shows fabricated structural claims can be mixed with accurate numeric tables. Agentic evaluations need claim-level receipts (statement-level provenance, not answer-level scores), condition-aware scoring, and human-adversarial verification - an auditing discipline, not a leaderboard. The setting we measure is financial due diligence; the setting we are building toward next is defense staff work, where the same buried-evidence shape appears. In both, the model is not a party to the consequences; the person who signs is. In plain terms: in the documented cases we examine, agents can pair accurate numbers with confident fabricated explanations, and the burden of proof must therefore move from the model to the evidence trail.

Luis M. Sánchez

Toryx Inc.

Data Provenance AI Agent Auditing Factual Consistency Evaluation Agent Evaluation Agentic AI Language Model Auditing

Sep 14, 2026cs.SE

Reality Is the Final Verifier: On Two Key Gaps in Agentic Software Engineering

Software development follows an implementation-verification loop in which developers or agents iteratively revise an implementation until an evaluator, such as a test suite, accepts it. The evaluator checks the implementation against a set of requirements under a model of the deployment environment. Yet even a formal proof that the implementation satisfies the requirements under the model cannot guarantee acceptable behavior after deployment. Requirements only approximate stakeholder intent, and the model only approximates the real deployment environment. We call these together - requirement gap and model gap - the two-gap framework, which unifies the main failure modes of agentic software engineer-ing: reward hacking exploits omissions in the requirements or model, while hallucination widens the gaps by fabricating requirements or environment assumptions. Because neither gap can generally be certified closed in an open, changing world, the goal shifts from closing them to continuously narrowing them. We therefore propose an assurance-revision loop that uses deployment evidence to revise the requirements, model, or evaluator when stakeholders reject the resulting behavior. We then cast assured agentic development as a resource-allocation problem over human judgment, agent capability, and compute. The two principal bottlenecks mirror the two gaps: human judgment for the requirement gap and faithful, costly evaluation for the model gap. Reality remains the final verifier: acceptable behavior under actual deployment conditions is the ultimate test, while predeployment evaluations remain proxies for it.

Alexander Krentsel, Shubham Agarwal, Mert Cemri +5

UC Berkeley

AI Agent Reliability Software Engineering Agents Agent Evaluation AI Agent Monitoring

Sep 11, 2026cs.CL

Overview of the NLPCC 2026 Shared Task 11: Agent-Based Experiment Reproduction from Scientific Papers

Reproducibility is essential to scientific progress, yet the growing volume and complexity of scientific publications make exhaustive manual verification increasingly impractical. Although recent advances in large language model (LLM) agents enable automated experiment reproduction, existing evaluations largely focus on final repositories and are typically limited to machine learning (ML). We introduce AgentActionBench, a process-oriented benchmark for evaluating agent-based experiment reproduction across ML and AI4Science domains. Our framework uses an MCP-based Action Recorder to capture agents' behaviour throughout the reproduction process and evaluates the resulting traces with paper-specific rubrics. AgentActionBench contains 150 papers, including 120 ML papers and 30 AI4Science papers. A human-annotated subset covering 10% of the benchmark provides validation data, while model-assisted augmentation expands the full benchmark to more than 10,000 rubric items. Experimental results show that current systems remain limited, with execution as the primary bottleneck. Meanwhile, the strong Pearson and Spearman correlations between model-generated and human-annotated rubrics validate the reliability of our scalable rubric-generation approach.

