Agentic Evaluations

Using offline datasets to evaluate conversational agents often fails to cover rare scenarios or to support testing new policies. This has motivated the use of controllable user simulators for targeted, counterfactual evaluation, typically implemented by prompting or fine-tuning large language models. In this work, we formalize controllable simulation as a causal inference problem. By bridging natural language evaluation with off-policy evaluation methodology, we show that the standard practice of training simulators via supervised fine-tuning on post-hoc trajectory labels yields a structurally biased model. Specifically, these labels are inextricably coupled to the data-generating behavior policy, injecting a look-ahead bias that breaks causal consistency. Furthermore, we prove that under policy shift this failure causes the variance of evaluation metrics to explode geometrically, a phenomenon we term controllability collapse. To restore causal consistency, we establish theoretical conditions for accurate simulation and propose practical training mitigations: a priori controls, step-wise dynamic controls, and direct policy-conditioned learning. Empirical evaluation confirms that while standard global controls distort conversational distributions and collapse behavioral diversity, our causally grounded simulators eliminate look-ahead bias, preserve natural variance, and exhibit robust zero-shot generalization to unseen agent behaviors.

Agent evaluation requires assessing complex multi-step behaviors involving tool use and intermediate reasoning, making it costly and expertise-intensive. A natural question arises: can frontier coding assistants reliably automate this evaluation process? Our study shows that simply prompting coding assistants is insufficient for this task. Without domain-specific evaluation knowledge, frontier coding assistants achieve only a 30% execution success rate and produce over-engineered evaluations averaging 12+ metrics per agent, indicating that strong coding ability does not automatically translate to reliable agent evaluation. We introduce EvalAgent, an AI assistant that automates the end-to-end agent evaluation pipeline. EvalAgent encodes evaluation domain expertise as evaluation skills (procedural instructions, reusable code and templates, and dynamically retrieved API documentation) that compose into a trace-based pipeline producing complete evaluation artifacts including metrics, executable code, and reports. To systematically assess generated evaluations, we introduce a meta-evaluation framework alongside AgentEvalBench, a benchmark comprising 20 agents, each paired with evaluation requirements and test scenarios. We further propose the Eval@1 metric to measure whether generated evaluation code both executes and yields meaningful results on the first run. Our experiments show that EvalAgent produces focused evaluations, improving Eval@1 from 17.5% to 65%, and achieving 79.5% human expert preference over baseline approaches. Further ablation studies show that evaluation skills are critical for handling complex evaluation: removing them causes Eval@1 to drop significantly from 65% to 30%.

Large language and vision-language models increasingly power agents that act on a user's behalf through command-line interface (CLI) harnesses. However, most agent benchmarks still rely on synthetic sandboxes, short-horizon tasks, mock-service APIs, and final-answer checks, leaving open whether agents can complete realistic long-horizon work in the runtimes where they are deployed. This work presents WildClawBench, a native-runtime benchmark of 60 human-authored, bilingual, multimodal tasks spanning six thematic categories. Each task averages roughly 8 minutes of wall-clock time and over 20 tool calls, and runs inside a reproducible Docker container hosting an actual CLI agent harness (OpenClaw, Claude Code, Codex, or Hermes Agent) with access to real tools rather than mock services. Grading is hybrid, combining deterministic rule-based checks, environment-state auditing of side effects, and an LLM/VLM judge for semantic verification. Across 19 frontier models, the best, Claude Opus 4.7, reaches only 62.2% overall under OpenClaw, while every other model stays below 60%, and switching harness alone shifts a single model by up to 18 points. These results show that long-horizon, native-runtime agent evaluation remains a far-from-resolved task for current frontier models. We release the tasks, code, and containerized tooling to support reproducible evaluation.

