AI Agent Evaluation

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

58 papers in the last four weeks, up 100% on the four weeks before. 0.6% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 341

Aug 11, 2026cs.AI

Deployment Decision Reliability: A Generalizability-Theory Framework for Sizing Long-Horizon Agent Evaluations

Enterprise practitioners read agent leaderboards as if they ranked agent capability. We show, across three open agent-trace benchmarks (TheAgentCompany,

τ^2

-bench, and AppWorld), that the agent main effect accounts for less than 3% of total variance in every dataset and check type, while the agent-by-task interaction accounts for 7-23%. Leaderboards rank specialization, not capability. We arrive at this through a four-facet Generalizability Theory variance decomposition, fit with three estimators (Henderson Method-I, REML via lme4, and a Bayesian binomial GLMM) that agree to three decimal places. Four further findings sharpen what the leaderboard is hiding. First, aggregate reliability collapses on the hardest task quartile:

Eρ^2

on

τ^2

action_checks falls from 0.752 to 0.000. Second, training-cell reliability negatively correlates with held-out reliability (

r = -0.90

on

τ^2

), meaning the designs that look most reliable replicate worst. Third, population-level diagnostics transfer across enterprise benchmarks (capability-gap ratio stable at 0.35-0.40) but per-family agent rankings invert. Fourth, on the MAST failure taxonomy, trace-level mode profiles are idiosyncratic (MAE = 0.261) while cell-level profiles generalise (MAE = 0.056,

r = 0.83

). We package these into Deployment Decision Reliability (DDR), a one-page reporting discipline that turns the variance-component table into five decisions an enterprise buyer can defend. All code, data loaders, and fit artifacts are released under an open-source license.

Vasundra Srinivasan

Independent Researcher, Stanford School of Engineering

AI Agent Reliability AI Agent Evaluation Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation

Aug 11, 2026cs.AI

DSAgentBench: Can Agents Automate End-to-End Data-Science Workflows in Real Computer Environments?

Real-world data science involves long-horizon workflows that span data wrangling, exploration, modeling, visualization, and validation, and require coordinated use of tools such as notebooks, IDEs, terminals, browsers, and databases within real operating environments. Yet existing benchmarks lack real-computer interaction and do not evaluate whether agents can execute complete end-to-end data-science workflows in realistic computing environments, failing to capture the multi-stage, multi-tool nature of data-science practice. We introduce DSAgentBench, the first benchmark to evaluate whether agents can automate full data-science workflows inside real computer environments. DSAgentBench contains 275 diverse tasks covering the entire data-science life-cycle, reflecting the complexity and tool coordination required in practice. Each task requires grounding decisions in intermediate outputs and coordinated tool use, and includes a deterministic evaluator that verifies analytical correctness, visual outputs, and model performance rather than code-only execution. Our extensive experiments with 15 closed- and open-source models show that even the strongest agent, Claude-4.6-Sonnet, achieves only 56.70% task success, while all open-source agents remain below 1%, frequently failing at tool orchestration, OS grounding, and multi-step reasoning. These results reveal a substantial capability gap between current agentic systems and real data-science workflows, positioning DSAgentBench as a foundation for developing grounded, verifiable, autonomous data-science agents. We release DSAgentBench at https://github.com/vis-nlp/DSAgentBench.

Mizanur Rahman, Mohammed Saidul Islam, Ridwan Mahbub +3

York University · Nanyang Technological University · Salesforce AI Research

Computer-Use Agent Benchmarks AI Agent Evaluation Workflow Automation Agent Benchmarks Data Analysis Agents

Aug 10, 2026cs.AI

Neuroevolution Arena: Nested Ecological Evaluation of Update-and-Inheritance Regimes across Neural Architectures

Competitive artificial-life systems can rank trained controllers differently under training and ecological evaluation. We present Neuroevolution Arena, a GPU-accelerated spatial ecology of independently parameterized neural-network cells, and an audit-tracked nested evaluation protocol. Three implementation-specific update-and-inheritance regimes (EvoEvo, EvoRL, and RLRL) are crossed with two neural architectures for 50,000 generations in three independent training runs per condition. One saved elite-controller artifact from each of the 18 runs enters an aligned-run frozen-evaluation design comprising 198 computational jobs. Pairwise effects average three seed-defined ecological contexts (two cooperation-permitting and one attack-permitting) within each aligned training-run block; the independent level remains n = 3 runs per condition. RL-enabled regimes attain higher recorded training fitness than EvoEvo, whereas pairwise outcomes show architecture-conditioned majority patterns and substantial artifact dependence. Six-way winners vary across artifacts and contexts, and the prespecified survival endpoint has a complete floor. We contribute a nested protocol that separates training-run artifacts from evaluation contexts and exposes, rather than conceals, their different sources of variation.

Yuxu Ge, Yifei Cheng

University of York, United Kingdom

Reinforcement Learning Artificial Life AI Agent Evaluation Neuroevolution

Aug 10, 2026cs.AI

The CASE Framework: A Multi-Disciplinary Control Architecture for Governing Enterprise Agentic AI

Enterprises are deploying autonomous AI agents faster than they can govern them, and prevailing approaches stretch a single discipline, typically DevSecOps built for deterministic automation, across every scale of agency. We argue that agentic AI governance is four problems, not one, each with a mature governing science. The CASE framework assigns Control theory to the individual agent (intent as setpoint, guardrails as feedback, evaluation as observation), complex Adaptive systems theory to agent collectives (where emergence makes single-agent assurance non-compositional), Supervisory cybernetics to human-agent teams (where the Law of Requisite Variety shows unaided human oversight fails structurally), and Engineering operations to fleets (extending error budgets to decision quality so autonomy becomes a controlled variable). We formalize each layer, derive cross-layer coupling conditions, including a zero-touch deployment paradox where excellence at one-layer strains the others, and trace twenty-plus enterprise controls to their classical constructs. Three empirical studies validate the thesis: 82 percent of documented production agent failures are multi-layer trajectories; none of 22 ecosystem tools offers full Layer 2 (emergence) coverage; and all 35 scored public deployments fall in the lowest maturity band. We name this mismatch, risk realized at the emergence layer against capability barely offered and practice absent, the Emergence Gap. A five-level maturity model with a non-compensatory bottleneck-weighted index and assessment instrument operationalizes CASE as a scientific rather than process maturity model, grounded in production enterprise agentic platforms. As EU AI Act Article 14 makes effective human oversight a legal requirement, only architectures satisfying requisite variety can make oversight real rather than ceremonial.