Hanhua Hong, Yizhi Li, Luu Gia Huy +3

The University of Manchester · IQuest Research · Vietnam National University +2

AI Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Scientific Reproducibility

Sep 10, 2026cs.AI

OpenDiscoveryTrace: Process Traces for Evaluating AI Scientist Workflows

Existing benchmarks for autonomous AI scientists evaluate only final outputs---generated code, hypotheses, or papers---yet discard the reasoning process by which those outputs were obtained. This makes it impossible to audit scientific methodology, diagnose failure modes, or distinguish systematic reasoning from fortunate guessing. We present \textbf{OpenDiscoveryTrace}, a public dataset of 558 complete AI scientific agent trajectories that captures how models reason, not just what they produce. Each trajectory records a structured 9-field-per-step trace---including thoughts, tool calls, observations, errors, revision triggers, and self-reported confidence---as models execute 124 scientific tasks spanning drug discovery, materials science, genomics, and scientific literature analysis. The dataset covers seven models: three frontier models (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, and Gemini 3.1 Pro; 124 trajectories each, fully balanced across domains and difficulty levels) and four open-weight models (Qwen2.5-7B, Mistral-7B-v0.3, Phi-3.5-mini, and Qwen2.5-1.5B; 30 each), plus 60 live-retrieval variant trajectories. Pilot analysis on 363 LLM-judged trajectories reveals that process traces expose behavioral differences invisible to output-only evaluation: all three frontier models achieve comparable success rates (84--89%), yet Claude Opus 4.6 produces 30

\times

more errors than GPT-5.4 (2.5 vs. 0.08 per trajectory,

p < 0.0001

, Cliff's

\delta = 0.613

), with qualitatively different error profiles---66.7% tool misuse for Claude versus 83.6% reasoning errors for GPT-5.4. We define five benchmark tasks with baselines from logistic regression, random forests, LSTMs, and Transformer models. The dataset, trace schema, agent harness, and benchmark definitions are publicly available under CC BY 4.0 to support research on process-level evaluation, scientific agent auditing, and AI governance.

Aayam Bansal, Keertan Balaji

AI for Science AI Agent Auditing LLM Auditing AI Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks

Sep 8, 2026cs.AI

Qiushi Engine on AstaBench E2E-Bench-Hard

This report analyzes Qiushi Engine v0.8 across all 40 test tasks in AstaBench E2E-Bench-Hard, a benchmark that requires autonomous agents to carry a research question through experimental design, code implementation, actual execution, result analysis, and report delivery. Qiushi Engine is model-configurable; this evaluation selected DeepSeek deepseek-v4pro-preview as the model backend. The official AstaBench leaderboard records a score of 0.816 and an average benchmark cost of USD 15.209 per task, while the full-precision local recomputation is

81.59 \pm 1.87

. Four tasks satisfied every rubric item, yielding a full-task completion rate of 4/40 = 10% -- 7 percentage points above, and about 3.3 times, the approximately 3% best rate reported for AstaBench's official agents. Across 507 required rubric items, 416 were satisfied (82.1%). Official scoring archives and 40 Meta-Trace records show sustained production and verification of reports, code, and experimental artifacts; the principal gaps lie in repeated runs, external dependencies, specified metrics, and ablation studies. The report explains the benchmark, system workflow, aggregate results, representative cases, and limits of interpretation.

Wenhao Li, Shuxing Yang, Fujia Chen +13

Qiushi Engine Team, College of Information Science and Electronic Engineering Zhejiang University

Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Autonomous Research Agents

Sep 7, 2026cs.AI

When Intelligence Becomes Agency: A Theory of Governed, Proactive Agency for Symbiotic AI Systems

Persistent AI assistants are intended to extend human attention, memory, and coordination across changing digital and physical environments. To be truly useful they must do more than just act when asked. They must decide on their own whether a situation warrants behavior at all, when it does and in what mode, whether to act, ask, monitor, defer or deliberately refrain. We call this the activation problem. Research on commitment, appraisal, mixed-initiative interaction and delegation each illuminates part of it, but none ties situated activation to continuing authorization and accountability. This paper develops a conceptual and formal framework for governed proactive agency, organizing behavior across time through perception, intent, affective-conative appraisal, constraint, and feedback. It distinguishes autonomous and delegated agency and defines symbiotic agency as delegation under a standing, revocable mandate, with continuing coupling to the principal's situation, calibrated inference of their condition, and bounded personalization. The distinctive contribution is an integrated account linking activation decisions to authorized perception, behavior selection, authority containment, traceable restraint, and constrained adaptation, with behavioral episodes as the unit of analysis. Through an agency classification method, an evaluation framework, proposed benchmark scenarios, and a reference architecture, the account provides a basis for specifying and assessing whether assistance is warranted, timely, authorized, and answerable beyond task completion alone. It is intended to guide the development and evaluation of always-present personal assistants and embodied support systems that augment human capabilities while preserving the principal's authority and judgment.