AI pentesting agents are increasingly credible as offensive security systems, but current benchmarks still provide limited guidance on which will perform best in real-world targets. Existing evaluation protocols assess and optimize for predefined goals such as capture-the-flag, remote code execution, exploit reproduction, or trajectory similarity, in simplified or narrow settings. These tools are valuable for measuring bounded capabilities, yet they do not adequately capture the complexity, open-ended exploration, and strategic decision-making required in realistic pentesting. In this paper, we present a practical evaluation protocol that shifts assessment from task completion to validated vulnerability discovery, allowing evaluation in sufficiently complex targets spanning multiple attack surfaces and vulnerability classes. The protocol combines structured ground-truth with LLM-based semantic matching to identify vulnerabilities, bipartite resolution to score findings under realistic ambiguity, continuous ground-truth maintenance, repeated and cumulative evaluation of stochastic agents, efficiency metrics, and reduced-suite selection for sustainable experimentation. This protocol extends the state of the art by enabling a more realistic, operationally informative comparison of AI pentesting agents. To enable reproducibility, we also release expert-annotated ground truth and code for the proposed evaluation protocol: https://github.com/ethiack/ethibench.

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.

Standard embodied evaluations do not independently score whether an agent correctly commits to task completion at episode closure, a capacity we call terminal commitment. Behaviorally distinct failures--never completing the task, completing it but failing to stop, and reporting success without sufficient evidence--collapse into the same benchmark failure. We introduce VIGIL, an evaluation framework that makes terminal commitment independently measurable. Under VIGIL's default protocol, agents observe only egocentric RGB, receive no action-success signals, and must end each episode with a semantic report checked deterministically against hidden world state. This yields two separate scores: world-state completion (W) and benchmark success (B), where B additionally requires a correct terminal report. This decoupling makes four outcome categories distinguishable: missed execution, post-attainment drift, unsupported commitment, and verified success. Across 20 models on 1,000 frozen episodes, systems with comparable W differ by up to 19.7 pp in B: one model converts achieved states into correct reports, while another with near-identical execution drifts past the goal without closing. An action-feedback intervention further tests the separation: execution-oriented signals improve W broadly, yet commitment failures persist in models that do not already ground terminal reports in the achieved state. VIGIL provides a protocol that makes terminal commitment independently visible and scorable.

Agent benchmarks typically report only final outcomes: pass or fail. This threatens evaluation credibility in three ways. First, scores may be inflated or deflated by shortcuts and benchmark artifacts, misrepresenting capability. Second, benchmark performance may fail to predict real-world utility due to scaffold limitations and recurring failure modes. Finally, capability scores may conceal dangerous or catastrophic actions taken by the agent. We argue that log analysis -- the systematic tracking and analysis of the inputs, execution, and outputs of an AI agent -- is necessary to overcome these validity threats and promote credible agent evaluation. In this paper, we (1) present a taxonomy of threats to credible evaluation documented through log analysis, and (2) develop a set of guiding principles for log analysis. We illustrate these principles on tau-Bench Airline, revealing that pass^5 performance was under-elicited by nearly 50% and surfacing deployment failure modes invisible to outcome metrics. We conclude with pragmatic recommendations to increase uptake of log analysis, directed at diverse stakeholders including benchmark creators, model developers, independent evaluators, and deployers.

When a phone-use agent avoids harm, does that show safety, or simply inability to act? Existing evaluations often cannot tell. A harmful outcome may be avoided because the agent recognized the risk and chose the safe action, or because it failed to understand the screen or execute any relevant action at all. These cases have different causes and call for different fixes, yet current benchmarks often merge them under task success, refusal, or final harmful outcome. We address this problem with PhoneSafety, a benchmark of 700 safety-critical moments drawn from real phone interactions across more than 130 apps. Each instance isolates the next decision at a risky moment and asks a simple question: does the model take the safe action, take the unsafe action, or fail to do anything useful? We evaluate eight representative phone-use agents under this framework. Our results reveal two main patterns. First, stronger general phone-use ability does not reliably imply safer choices at risky moments. Models that perform better on ordinary app tasks are not always the ones that behave more safely when the next action matters. Second, failures to do anything useful behave like a capability signal rather than a safety signal: they are concentrated in more visually and operationally demanding settings and remain stable when the evaluation protocol changes. Across models, failures split into two recurring patterns: unsafe choices in settings where the model can act but chooses wrongly, and inability to act in more visually and operationally demanding screens. Overall, a harmless outcome is not enough to count as evidence of safety. Evaluating phone-use agents requires separating unsafe judgment from inability to act.