Srinivas Telukunta, Georgios Nektarios Lilis, Lucio Baron

Cornell University · Johns Hopkins University · AI71

AI Agent Evaluation AI Agent Governance Human Oversight of AI

Aug 10, 2026cs.AI

Open Evaluation Agent: Efficient and Promptable Evaluation of Visual Generative Models

Recent advances in visual generative models have enabled high-quality image and video generation, but evaluating these models often demands sampling hundreds or thousands of images or videos, which is computationally expensive. Existing evaluation methods also rely on rigid pipelines that overlook specific user needs and provide numerical results without clear explanations. Mimicking how humans quickly form impressions of a model's capabilities from only a few samples, we propose the Evaluation Agent framework, which employs human-like strategies for efficient, dynamic, multi-round evaluations, offering detailed, user-tailored analyses. Given a natural-language evaluation request, the agent decomposes it into sub-aspects, generates targeted prompts, samples images or videos from the evaluated model, invokes suitable evaluation tools, and iteratively updates its plan from the observed evidence, covering both predefined benchmark dimensions and open-ended user concerns. The framework is thus efficient, promptable, explainable, and scalable across models and tools. Experiments show that Evaluation Agent reduces evaluation time to 10% of traditional methods while delivering comparable results. We further introduce Open Evaluation Agent (Open-EA) by constructing EA-CoT-10K, a corpus of history-conditioned step-level instruction-tuning records derived from multi-round evaluation rollouts, and training EA-3B from Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct as a local planning backbone that preserves the structured reasoning, tool invocation, and summary protocol of the API-based agent while reducing dependence on proprietary backbones. Experiments validate the API-based agent on established T2I/T2V benchmarks and open-ended queries, and evaluate Open-EA on four in-domain and three out-of-domain T2V generator families, showing partial cross-family transfer of the learned policy.

Shulin Tian, Ziqi Huang, Fan Zhang +3

Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

Tool-Augmented Language Model Agents AI Agent Evaluation LLM Agent Training Image Generation Evaluation T2I Generation Evaluation Generative AI Evaluation+1

Aug 10, 2026cs.SE

Software Engineering for and with GUI Agent

GUI agents have advanced rapidly, producing a growing body of frameworks, benchmarks, and applications. However, this growth has outpaced the maturity of the field. GUI agents remain technically brittle, incompletely engineered, and insufficiently validated for sustained real-world use. They are evolving into closed-loop software systems. Within these systems, model reasoning is coupled with interface perception, execution feedback, recovery, and human oversight. This evolution calls for a software engineering perspective that remains largely absent from existing research. We address this gap by reviewing 336 GUI-agent papers from January 2018 to April 2026. Five research questions examine the research landscape, architectures, evaluation, software lifecycle concerns, and future opportunities. Our findings show that the field has expanded sharply since 2024, while mobile and web settings remain dominant. Architectures increasingly adopt modular perceive-reason-act loops, but recovery, human escalation, safety enforcement, and auditability remain underdeveloped. This architectural imbalance extends to evaluation. Evaluations are becoming more interactive, but they remain centered on task success and are difficult to compare across protocols. More broadly, existing studies provide limited support for testing beyond benchmarks and for maintaining agents after release. Observability, privacy engineering, and systematic human oversight are also underdeveloped. Together, these findings show that capability improvements alone cannot ensure deployment readiness. Future research should connect dependable execution with lifecycle-centered testing and reproducible evaluation. It should also integrate permission and privacy controls with cost-aware, human-centered governance. This integration is necessary to build dependable, maintainable, secure, and deployable GUI-agent systems.

Shengcheng Yu, Yuchen Ling, Junyang Xing +3

State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, China · Technical University of Munich, Germany

AI Agent Reliability GUI Agents AI Agent Evaluation AI Agent Safety

Aug 10, 2026cs.CL

Evo-Bench: Can Language Models Improve Agent Harness?

Large Language Models (LLMs) have driven rapid progress in autonomous agents, yet standard evaluations remain confined to static task solving. An emerging frontier is harness evolution---the agent's capacity to autonomously optimize its own operating harness. However, systematically benchmarking this capability remains challenging, as existing evaluations fail to isolate harness improvements from base model strength, prevent task-specific overfitting, or capture long-horizon iterative research. To address these challenges, we introduce Evo-Bench, the first benchmark designed to evaluate models' intrinsic harness-evolving capabilities across Search, Office, and General agent domains. To rigorously isolate this capability, Evo-Bench employs a novel harness-guided construction framework: it leverages auxiliary-task evolution to identify tasks genuinely sensitive to framework improvements, followed by sensitivity-aware stratified splitting to ensure robust cross-suite generalization. Extensive evaluations across nine frontier and open-weight models reveal that top models achieve massive absolute gains reaching 16.6 points, closely approaching state-of-the-art human-engineered baselines. Crucially, while autonomous evolution outpeforms artificial harness in General tasks and excels in Search tasks, it struggles in Office tasks that demand highly specific processing workflows. Furthermore, our analysis exposes critical temporal anomalies like early saturation, while demonstrating that the synthesized harnesses act as highly transferable reasoning structures, consistently boosting diverse policy models.