João Dias Ferreira

Wyrde AI

Agent Evaluation Proactive Assistance AI Agent Governance Human Oversight of AI Human-AI Collaboration

Sep 7, 2026cs.AI

APPSim-Bench: Bridging Real-world Apps and Reproducible Evaluation for Mobile GUI Agents

Mobile GUI agents can execute tasks from natural-language instructions, but their evaluation remains difficult to make both realistic and reproducible. Existing benchmarks typically trade off these goals: simplified apps lack real-world mobile complexity, whereas live commercial apps introduce uncontrolled variation from recommendations, advertisements, accounts, and changing content. We propose AppSim-Bench, which addresses this trade-off through controllable simulated apps that preserve task-relevant interaction logic while supporting deterministic evaluation. Built through a coding-agent-assisted and human-verified workflow, it contains 557 tasks across 17 high-frequency Chinese and English apps. Its controllable backend data and outcome-based verification remove major sources of environmental stochasticity, enabling reproducible cross-model comparison. Evaluating 19 GUI agents, spanning general-purpose and GUI-specialized systems, we find that autonomous mobile execution remains far from solved. The best model completes only 50.27% of tasks, and 28.55% of tasks are not solved by any agent. Further analysis shows that failures concentrate in longer workflows, numerical reasoning tasks, and inefficient trajectories marked by high action overhead and budget exhaustion. Our project is available at https://github.com/Acrab-Agentic-Labs/AppSim.

Jintian Feng, Long Chen, Xiao Yu +7

Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence and New Forms of Education, Central China Normal University · Faculty of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Central China Normal University · Agentic Labs, Acrab AI

Mobile GUI Automation GUI Agents Agent Evaluation Mobile GUI Agents

Sep 2, 2026cs.AI

ClaimReceipt: Verifying Evidence Sufficiency and Coverage in Agent Evaluations

Agent evaluations face two distinct evidentiary questions: whether a reported claim is recomputable from retained evidence (sufficiency), and whether the retained records cover the committed experiment set (coverage). Generic logs and hash-linked transcripts answer neither reliably. We introduce ClaimReceipt, a claim-relative receipt specification and selective verifier that binds typed transaction evidence to a signed experiment manifest and returns PASS, INVALID, or INCONCLUSIVE per claim. We freeze the specification before implementation (SHA-256 18d109...b81). On 1,392 historical buyer--seller records, a CR-2 verifier reproduces all five manually labeled audit verdicts, exactly replays 600 deterministic and 792 post-generation records, makes every one of 13 declared field groups non-redundant under tested ablations, and returns the expected result on 11/11 semantic faults with 0/8 false positives. We then run a separate prospective CR-3 epoch: 30 assignments are committed before inference, terminal receipts are signed and chained, and private evidence is encrypted for an auditor. Complete evidence yields coverage and accounting PASS; withholding one terminal receipt returns INCONCLUSIVE_COVERAGE, while withholding all private openings preserves coverage and protocol verification but makes economic claims inconclusive, exactly matching a preregistered prediction. Receipt instrumentation adds 0.021% of model-inference time and 9.9 KB per transaction. A specification-legibility probe indicates that our own frozen specification is not yet unambiguous to an independent reader. Claim verification therefore requires both claim-sufficient evidence and a committed universe against which omissions become visible.