Memory-agent evaluations report fixed-snapshot accuracy or retrieval quality, but these scores do not show whether evidence remains usable as irrelevant sessions (sessions not annotated as task-relevant evidence for the query) accumulate. We present a scale-conditioned evaluation protocol for agent memory under evidence-preserving growth: for each query, task evidence is held fixed while irrelevant sessions are added. The protocol logs agent--memory trajectories and reports four diagnostics: budget-compliant reliability, tail memory-call burden, failure-regime decomposition, and the usable-scale boundary where reliability falls below the target. Applied to LongMemEval and LoCoMo across flat, planar, and hierarchical memory interfaces, the protocol shows reliability loss is not a single phenomenon. On LongMemEval, HippoRAG stays within the two-call budget but loses 16--20 percentage points in budget-compliant reliability as irrelevant sessions are added; LiCoMemory's observed failures depend strongly on the agent, with Qwen3-8B exceeding the budget while Qwen3-32B and Qwen3-235B remain reliable in the tested range. The result supports a framework for making scalable-memory claims conditional on agent, interface, scale range, and interaction budget.

Evaluating Computer Use Agents (CUAs) on interactive environments is fraught with methodological pitfalls that the field has yet to systematically address. We show that a 1MB replay script that blindly executes a recorded action sequence without ever observing the screen outperforms frontier models on prominent static benchmarks, and prove that its expected success rate is exactly equal to the source agent's pass@k in deterministic environments. We trace this and other failures to two root causes: non-principled environment design (static, unsandboxed, or unreliably verified environments) and non-principled evaluation methodology (naive aggregation and misuse of pass@k for stateful UI interactions). To address the first, we propose PRISM, five design principles for CUA environments (privileged verification, realistic environments, integrity-checked configurations, sandboxed execution, and multifactorial variability) and instantiate them in DigiWorld, a benchmark of 15 realistic sandboxed mobile applications able to evaluate agents in over 3.2 million verified unique configurations. To address the second, we develop an aggregation framework pairing Wilson score intervals with hierarchical bootstrap, producing confidence intervals that correctly account for the nested structure of CUA benchmarks, as we empirically demonstrate. All together, we show that principled environment design and rigorous evaluation methodology are not optional refinements but prerequisites for meaningful CUA research.

Agentic artificial intelligence systems produce outputs through sequences of interdependent autonomous decisions, yet standard evaluation assesses outputs alone and cannot diagnose the underlying process. We develop a behavioral evaluation methodology that complements output-level testing by scoring the intermediate decision process itself. Behavioral traces logged at each autonomous decision point are grouped into five-day episodes and scored along six domain-specific dimensions (regime detection, routing, adaptation, risk calibration, strategy coherence, error recovery) by an ensemble of three large language model (LLM) judges. A perturbation procedure that corrupts one dimension while leaving the other five intact confirms dimension specificity; cross-model agreement reaches Krippendorff's alpha = 0.85. The composite behavioral score correlates at Spearman rho = 0.72 with realized 20-day Sharpe ratio. Closing the loop, the framework converts deficient per-dimension scores into a credit-assigned penalty added to the Soft Actor-Critic reward. Three fine-tuning cycles, confined to validation data, reduce one-day MAPE from 0.61% to 0.54% (11.5% relative; p<0.001, d=0.31) on the held-out 2017 to 2025 test period, significant under Diebold-Mariano and localized by Giacomini-White to the high-volatility regime. The methodology is application-agnostic and applies to any agentic system whose intermediate decisions can be logged.