Lisheng Huang, Chen Yang, Hao Zhou +6

1Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China · 2BOSS Zhipin, Beijing, China

AI Agent Evaluation Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation Agent Harness Optimization AI Agent Benchmarks

Aug 10, 2026cs.AI

Causal Behavioral Evaluation of AI Agents at Scale via Automated Behavioral Science

As AI agents are increasingly deployed in complex and new environments, knowing the conditions that influence their behavior becomes an indispensable step for their reliable and safe deployment. Yet causal behavioral evaluation of AI agents remains manual and labor-intensive. We introduce Abs2Sim and AEROBAT, a system of methods that support causal behavioral evaluation of AI agents via automated behavioral science. Given a user-specified target behavior, the methods automatically execute a full pipeline of behavioral science research---generating hypotheses about the behavior, designing and executing controlled experiments, making behavioral assessments, analyzing the results, and writing reports. For 12 target behaviors, the methods generated and tested 73 hypotheses: designing 1,160 controlled experiments and executing 22,954 simulation rounds in total. Moderate-to-strong statistical evidence emerged for 30 hypotheses, revealing potential modulators of AI behavior. In sum, our results demonstrate that automated behavioral science can extend the reach of behavioral evaluation of AI agents.

Soo Yong Lee, Jongha Lee, Jaewan Chun +8

KAIST, Kim Jaechul Graduate School of AI · Yale, Department of Psychiatry · University of Haifa, School of Public Health +3

AI-Assisted Scientific Research AI Agent Evaluation Autonomous Experimentation

Aug 9, 2026cs.AI

Findings of the First Teaching Monster Challenge: A Benchmark of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in AI Agents

AI agents can now solve problems, answer like subject experts, and generate long-form multimodal content. However, whether they can adapt a lesson to fit a specified learner, which education calls Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), has not been benchmarked. To measure it, we introduce the Teaching Monster Challenge, the first instructional video generation benchmark to treat the learner persona as an explicit evaluation criterion. Each system is given a topic and a learner persona and must generate a complete instructional video. Every video is screened by an LLM-judge, ranked by crowd pairwise voting, and finalized by an expert panel. The first edition shows that today's systems handle the content well but are far weaker at presenting it and adapting it to the learner. The same process exposes a limit of automatic judging. The LLM-judge separates a clear low-performing tail but ranks the strongest systems poorly. The strongest systems receive nearly identical scores from the judge, so its ranking of them does not match human preference. Progress therefore requires not only better teaching systems but also better automatic judges, and we release the benchmark, rubric, and human judgments as a testbed for both.

Yi-Cheng Lin, Yu-Kai Guo, Szu-Chi Chen +15

National Taiwan University · NTU AI Center of Research Excellence

AI in Education AI Agent Evaluation Video Generation

Aug 9, 2026cs.CL

OmnilingualGAIA2: Evaluating the Multilingual Gap in Frontier AI Agents

Agentic benchmarks aim to measure how well AI agents plan, search, execute, and recover within realistic multi-tool environments, but they are almost exclusively in English. As AI agents are globally deployed to a linguistically diverse user base, whether agentic competence measured in English transfers to other languages remains an open question. We introduce OmnilingualGAIA2, a machine-translated expansion (with partial human- expert validation) of the GAIA2 agentic benchmark, covering ten target languages spanning five writing systems, paired with a localised and human-calibrated multilingual verifier. Evaluating seven frontier and open-weight agents, we find a universal cross-lingual gap of 8.8-18.4 pass@3 points that is agent-asymmetric in magnitude, concentrates on tool-orchestration rather than quantitative reasoning, and does not close with model scale. A stratified error attribution decomposes the gap as predominantly model-driven (55%), with a bounded translation-contamination floor of only 6.4% of scenario-language pairs. Human-expert linguistic analysis further identifies morphological cue loss and amplified ambiguity as the primary failure mechanisms in non-Latin-script languages. Our results argue that multilingual agentic evaluation must become a standard part of the reporting protocol for globally deployed agents.

Andrea Caciolai, Pere-Lluís Huguet Cabot, Chierh Cheng +11

Meta Superintelligence Labs

AI Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Tool-Using Agents Cross-Lingual Transfer

Aug 9, 2026cs.AI

ForestBench: A Unified Graph Framework for Evaluating Multi-Agent Collaboration

Multi-agent systems (MAS) built on Large Language Models (LLMs) are proliferating rapidly, but their heterogeneous execution traces provide no common basis for evaluation across methods. Outcome-only benchmarks discard collaborations, whereas LLM-as-Judge evaluation requires additional, model-dependent inference and can vary with the LLM and rubric. We introduce a generalizable evaluation framework that maps native MAS traces into a shared space of unified collaboration graphs, enabling different methods to be evaluated under the same representation, reference set, and metric panel. Candidate graphs are compared with a query-specific reference forest. Each forest is a benchmark-provided collection of verified-success graphs: it records diverse ways in which representative MAS methods can complete the task, rather than prescribing a unique optimal process. Instantiating the framework as ForestBench, we filter

844

collaboration-necessary queries from seven public datasets, precompute ten successful target-conditioned reference graphs per query, and evaluate six representative MAS frameworks. Controlled backbone, reference-construction, and perturbation studies test the stability and scope of evaluation. Once the benchmark forests are built, ForestBench scores a trace in milliseconds without further LLM inference, providing a reusable structural basis for comparing diverse MAS collaboration traces.