Peiying Zhu, Sidi Chang

Blossom AI Blossom AI Labs San Francisco, CA, USA

Claim Verification Data Provenance Agent Evaluation

Sep 1, 2026cs.AI

DramaChain Bench: An End-to-End Benchmark for Short-Drama Generation

Commercial short-drama production follows a multi-stage chain: script, storyboard, keyframe imagery, shot-level video, and the finished short drama. Most existing benchmarks evaluate solely the video-generation stage using pre-authored inputs instead of real upstream pipeline outputs. This leaves two critical questions unanswerable: whether each stage adheres to the original script intent (rather than only its immediate input prompt), and whether disparate shots remain coherent after assembly into multi-episode releases. We present DramaChain Bench, the first short-drama benchmark that evaluates every stage of the complete production chain. It is built upon three in-house systems sharing one dimension system, DramaChain Dimensions: five evaluation axes instantiated at every stage, resolving into 63 leaf dimensions. DramaChain Agent is calibrated against commercial short-drama platforms in both workflow and finished short-drama quality, enabling stage-wise fair comparison across models. DramaChain Labeling System has each of the 5,785 items scored independently by three professional annotators, with all defects spatio-temporally localised and selected from a predefined defect list. This process produces 17,488 valid scores and 255,925 traceable attribution records. The human annotations confirm that upstream defects cascade across the pipeline, demonstrating that final episode quality is not governed by video generation alone. DramaChain Agentic Judge then scores every leaf dimension automatically, gathering evidence over multiple agentic rounds before judging against a per-item checklist; it reproduces the model ranking at a mean PLCC of 0.918, enough to admit new models at no annotation cost.

Haoyuan Shi, Mingtao Chen, Shuo Jiang +12

Hunyuan, Tencent · Beijing Film Academy · Peking University +1

Agent Evaluation Temporal Consistency in Video Generation Video Generation Evaluation

Aug 25, 2026cs.AI

Benchmarking LLM Judges for Voice-Agent Evaluation: Reliability, Calibration, and Human Oversight

Evaluating conversational voice agents at scale re- quires reliable assessment methods that capture both observ- able interaction quality and the contextual judgment typically provided by human evaluators. We investigate LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation by comparing human judgments with GPT-4.1 and GPT-5 on telecom and retail voice-agent conversations, across conversational quality and safety dimensions. The same interac- tions are scored under three evaluation configurations, p0, p1, and p2, to test whether automated judgments are sensitive to the evaluation setup and whether observed patterns generalize across configurations and judge models. Beyond aggregate agreement, we examine metric-level correlations, evaluator consistency, and systematic human-LLM disagreement to identify which conver- sational attributes can be judged reliably by automation and which remain sensitive to interpretation and context. Effective voice-agent evaluation is also shaped by pipeline-level factors such as speech generation, streaming, and error propagation across ASR, reasoning, and tool-calling stages, motivating our focus on comparing how human and LLM judges score the same interactions end to end. Our results show that LLM- based evaluation can serve as an effective component of large- scale voice-agent assessment, but that its reliability is metric- and configuration-dependent rather than uniform. This pro- vides an empirical framework for identifying which metrics suit automated evaluation and supports hybrid pipelines in which LLM judges handle scalable assessment while human evaluators remain engaged for metrics that demand contextual interpretation and higher-confidence judgment.

Anupam Purwar, Shashank Singh, Kritika Srivastava

Sprinklr AI Gurugram, India · Sprinklr AI Bengaluru, India

Voice Agent Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge LLM Agent Evaluation Human-in-the-Loop Evaluation Agent Evaluation