Modern AI agents execute real-world side effects through tool calls such as file operations, shell commands, HTTP requests, and database queries. A single unsafe action, including accidental deletion, credential exposure, or data exfiltration, can cause irreversible harm. Existing defenses are incomplete: post-hoc benchmarks measure behavior after execution, static guardrails miss obfuscation and multi-step context, and infrastructure sandboxes constrain where code runs without understanding what an action means. We present AgentTrust, a runtime safety layer that intercepts agent tool calls before execution and returns a structured verdict: allow, warn, block, or review. AgentTrust combines a shell deobfuscation normalizer, SafeFix suggestions for safer alternatives, RiskChain detection for multi-step attack chains, and a cache-aware LLM-as-Judge for ambiguous inputs. We release a 300-scenario benchmark across six risk categories and an additional 630 independently constructed real-world adversarial scenarios. On the internal benchmark, the production-only ruleset achieves 95.0% verdict accuracy and 73.7% risk-level accuracy at low-millisecond end-to-end latency. On the 630-scenario benchmark, evaluated under a patched ruleset and not claimed as zero-shot, AgentTrust achieves 96.7% verdict accuracy, including about 93% on shell-obfuscated payloads. AgentTrust is released under the AGPL-3.0 license and provides a Model Context Protocol server for MCP-compatible agents.

Procedural Content Generation (PCG) enables game content to be created algorithmically without direct manual level-design effort, but it introduces a serious evaluation problem: generated content may become unbalanced, blocked, repetitive, or technically unsolvable. This paper presents Momentum, an endless-runner game that integrates runtime terrain generation, environment object spawning, and autonomous agent-based evaluation into a single gameplay loop. Ground tiles and environmental objects are generated dynamically as the player advances, object placement follows a constraint-driven mechanism inspired by Wave Function Collapse (WFC), and the runtime navigation surface is rebuilt asynchronously to remain consistent with the streamed environment. Two autonomous evaluation agents move ahead of the player and inspect the generated path: an aerial scanner that examines the corridor geometrically, and a ground-traversal agent that validates the same region from a navigational perspective. The evaluation pipeline combines ray casting, volumetric physics sweeps, obstacle-layer filtering, and structured crash reporting to identify problematic generated scenarios before they reach the player. The work demonstrates how generation and validation can be unified within the same runtime loop, rather than treating evaluation as a separate offline pass. Around this implementation, the paper formulates a measurable evaluation framework along the canonical PCG axes of playability, diversity, controllability, and runtime performance, derives a structural saturation bound on the spawner from its own placement constraints, and quantifies the per-segment scanning cost of the agents from first principles.

Existing evaluation frameworks for large language models -- including HELM, MT-Bench, AgentBench, and BIG-bench -- are designed for controlled, single-session, lab-scale settings. They do not address the evaluation challenges that emerge when agentic AI systems operate continuously in production: compounding decision errors, tool failure cascades, non-deterministic output drift, and the absence of ground truth for long-horizon tasks. This paper makes three contributions. First, we present a taxonomy of seven failure modes unique to production agentic systems, each grounded in observations from systems operating at billion-event scale. Second, we demonstrate empirically where standard metrics -- ROUGE, BERTScore, accuracy/AUC, and the agentic benchmarks above -- fail to detect each failure mode. Third, we propose PAEF (Production Agentic Evaluation Framework), a five-dimension evaluation framework with an open-source reference implementation, designed for continuous evaluation on production traffic rather than episodic benchmark runs. Our analysis shows that standard metrics fail to detect four of the seven failure modes entirely and detect three others only after a lag of multiple evaluation cycles.