Guo Chen, Ziwen Li, Reed Li +4

Southwest University Chongqing, China · Tencent Beijing, China · Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing, China

Multi-Agent LLM Systems AI Agent Evaluation Multi-Agent Collaboration AI Agent Benchmarks

Aug 9, 2026cs.AI

Not Worth Another Token: Marginal Value Estimation for Efficient Deep Research Agents

Long-horizon research agents solve open-ended tasks through iterative retrieval, aggregation, and synthesis, but context grows rapidly while the marginal value of additional evidence often declines. This leads to unnecessary token cost, higher latency, and noisier inputs for final report generation. We study marginal value estimation for context management in deep research agents and present the first systematic stage-aware comparison of pruning strategies across the pipeline. We evaluate lightweight heuristic criteria and a learned value model at pre-retrieval, post-retrieval, and pre-synthesis stages. Our results show that pruning effectiveness depends more on where pruning is applied than on the specific scoring rule: early pruning yields the largest end-to-end savings, while later pruning mainly refines the final synthesis context. Lightweight heuristics reduce token usage by up to 73% with little quality degradation, learned pruning remains competitive on selected trade-offs, and no single method dominates across quality, efficiency, and faithfulness. These findings provide practical guidance for designing efficient long-horizon agentic systems.

Harshitha Kolukuluru, Reshma Ashok, Kirat Arora +7

University of Massachusetts Amherst · The University of Texas at Austin · Adobe Research

Deep Research Agents AI Agent Evaluation Long-Horizon LLM Agents LLM Context Management

Aug 7, 2026cs.AI

AndroidReality: How Far Are Mobile Agents from the Real World?

Mobile agents have achieved promising results on clean online benchmarks such as AndroidWorld, yet their performance often degrades sharply in real-world deployment due to environmental variations and imperfect interface conditions. In this work, we introduce AndroidReality, a perturbation-based framework for evaluating and improving the robustness of mobile agents. Through a Markov Decision Process (MDP) perspective, we organize real-world interface variability into a principled taxonomy of perturbations along three axes: state, transition, and action. Guided by this taxonomy, we build a perturbed mobile benchmark on top of AndroidWorld with realistic and controllable perturbation injections, enabling systematic robustness evaluation of mobile agents. Our evaluation reveals substantial robustness gaps and four recurring error categories, motivating a simple training-free Test-Time Introspective Recovery (TTIR) mechanism that mitigates these failures on both perturbed and clean settings. Together, these results position robustness as a missing dimension in mobile agent evaluation and establish benchmark perturbation as an effective tool for both stress testing and surfacing latent weaknesses of mobile agents.

Xiaoou Liu, Longchao Da, Hanyang Chen +2

Arizona State University · Independent Researcher

Agent Reliability GUI Agents AI Agent Evaluation Mobile GUI Agents

Aug 6, 2026cs.LG

Toward Reliable Context Compression for Long-Horizon Agents: An Empirical Study of Execution Instability

Recurrent context compression controls context growth in long-horizon agents, but its behavioral effects remain poorly understood. In this preliminary empirical study, we show that compression can weaken the influence of recent interactions, increasing blocked actions, repeated exploration, and instability across runs. Motivated by these observations, we introduce TRACE, a verifier-guided framework that evaluates individual compaction events through paired closed-loop continuations from the same environment state and uses summary preferences to optimize a natural-language compression prompt while keeping all models frozen. Initial results on AppWorld show improvements over existing compression baselines in task performance, multi-run reliability, and context--execution efficiency. These findings provide early evidence for boundary-local evaluation as a promising direction for reliable agent context compression.

Guanghui Min, Liang Wu, Mayank Darbari +2

Department of Computer Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA · Nokia, Sunnyvale, CA, USA

AI Agent Evaluation Long-Horizon LLM Agents LLM Agent Reliability Context Compression

Aug 6, 2026cs.AI

When Agentic AI Meets Integrated Sensing and Communication

Agentic artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming Integrated Sensing and Communication (ISAC) from a function-oriented physical-layer technology into a goal-driven, closed-loop intelligent system, a paradigm we term AISAC. Existing work on learning-based sensing, resource allocation, reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RIS), edge intelligence, multi-agent coordination, and resilient networking has developed largely in isolation. This survey unifies the literature within a six-stage closed-loop framework comprising observation, contextualization, reasoning and prediction, planning and orchestration, execution and collaboration, and feedback and resilience. It also introduces five levels of agentic maturity, ranging from physical-layer primitives to fully closed-loop agentic ISAC. We use this framework to review advances in multimodal intelligence, large language models, reinforcement learning, federated learning, RIS-assisted control, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and vehicular networks, and AI-native network management, and analyze privacy, security, resilience, and sustainability as cross-cutting requirements of the full perception-reasoning-action loop. An audit of representative studies against nine agentic-specific evaluation criteria shows that no system reports more than one or two of them, exposing a gap between claimed and demonstrated agentic maturity. We identify open challenges in physical-to-semantic grounding, predictive world models, real-time agent-PHY interaction, safe tool use, heterogeneous multi-agent collaboration, benchmarking, and resource-efficient autonomy.

Kai Li, Conggai Li, Sarah Ali Siddiqui +4

Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SnT), University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg · Technology, CSIRO, Sydney, NSW, Australia · College of Computer, Qassim University, Buraydah, Saudi Arabia +1

Integrated Sensing and Communication AI Agent Evaluation

Aug 5, 2026cs.CR

ASTELD: A Six-Axis Classification Framework for Autonomous AI Agents - Design, Evaluation, and an OpenClaw Case Study

Autonomous AI agent platforms differ substantially in architecture, security, tool integration, execution, autonomy, and deployment, yet the field lacks a common classification scheme for comparing these design choices. We propose ASTELD, an operational six-axis classification framework for autonomous AI agents: Architecture pattern, Security posture, Tool integration model, Execution paradigm, Level of autonomy and human control, and Deployment topology. ASTELD is constructed by synthesizing prior agent taxonomies with observable platform properties and explicit category-assignment rules. We evaluate its discriminative and explanatory utility by mapping eight representative frameworks and by using OpenClaw as an in-depth case study. The resulting profiles separate all eight platforms under their dominant configurations and reveal three cross-platform patterns: a security-accessibility diagonal, strong execution-architecture coupling, and capability convergence with persistent architectural differentiation. We further classify 50+ OpenClaw derivatives and find that innovation concentrates on the Security, Execution, and Deployment axes, indicating that ASTELD can explain where ecosystem fragmentation occurs. The OpenClaw case study also supplies a six-category vulnerability taxonomy, evidence from five institutional assessments, and adoption and governance analyses that connect platform coordinates to observed risks. These results position ASTELD as a reproducible method for comparing agent platforms, identifying unoccupied design regions, guiding framework selection, and organizing future empirical research. The analysis also exposes a consequential empty region: none of the evaluated systems combines local-first deployment with enterprise-grade security.