Aug 17, 2026cs.CV

HarnessEval-W: Agentifying the Evaluation of Visual Worlds

A benchmark should deliver more than a scalar score: what makes an evaluation trustworthy is the reasoning that justifies the score. This is especially critical for world models, where judging a rollout requires understanding whether physics, causality, and world state evolve correctly. Humans spot such violations naturally, yet no existing benchmark automates this capability: metrics are computed brute-force, leaving no reasoning chain that can be examined or verified. We introduce HarnessEval-W, an agentified evaluation pipeline that brings the harness paradigm from the LLM ecosystem to world model benchmarking. Rather than applying a fixed rubric, HarnessEval-W interprets the context of each evaluation case, decomposes the evaluation question into measurable subproblems, and spawns specialized sub-agents, each equipped with tailored context and diagnostic tools to reason over its own subproblem. The parent agent then validates the gathered evidence and summarizes it into the final verdict. This hierarchical workflow turns every evaluation into a transparent evidence tree whose complete reasoning chain justifies the result. We apply HarnessEval-W to 18 representative world models over 330 evaluation cases. Its judgments closely align with human preferences while providing verifiable, fine-grained diagnoses of every generated rollout. We open-source the full pipeline as a live benchmark and invite the broad community to contribute to grow new skills and evaluation cases as world models evolve.

Weiliang Chen, Haowen Sun, Jun Gao +40

Agent Evaluation Automated Evaluation World Model Evaluation

Aug 13, 2026cs.AI

QuoteBench: How Matched Scores Can Hide Command-Path Failures

LLM coding agents issue Bash commands through interfaces that may serialize, wrap, and reparse model output. Matched execution scores alone cannot distinguish command-generation errors from failures introduced after generation. QuoteBench measures this boundary with exact final-state validation on 56 one-shot tasks from 14 incident-derived families, crossing the generation contract with the execution transport around one deliberately unescaped added parser. Escaping at the interpolation point reproduces each replayed reply's raw-path outcome, so any recovery under a disclosed boundary must come from the model changing its generation. Across eight same-window configurations, replaying the same reply through the added parser lowers success by 55.4 to 73.2 percentage points; disclosure recovers 30.4 to 60.7 points for six configurations, and zero or slightly negative for the other two. Raw generation is nearly saturated at the frontier; boundary adaptation is what still separates models. GPT-5.6-sol's matched gap of -3.6 points hides -64.3 points of damage and +60.7 points of compensation. The deployment configuration reorders models: one reversal among 26 comparable pairs is unambiguous and four more sit on single-task margins. Evaluations of command-issuing agents should report the model configuration, generation contract, execution path, operating point, and final-state validator rather than treat a matched score as an intrinsic model property.

Shangao Li, Yao Zhang, Volker Tresp +1

1Stony Brook University · 2LMU Munich · 3Munich Center for Machine Learning

LLM Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Code Generation Evaluation LLM Agent Reliability

Aug 11, 2026cs.SD

DuplexWorld: Can voice agents help you get through the day?

Speech-to-speech (S2S) voice agents are increasingly being incorporated into enterprise for customer care and as daily companions for consumers owing to the ease of the conversational modality over text. However, existing benchmarks fail to holistically evaluate voice agents along axes that really matter and are shaped as tests of agentic tool calling against a database. We believe they fail to adequately account for the diversity of conversational dialogue that mundane activities introduce and further, never test how faithfully an agent can assist on tasks that move beyond database manipulation. To tackle this DuplexWorld introduces six worlds where voice agents are especially useful: banking, insurance, travel, healthcare and logistics, and Pathfinding. Agents are evaluated on eleven different types of conversations across 156 scenarios (350+ hours of conversation), each testing conversational and analytical capability to varying degrees. Through extensive evaluation comprising agentic, conversational and speech-naturalness metrics, we show that even the best voice agents leave substantial room for improvement on all 3 axes (Pass@1: 0.490, turn-taking: 0.653, DNSMOS: 3.378). We perform extensive analysis on agentic v conversational performance, world- and conversation type-wise performance, failure modes exploring the explore v exploit lens for Pathfinding conversations and voice agent reliability over all six worlds.

Aryan Vijay Bhosale, Harshit Rajgarhia, Akhil Pothanapalli +3

Centific Global Solutions Inc. · University of Maryland · Work done during an internship at Centific.

Voice Agent Evaluation Spoken Dialogue Systems Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Multi-Turn Dialogue Evaluation