Tool-calling agents are evaluated on tool selection, parameter accuracy, and scope recognition, yet LLM trajectory assessments remain inherently post-hoc. Disconnected from the active execution loop, such assessments identify errors that are usually addressed through prompt-tuning or retraining, and fundamentally cannot course-correct the agent in real time. To close this gap, we move evaluation into the execution loop at inference time: a specialized reviewer agent evaluates provisional tool calls prior to execution, shifting the paradigm from post-hoc recovery to proactive evaluation and error mitigation. In practice, this architecture establishes a clear separation of concerns between the primary execution agent and a secondary review agent. As with any multi-agent system, the reviewer can introduce new errors while correcting others, yet no prior work to our knowledge has systematically measured this tradeoff. To quantify this tradeoff, we introduce Helpfulness-Harmfulness metrics: helpfulness measures the percentage of base agent errors that feedback corrects; harmfulness measures the percentage of correct responses that feedback degrades. These metrics directly inform reviewer design by revealing whether a given model or prompt provides net positive value. We evaluate our approach on BFCL (single-turn) and Tau2-Bench (multi-turn stateful scenarios), achieving +5.5% on irrelevance detection and +7.1% on multi-turn tasks. Our metrics reveal that reviewer model choice is critical: the reasoning model o3-mini achieves a 3:1 benefit-to-risk ratio versus 2.1:1 for GPT-4o. Automated prompt optimization via GEPA provides an additional +1.5-2.8%. Together, these results demonstrate a core advantage of separating execution and review: the reviewer can be systematically improved through model selection and prompt optimization, without retraining the base agent.

Usability testing with experts and potential users can assess the effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) but doing so remains a costly and time-intensive process. Prior work has used computer use agents (CUAs) and other generative agents that can simulate user interactions and preference, but we show that agents still struggle to provide accurate usability assessments. In this work, we present a novel machine learning method that operationalizes a computational definition of usability to train CUAs to assess GUI usability by i) prioritizing important interaction flows, ii) executing them through human-like interactions, and iii) predicting a learned numerical usability score. We train a computer use agent, uxCUA, with our algorithm on a large-scale dataset of fully interactive user interfaces (UIs) paired with usability labels and human preferences. We show that uxCUA outperforms larger models in accurate usability assessments and produces realistic critiques of both synthetic and real UIs. More broadly, our work aims to build a principled, data-driven foundation for automated usability assessment in HCI.

This report presents a comparative evaluation of DKnownAI Guard in AI agent security scenarios, benchmarked against three competing products: AWS Bedrock Guardrails, Azure Content Safety, and Lakera Guard. Using human annotation as the ground truth, we assess each guardrail's ability to detect two categories of risks: threats to the agent itself (e.g., instruction override, indirect injection, tool abuse) and requests intended to elicit harmful content (e.g., hate speech, pornography, violence). Evaluation results demonstrate that DKnownAI Guard achieves the highest recall rate at 96.5% and ranks first in true negative rate (TNR) at 90.4%, delivering the best overall performance among all evaluated guardrails.

This paper presents PSA-Eval, a failure-centered runtime evaluation framework for deployed trilingual public-space agents. The central claim is that, when the evaluation object shifts from a static input-output mapping to a runtime system, the basic unit of analysis should shift from score to failure. PSA-Eval extends the conventional chain Question -> Answer -> Score -> End into Question -> Batch -> Run -> Score -> Failure Case -> Repair -> Regression Batch, making failures traceable, reviewable, repairable, and regression-testable. The framework uses trilingual equivalent inputs as controlled probes for observing group-level cross-language policy drift. We conduct a pilot study on a real trilingual digital front-desk system deployed in the lobby of an international financial institution. The pilot uses a simplified single-foundation-model setting (MA = MB), so the observed drift should not be interpreted as an A/B foundation-model difference. The study contains 81 samples organized into 27 trilingual equivalent question groups. Although the system achieves an average score of 23.15/24, 14 groups show non-zero cross-language score drift, 5 groups show drift of at least 3 points, and the maximum drift reaches 9 points. These results provide initial evidence that failure-centered runtime evaluation can expose structured deployment signals hidden by aggregate scoring.