Siyuan Li, Peng Shu, Churan Yu +19

School of Computing, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA · Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA · College of Engineering, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA +6

AI Agent Evaluation Agentic AI

Aug 4, 2026cs.AI

MatrAIx: Simulating the World with 8.3 Billion Persona Agents

Human evaluation of AI systems and digital products is costly, slow, and difficult to scale. Offline evaluations are more scalable but often abstract away human diversity and interactive behavior. We therefore introduce MatrAIx, a population-scale simulated-user evaluation infrastructure for testing AI systems and digital products with heterogeneous users. MatrAIx has three core components: First, Persona 8B contains 8.3 billion persona records represented by 1,290 categorical dimensions. Records are either sampled from a dependency graph that preserves correlated attributes or derived from human-authored profiles. We release a quality-filtered coreset of approximately 1 million personas, comprising 599,847 human-grounded and 400,000 synthetic records. Second, the MatrAIx Playground provides four environments in which diverse users evaluate and interact with digital products: Survey, AI Chatbot, Web, and App. Third, MatrAIx provides 1,010 application tasks spanning more than 25 domains, including Commerce, Software, Finance, and Healthcare. We conducted 18,189 evaluation trials across eight representative tasks. Persona agents were powered by three LLMs: Claude Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, and Claude Haiku 4.5. The resulting feedback captures how decisions and preferences vary across persona backgrounds, including hesitation after a price increase, willingness to continue after an AI assistant fails, and latency tolerance. We conducted two main validation studies: First, a 400-trial controlled study evaluated persona adherence across ten behavioral attributes and all four environments. The declared behavior was expressed or correctly suppressed in 366 trials (91.5%). Second, human and LLM judges evaluated the extraction quality of human-grounded personas. Overall, MatrAIx provides an end-to-end infrastructure for evaluating AI systems and digital products with diverse simulated human users.

Xiaomin Li, Yuexing Hao, Jianheng Hou +90

Human Behavior Simulation AI Agent Evaluation User Simulation

Aug 4, 2026cs.AI

FinProBench: Evaluating Financial AI Agents with Role-Grounded Rubrics Derived from Professional Deliverables

Evaluating financial AI agents requires criteria aligned with real professional work. Existing rubric methods typically derive criteria from task prompts or model outputs, overlooking tacit standards visible only in practitioner deliverables. We introduce FinProBench, a benchmark for professional financial tasks, and Role-Grounded Rubric Construction (RGRC), a reusable pipeline that derives rubrics from deliverables produced by practitioners in the same role. RGRC comprises four stages: Deliverable Collection, Competency Extraction, Rubric Synthesis, and Validation. Its rubrics capture tacit standards, distinguish quality levels, and transfer across tasks within a role. Before analysis, we classified 57 occupations by deliverable genre into 30 prior-rich conventional roles and 27 prior-sparse role-specialized roles. Across all roles, Prompt-only nearly matches RGRC for conventional roles (89.2% vs. 90.7%), but RGRC substantially outperforms it for role-specialized roles (99.1% vs. 78.0%). This split indicates that prompt engineering can approximate rubrics when conventions are well represented in model priors, while professional grounding is essential for standards beyond those priors. FinProBench is built from 1,723 curated deliverables spanning 57 occupations, 8 financial sub-industries, and 161 deliverable types, and releases an initial evaluation set of 20 complete tasks covering 20 roles in 7 sub-industries. With heterogeneous LLM judges and role-level rubrics, human deliverables rank first on average (73.7 vs. 70.3, 70.2, and 69.6 out of 100), while all four systems show overlapping 95% confidence intervals and complementary strengths. Reusing rubrics at the role level reduces estimated per-task construction effort by 6.7 times relative to authoring each rubric from scratch.

Ben Wang, Kang Zhou, Lifan Guo +2

Qwen DianJin Team, Alibaba Cloud Computing

AI Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Rubric-Based Evaluation Finance

Aug 4, 2026cs.AI

Is Inter-Seed Cross-Play Enough? Evaluating the Robustness of Zero-Shot Coordination Algorithms to Implementation Details

AI agents deployed in real-world settings must be capable of coordinating with humans and other AI agents they have not encountered before. Zero-shot coordination (ZSC) algorithms aim to achieve this by specifying high-level learning rules such that independently engineered agents can coordinate with each other at test time. Rigorous evaluation of ZSC algorithms remains difficult: ideally, multiple independent implementations of each proposed algorithm must be used, reflecting the variation that arises when independent parties interpret and implement the same specification. In practice, however, ZSC algorithms have almost exclusively been evaluated using a single implementation trained across different random seeds, with only a handful of works additionally varying the neural network architecture. This leaves open questions about robustness to specification ambiguities and implementation details. In this work, we provide the first systematic evaluation of this robustness. We introduce a new evaluation scheme, cross-implementation cross-play, varying implementation details that prior work has shown to affect the performance of multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) algorithms, and we evaluate Other-Play, a popular ZSC algorithm, with this scheme. Our findings are encouraging and suggest that, for Other-Play, the standard ZSC evaluation is, in fact, a reasonable proxy for this more thorough cross-implementation evaluation.

Maksymilian Wolski, Nicholas Hoernle, Johannes Forkel +1

ProrokLab University of Cambridge United Kingdom · QuantCo · BOLD† University of Oxford United Kingdom

Multi-Agent Coordination AI Agent Evaluation Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

Aug 4, 2026cs.MA

When Truth Is Distributed: Misinformation Derails Collective Fact Recovery in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems

LLM-based multi-agent systems promise effective collaborative reasoning, but communication may amplify local errors into collective risks, and while existing evaluations emphasize final outcomes, they leave the reliability and propagation dynamics of distributed information aggregation unclear, so we introduce ForesightSafety-TIDE, a controlled evaluation framework that strictly pairs all-honest collaboration with controlled deception by a key evidence holder and analyzes the aggregation process through multi-stage voting, testimony adoption, and evidence-root lineage propagation, and using 120 five-agent object-movement environments where partial observations jointly determine a unique endpoint, we evaluate 3 homogeneous LLM-based multi-agent systems, and across these paired conditions, aggregate truth recovery falls from 72.50% to 14.17%, with significant declines for every system, while process tracing and exit ablations show that a single false testimony is adopted more readily than truthful testimony, propagates to higher orders, and persists through honest agents after the deceiver exits, and observers without first-hand evidence suppress incorrect consensus but do not improve truth recovery, so together, these findings reveal both the fragility of distributed fact recovery and its underlying mechanism: false evidence gains collective influence through its adoption and continued propagation by other agents after entering communication.

Chenfei Yan, Zeyang Yue, Feifei Zhao +6

Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · Beijing Institute of AI Safety and Governance · School of Artificial Intelligence, Beihang University +3

AI Agent Evaluation Multi-Agent Systems Multi-Agent Consensus Multi-Agent Communication LLM Agent Reliability

Aug 4, 2026cs.AI

Adversarial Stress Testing of Role-Playing Language Agents using Multi-Agent Evaluation

Role-Playing Language Agents (RPLAs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes applications such as healthcare assistance, customer support, and education, where maintaining consistent personas, ethical constraints, and behavioral coherence under adversarial pressure is critical. Existing evaluation approaches rely on static benchmarks or isolated single-turn prompts that fail to capture cumulative behavioral failures emerging over extended interactions. We present a modular multi-agent platform for adversarially stress-testing RPLAs through structured, multi-turn dialogue. The system coordinates three agents: a strategy-driven Interrogator Agent that applies six progressive adversarial strategies, a Target Agent representing the RPLA under evaluation, and an automated Judging Agent that scores behavior across role fidelity, drift, ethical deviation, and consistency dimensions. Through experiments across three personas and three LLM families, we demonstrate that multi-strategy adversarial evaluation reveals failure modes invisible to single-strategy testing, reducing overall robustness scores by 0.17--0.20 points on average. Cross-model validation confirms consistent degradation patterns across Llama-3.3-70B, GPT-4o-mini, and Claude-3.5-Haiku, with Authority Challenge and Emotional Manipulation emerging as the most effective attack strategies. Automated judging achieves strong human alignment (

r = 0.82

, Fleiss'

κ= 0.71

). This work is released as an open-source platform to support AI safety and reproducible RPLA benchmarking. While the framework enables systematic discovery of failure modes, we acknowledge potential ethical risks associated with adversarial testing methodologies and emphasize responsible usage for improving AI safety.

Saqib Shouqi, Abdullah Nazly, Januki Wanniarachchi +1

School of Computing, Informatics Institute of Technology, Colombo, Sri Lanka

Adversarial Attacks on LLMs LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Evaluation Multi-Turn Dialogue Evaluation AI Agent Safety Benchmarks

Aug 3, 2026cs.AI

Agentic Commerce World: An Auditable and Verifiable Environment for Vibe Commerce

In vibe coding, people describe software in natural language and delegate implementation to AI agents. By analogy, vibe commerce allows people to express buying or selling goals in natural language and delegate the corresponding tasks to agents. Commerce, however, requires independently controlled Buyer and Merchant agents to interact in a shared market while preserving their private objectives and distinct authority. We introduce Agentic Commerce World (ACWorld), an environment for evaluating such agents across ongoing transactions. Through its Vibe Commerce Protocol (VCP), ACWorld validates agent actions before updating shared transaction state and records the resulting interactions, making agent behavior auditable and evaluation reproducible. The ACWorld Benchmark contains a 200-task capability-coverage track and a 60-task large-catalog track that searches 785,022 transactable listings. Across ten models, mean scores range from 65.9% to 85.6% and from 56.1% to 91.4%, respectively. Our analysis shows that process-level evidence is necessary: final state alone can miss evaluated errors, incomplete trajectories still retain useful process signals, and large-catalog tasks expose bottlenecks across stages.

Shicheng Fan, Mingdai Yang, Duohao Wang +9

University of Illinois at Chicago · 2Springbrand · 3Northwestern University +6

AI Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Agentic Commerce Agentic AI

Aug 3, 2026cs.CL

Can AI Agents Simulate A/B Test Outcomes? A Validation Framework for Agentic Experimentation

A/B testing remains the standard for rolling out new features in the technology industry. Each experiment, however, consumes real traffic, engineering effort, and weeks of wall-clock time. Can AI agents---conditioned on behavioral profiles and contextual descriptions of the intervention---simulate outcomes accurately enough to vet candidate treatments before committing live traffic? We formalize this question as a \emph{Simulated Randomized Controlled Trial} (S-RCT) and derive a two-layer error decomposition that separates agent approximation error from subsampling error, enabling targeted improvements to each. The framework is agent-agnostic: any behavioral model---from a fine-tuned specialist to a general-purpose foundation model---can serve as the simulation engine. Validated on 67 historical marketing A/B tests, a baseline S-RCT using an off-the-shelf foundation model captures directional signal (sign overlap 0.70) but systematically overshoots effect magnitudes. A two-phase pre-period calibration protocol reduces the squared prediction error (after removing irreducible measurement noise) by

{\sim}77\times

; a within-subject design---where each agent is exposed to both arms---reduces standard errors by

{\sim}2.4\times

. We discuss limitations of the current approach and identify applications where experimenters stand to benefit from agentic signals.