Agentic systems that chain reasoning, tool use, and synthesis into multi-step workflows are entering production, yet prevailing evaluation practices like end-to-end outcome checks and ad-hoc trace inspection systematically mask the intermediate failures that dominate real-world error budgets. We present AgentEval, a framework that formalizes agent executions as evaluation directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), where each node carries typed quality metrics assessed by a calibrated LLM judge (GPT-4o), classified through a hierarchical failure taxonomy (3 levels, 21 subcategories), and linked to upstream dependencies for automated root cause attribution. An ablation study isolates the impact of DAG-based dependency modeling: it alone contributes +22 percentage points to failure detection recall and +34 pp to root cause accuracy over flat step-level evaluation with identical judges and rubrics. Across three production workflows (450 test cases, two agent model families, predominantly sequential architectures with a 12% non-DAG trace rate), AgentEval achieves 2.17x higher failure detection recall than end-to-end evaluation (0.89 vs. 0.41), Cohen's kappa = 0.84 agreement with human experts, and 72% root cause accuracy against an 81% human ceiling. Cross-system evaluation on tau-bench and SWE-bench traces confirms transferability (failure detection recall >= 0.78) without taxonomy or rubric modification. A 4-month pilot with 18 engineers detected 23 pre-release regressions through CI/CD-integrated regression testing, reducing median root-cause identification time from 4.2 hours to 22 minutes and driving measurable failure rate reductions in two workflows.

We present Code Broker, a multi agent system built on Google s Agent Development Kit ADK that analyses Python source code from individual files, local directory trees, or remote GitHub repositories and generates structured, actionable quality assessment reports. The system realises a hierarchical five agent architecture in which a root orchestrator coordinates a sequential pipeline agent that, in turn, dispatches three specialised agents concurrently a Correctness Assessor, a Style Assessor, and a Description Generator before synthesising their findings through an Improvement Recommender. Reports quantify four quality dimensions correctness, security, style, and maintainability on a normalised scale and are rendered in both Markdown and HTML for integration into diverse developer workflows. Code Broker fuses LLM based semantic reasoning with deterministic static analysis signals from Pylint, employs asynchronous execution with exponential backoff retry logic to improve robustness under transient API failures, and explores lightweight session memory for retaining and querying prior assessment context across runs. We frame this paper as a technical report on system design, prompt engineering, and tool orchestration, and present a preliminary qualitative evaluation on representative Python codebases of varying scale. The results indicate that parallel specialised agents produce readable, developer oriented feedback that complements traditional linting, while also foregrounding current limitations in evaluation depth, security tooling, large repository handling, and the exclusive reliance on in memory persistence. All code and reproducibility materials are publicly available: https://github.com/Samir-atra/agents_intensive_dev.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as customer-facing agents, yet evaluating their reliability remains challenging due to stochastic, multi-turn interactions. Current evaluation protocols rely on linear Monte Carlo rollouts of complete agent-user conversations to estimate success. However, this approach is computationally inefficient, repeatedly regenerating identical early prefixes, and often fails to uncover deep failure modes that arise from rare user behaviors. We introduce DIVERT (Diversity-Induced Evaluation via Branching of Trajectories), an efficient, snapshot-based, coverage-guided user simulation framework for systematic exploration of agent-user interactions. DIVERT captures the full agent-environment state at critical decision points and resumes execution from these snapshots, enabling reuse of shared conversation prefixes and reducing redundant computation. From each junction, the framework branches using targeted, diversity-inducing user responses, allowing directed exploration of alternative interaction paths. By focusing evaluation on semantically diverse and underexplored trajectories, DIVERT improves both efficiency and coverage. Empirical results show that it discovers more failures per token compared to standard linear rollout protocols, while expanding the set of tasks on which failures are identified.