Stefan Hut, Lorenzo Masoero

Amazon

Causal Effect Estimation AI Agent Evaluation A/b Testing User Simulation

Aug 2, 2026cs.SE

What Could the Agent See at 19:05? Generating Temporal Enterprise Scenarios from Real Research and Replaying Them to Evaluate Agents

Enterprise AI agents act across many apps whose data changes continuously, so an answer is correct only relative to what data existed and who could see it at the moment it was asked. Offline evaluation today grades against a single static snapshot, effectively the end of the episode. So, it can only evaluate one situation, the final one, even though every earlier moment of the episode is a different situation that invites its own realistic questions with its own correct answers. Recreating each of those moments as a separate snapshot would mean re-provisioning a whole tenant per instant, which is prohibitively costly; and even a single snapshot leaks future state hidden inside records and cannot represent the multi-app, time-ordered way real work happens. Our system closes two gaps at once: it generates a realistic, persona-driven, temporally-evolving enterprise world from real research, and replays that world at any chosen moment to evaluate any pluggable agent. A schema-inferred temporal description drives a deterministic-plus-LLM rebuild of each record's past state; because the queryable moments are finite, all rebuilds are precomputed into a compact difference cache, making evaluation a fast, reproducible lookup with no model in the path. We describe the design, an architecture spanning both flows, and early experience evaluating enterprise agents.

Tezan Sahu, Himani Arora

Microsoft Hyderabad, India

AI Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks

Aug 2, 2026cs.AI

Auditing Discovery Claims: A Two-Sided Criterion for Agentic Science, with the Negative Side Decidable

When a self-improving AI-for-science system claims a new capability, the evidence is usually a benchmark delta, a description-length gate, or a p-value. None separates a real gain from extra search, from a changed verifier, or from adaptation to a fallible oracle. We build a two-sided audit whose negative side is a formal fact: a pseudoknot-free oracle provably cannot represent a crossing base pair, so the prior verifier's range is bounded exactly, offline, before any run. "New" is relative to the agent's prior self, never to the base model. First, how far a single fallible oracle can inflate a capability claim. An invented, solver-free operator solves 43/60 crossing RNA targets under the predictor it optimizes, above a context-free floor of 0/60; under three predictors, 1/60 survives. Paired on the same 43 targets, a predictor the operator never saw confirms 2 of its designs against 26 for a minimum-free-energy solver (p = 8e-7). No statistic computed from the system and its own oracle sees that gap. Second, agent-written procedures can beat a human-written one under a judge no objective can flatter, at a fraction of the compute. Of six frontier models, the two whose operators ran without timeouts carry over at 0.293 against our 0.095 (n = 951 paired units, target-clustered [+0.108, +0.297], p = 5e-5) while spending 4.6-10x fewer oracle calls. Three rungs: difference under an outside adjudicator (reached), not bought with compute (reached, both directions), mechanism identified and transferable (not reached; seven candidates tested, none moves the statistic). The ceiling is the panel itself: its three predictors share nearest-neighbour thermodynamic parameters, two agreeing at kappa = 0.673. The audit is as unsparing about our own system: matched undirected search is an exact zero, and a search-free probe puts 84% of our headline effect on targets a random sequence already solves.

Wenhui Chen, Jianlin Chen, Ziyao Lin +1

University of Macau · 2South China University of Technology

Reward Hacking AI for Science AI Agent Auditing AI Agent Evaluation Scientific Claim Verification

Aug 1, 2026cs.AI

AgentSLABench: Evaluating and Benchmarking Agentic Systems Under Resource Constraints

We present AgentSLABench, a resource-aware evaluation framework for autonomous AI agents that measures correctness alongside latency, cost, compute, memory, and network usage under declared resource budgets. Unlike standard benchmarks that report only accuracy, AgentSLABench produces a multi-dimensional profile per agent per task - the same way systems profilers (perf, pprof, cProfile) measure resource consumption of code, but extended with task correctness as a first-class dimension. AgentSLABench provides 16 task environments across 6 categories (5 core: multi-hop QA, retail substitution, code generation, web shopping, travel planning; 11 extended) with isolated Docker containers, declared CPU/memory/time/network budgets, sealed test sets with SHA256 hashes, and a standardized profiling protocol. We profile 5 general-purpose baseline agents (ReAct, PlanAndSolve, Reflexion, CoT, Random) plus 4 task-specialized agents, finding that specialized agents achieve 100% success on 3/5 core tasks (fact_qa, web_shopping, travel_planning) and 66.7-83.3% on retail and code_gen, while general baselines fail entirely on 4/5 domain tasks. Crucially, we report the Efficiency-Adjusted Success Rate (EASR) - success weighted by resource consumption relative to declared budgets - revealing that high accuracy at unbounded cost is not production-viable. We release the full infrastructure, sealed test sets, and profiling results to enable reproducible, resource-aware agent evaluation.

Meher Bhaskar Madiraju, Meher Sai Preetam Madiraju

AI Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks

Aug 1, 2026cs.AI

FinDeepIndicator: Benchmarking Deep Research Agents in End-to-End Financial Indicator Construction

Financial indicators are essential tools for transforming raw financial data into interpretable measures for various downstream tasks, such as valuation, risk assessment, and economic analysis. However, existing financial benchmarks largely focus on answer-level accuracy and often assume that relevant data are already provided, leaving the assessment of the intermediate process of indicator construction underexplored. In this work, we propose FinDeepIndicator, the first benchmark dedicated to evaluating Deep Research (DR) agents in end-to-end financial indicator construction. Specifically, FinDeepIndicator evaluates DR agents across four stages in indicator construction: formula specification, data collection, indicator calculation, and answer generation, and covers fundamental, technical, and macroeconomic indicators organized into 21 fine-grained sub-categories. It contains 3,350 curated question-answer (QA) pairs derived from both U.S. and Chinese markets, 10 years of historical financial data, and 800 listed companies. Extensive experiments on search-equipped Large Language Models (LLMs) and DR agents show that, while LLMs generally perform well in formula specification, their accuracy drops substantially during data retrieval and numerical execution. DR agents consistently outperform search-equipped LLMs, yet remain unreliable in realistic financial analysis settings. These findings provide insights for developing more capable and trustworthy DR agents in finance.

Chaoqun Yang, Fengbin Zhu, Xinyu Lin +5

School of Computing, National University of Singapore · Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences · China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics +1

Quantitative Finance Deep Research Agents AI Agent Evaluation Finance

Jul 31, 2026cs.AI

Beyond Component Testing: Validating Agentic AI Systems

Agentic AI systems act through multi-step trajectories that combine planning, tool use, memory, interaction, and adaptation. This behavior stretches validation practice beyond component testing and one-shot input-output evaluation, because acceptable system behavior now depends on how decisions unfold over time and under changing environmental conditions. This systematic mapping study synthesizes 262 papers spanning agent evaluation, software assurance, cyber-physical systems, runtime monitoring, and regulatory guidance in order to characterize the validation problem for agentic systems. The review is organized around a five-dimension taxonomy covering behavioral, safety, temporal, regulatory, and multi-agent concerns, and uses that taxonomy to map current approaches and identify dense and sparse pairings of approaches and dimensions. The resulting map shows that the literature concentrates on behavioral evaluation (105 of 262 papers) and is thinnest on temporal validity (14 papers); regulatory work rests mainly on assurance cases and regulatory analysis, largely from IEEE-indexed venues, and multi-agent work mainly on benchmarks. Three cross-domain case studies (medical care, industrial operations, smart-mobility systems) provide operational illustrations of how the five taxonomy dimensions recur in safety-critical settings, motivated by the failure patterns documented in the reviewed literature. The paper concludes with a lifecycle-oriented research agenda centered on bounded-autonomy specifications, adversarial trajectory generation, runtime monitoring, and audit-ready evidence structures. The central claim is that trustworthy deployment of agentic AI depends on validating trajectories in context rather than assessing isolated components alone.

Fabio Orazio Mirto, Luca D'Agati, Giuseppe Tricomi +4

Department of Biomedical, Dental, and Morphological and Functional Imaging Sciences, University of Messina, A.O.U. Policlinico “G.Martino” - Via Consolare Valeria, Messina, 98125, Italy. · Department of Engineering, University of Messina, Contrada di Dio, Sant’Agata, Messina, 98158, Italy. · Institute for High Performance Computing and Networking of National Research Council of Italy, ICAR-CNR, Via Pietro Castellino 111, Naples, 80131, Italy. +1

AI Agent Evaluation AI Agent Safety AI Agent Monitoring Multi-Agent Systems AI Agent Governance

Jul 31, 2026cs.SE

Rethinking Self-Evolving Agent Skills: Feedback Dynamics over Multiple Rounds

Self-evolving skill systems promise to improve agents by turning execution feedback into persistent skill updates without changing the underlying model. Yet it remains unclear when further evolution helps, how successful and failed trajectories shape revision, and whether extra test-time computation can recover the same gains. To address these questions, we present a controlled evaluation framework across five benchmarks and three models. Our primary study contains 42 feedback runs across 14 supported model-benchmark settings. Within each setting, we hold the executor and optimizer configuration, revision procedure, validation rule, and round budget fixed, while varying only the feedback shown to the optimizer: successes and failures (Normal), failures only, or successes only. Evolution is sparse: only 55 of 388 candidates establish byte-distinct validation bests. Validation-based selection chooses an evolved skill in 11 of 14 settings, nine of which improve released-test performance. All 11 selections come from feedback conditions that include failed trajectories, although the relative ranking of Normal and Fail-only varies across settings. Validation and downstream evaluations on test, robustness, and transfer sometimes favor different feedback views. A broader SearchQA analysis covering eight models shows similarly sparse, feedback-dependent dynamics. In the GPT-5.5 test-time-scaling controls, oracle Parallel Sampling comes within 0.43 points of the evolved SearchQA skill but remains 30.96 points behind on SpreadsheetBench; Sequential Refinement recovers neither gain. Overall, persistent skill self-evolution is better understood as sparse, validation-filtered search with model- and benchmark-dependent returns, rather than steady improvement from additional rounds. The implementation is available at https://github.com/HKUST-KnowComp/rethinkskill.

Yuxuan Liu, Zhaochen Su, Yuhao Zhang +9

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen · Harbin Institute of Technology +1

AI Agent Evaluation Agent Skill Learning Self-Evolving Agents

Jul 31, 2026cs.AI

InfraBench: Evaluating Infrastructure Agents Across Layers, Lifecycle, and Risk

Managing modern computing infrastructure has become a steadily harder problem due to the ever-increasing complexity. Recent advances in AI agents create a timely opportunity to automate infrastructure management tasks, but it remains unclear how well such agents can handle real-world infrastructure complexity. We present InfraBench, a benchmark suite for evaluating AI agents on realistic infrastructure tasks across the full system stack and full operational lifecycle with fine-grained risk assessment. Experiments with 15 agent-model configurations show that even the strongest agent cannot secure a full score across all tasks. Mean effective scores range from roughly 40% to 88% (with per-configuration standard errors of 6-12 points), repeating every task three times reveals that top configurations still pass only a fraction of their attempts, and per-check scoring exposes a general failure pattern: agents may routinely satisfy short-term objectives while leaving non-durable changes, broken distributed invariants, unsafe side effects, and uncleaned state behind. INFRABENCH, including its live leaderboard, tasks, and evaluation harness, is publicly available at infraben.ch.

Yuan Gao, Zeren Yang, Junnan Li +6

Wanxiang · University of Wisconsin–Madison · 2Iowa State University

AI Agent Reliability AI Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks AI Agent Safety Benchmarks