Social actors do not observe a common social world: each individual forms judgments from a partial and potentially distorted view of the surrounding network. We study whether graph-local evidence and credibility-weighted communication can generate persistent distortions in perceived academic standing, even when agents repeatedly receive objective performance signals. We introduce a data-constrained multi-agent framework in which LLM agents operate through individualized subjective graphs that determine peer visibility, evidence access, and interaction opportunities. Agents exchange uncertainty-annotated assessments, evaluate message credibility, and maintain explicit Gaussian belief states updated through Bayesian fusion. We evaluate the framework on 12 middle-school classrooms comprising 482 students, using questionnaire-derived social information and six consecutive examinations. On the Social-Observed subset (n=419), collective ranking error increases from 0.066 \pm 0.008 to 0.124 \pm 0.009 across six epochs despite repeated exam-based anchoring. Ablations associate individualized visibility and LLM-based trust gating with more stable long-horizon behavior, while constrained retrieval primarily safeguards against global-information leakage. Compared with evaluated DeGroot configurations, the proposed framework achieves lower final ranking error; those DeGroot configurations exhibit near-zero terminal opinion diversity. These findings establish subjective-graph LLM agents as a mechanism-oriented framework for data-constrained simulated social perception. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Rashomonomon-0126.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable potential in developing role-playing agents (RPAs). However, current evaluation frameworks rely heavily on well-known fictional characters, raising a critical concern: models may be leveraging their internal training memory of these characters rather than demonstrating role-playing capabilities. This reliance often leads to significant performance degradation when RPAs encounter unseen or out-of-distribution personas. To address this, we propose a more rigorous evaluation protocol designed to decouple role-playing proficiency from character recognition. Our experiments across multiple benchmarks demonstrate that anonymizing characters degrades performance, confirming that name exposure provides implicit cues that mask a model's true capability. To mitigate this, we investigate diverse personality augmentation as a method to enhance role fidelity in anonymous settings. We systematically analyze the impact of various personality-description methods on agent behavior and consistency. Our results show that incorporating personality information consistently improves RPA performance. This work establishes a more equitable evaluation standard and validates a scalable, personality-enhanced framework for constructing robust RPAs.

Evaluating agentic AI on open-ended professional tasks faces a fundamental dilemma between rigor and flexibility. Static rubrics provide rigorous, reproducible assessment but fail to accommodate diverse valid response strategies, while LLM-as-a-judge approaches adapt to individual responses yet suffer from instability and bias. Human experts address this dilemma by combining domain-grounded principles with dynamic, claim-level assessment. Inspired by this process, we propose JADE, a two-layer evaluation framework. Layer 1 encodes expert knowledge as a predefined set of evaluation skills, providing stable evaluation criteria. Layer 2 performs report-specific, claim-level evaluation to flexibly assess diverse reasoning strategies, with evidence-dependency gating to invalidate conclusions built on refuted claims. Experiments on BizBench show that JADE improves evaluation stability and reveals critical agent failure modes missed by holistic LLM-based evaluators. We further demonstrate strong alignment with expert-authored rubrics and effective transfer to HealthBench and DR.BENCH, covering medical and 10-domain professional evaluation settings. Code and data are available at https://github.com/smiling-world/JADE.

Evaluating agents on the growing number of agentic benchmarks is challenging because they often require complex environments and agent integrations. We introduce Harbor Adapters, a unified evaluation infrastructure for agentic benchmarks. Our work makes three contributions. First, we develop benchmark adapters that port more than 80 benchmarks to evaluate arbitrary agents, and validate them through rigorous code review and parity experiments. Second, we conduct a large-scale evaluation of 8 models spanning capability tiers across 54 benchmarks; every model is run with Terminus-2 and with one of 3 native harnesses. This enables a broader analysis of agent capabilities and failure modes than was previously possible. Third, we introduce Harbor-Index, a curated set of 82 difficult, diverse, and high-quality tasks spanning 29 benchmarks, refined from the adapted suite through difficulty filtering, AI and human audit, and an audit-and-fix loop. Harbor-Index preserves the challenge and breadth of large-scale agentic evaluations while being affordable to run; no evaluated model-harness configuration exceeds 30% pass rate, and the strongest (GPT-5.5 with Codex) reaches 28.0%. We release the adapters, evaluation results, in-depth analysis, and Harbor-Index as open-source artifacts to support more reliable and comprehensive evaluation of language-model agents.

Although large language model agents are increasingly applied to quantitative-finance workflows, their evaluation remains fragmented across isolated tasks, while the financial relevance of benchmark tasks is often overlooked. Yet financial workflows are inherently multi-stage, spanning interdependent tasks such as forecasting, strategy construction, risk management, and trading. Existing platforms typically focus on a single task, and can therefore overstate agent competence and fail to reveal weaknesses in generalization, real-market interaction, and financially meaningful decision-making. We introduce OpenFinGym, a unified gym environment for quantitative-finance agent development that covers forecasting, market generation, real-time trading, and fraud detection under a single execution and verification interface. OpenFinGym additionally provides an automated task-construction pipeline that turns quantitative finance publications into executable task packages; a containerised runtime with a host-side verifier service that supports scalable agent rollouts and prevents runtime train-test leakage; a paper trading engine with a low-latency data-stream design; deferred-resolution support for long-horizon and event-market forecasts; and integration for SFT and RL post-training

Agentic AI evaluation pipelines produce benchmark scores that justify deployment decisions, safety certifications, and regulatory compliance claims. No formal framework has yet characterized how validity degrades across the stages of these pipelines. We present a three-layer compounding validity model, $V_{total} \leq V_1 \times V_2 \times V_3$, that captures multiplicative degradation across task generation ($V_1$), human-simulator calibration ($V_2$), and automated judgment ($V_3$). Under empirically grounded estimates, a pipeline retaining 70% validity at each stage is at most 34% valid against the intended construct (range 0.17-0.54 across the empirical estimate bounds). We examine the model's predictions against a structured survey of 55 published agentic evaluation papers, finding that approximately 82% of papers in this purposive sample apply structurally mismatched, incomplete, or absent inter-rater reliability (IRR) metrics, a pattern consistent with systematic $V_3$ collapse. We further identify empirical evidence of $V_1$ failures (task validity flaws in 7 of 10 popular benchmarks) and $V_2$ miscalibration (up to 9 percentage points inter-simulator variance, with systematic demographic disparities for non-Standard American English speakers). We derive eight prescriptions grounded in psychometric science and domain-stratified reliability thresholds (ICC $\geq$ 0.70; $\alpha \geq$ 0.67/0.70/0.80 by consequence level) that practitioners and benchmark authors can apply immediately. The framework provides a tractable knowledge-based tool for diagnosing and correcting evaluation pipeline validity before deployment decisions are made.

While LLMs have accelerated scientific code generation, comprehensively evaluating generated code remains challenging. Many benchmarks emphasize functional correctness or task completion, which is insufficient for code built on production HPC libraries, where solver selection, API conventions, memory management, parallel awareness, and performance also matter. We introduce PETSCAgent-Bench, a multidimensional benchmark and agent-based framework for assessing whether AI-generated scientific code uses a production HPC library as an expert would. A tool-augmented evaluator compiles, executes, and measures code and combines deterministic checks with LLM-based assessments in a 14-evaluator pipeline spanning five categories: correctness, performance, code quality, algorithmic appropriateness, and library-specific conventions. A2A and MCP enable black-box evaluation of compatible coding agents. Across realistic PETSc problems, frontier models generate readable, well-structured code but struggle with correctness on challenging problems and with library-specific conventions even when code compiles and runs---limitations that conventional pass/fail evaluation does not capture.