Process-Based Agent Evaluation

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Latest papers

23 papers7 papers in the last four weeks, up 133% on the four weeks before. 0.0% of all new papers.

Oct 19, 2026

StebBench: Diagnosing Real-World Procedural Understanding in AI Agents

Evaluating an agent's planning ability remains challenging for open-domain tasks, where verifying procedures through execution is often impractical. Existing evaluations typically assess only the final plan and do not distinguish procedural errors such as missing, incorrect, or misordered actions. We introduce STEPBENCH, a benchmark of 6,885 verified procedures crawled from wikiHow across 81 open-domain categories. From each procedure, we derive 5 diagnostic tasks: four with deterministic answers involving withheld, incorrect, or shuffled steps, and one requiring next-step generation. We additionally evaluate full-plan generation to examine how diagnostic performance correlates with end-to-end plan validity. Using the same procedures across tasks lets us directly compare different planning capabilities. For generation, STEPEVAL identifies critical failures that prevent goal completion. Across 14 configurations of 12 models, we find substantial differences across planning capabilities, with step ordering proving the most difficult: the strongest model correctly orders only 63.0% of procedures, dropping to 33.1% for those with nine or more steps. Incorrect-step detection also predicts judged plan validity across models, suggesting a lower-cost alternative for evaluating generation quality. On STEPBENCH-Val, comprising 214 procedures published in 2026, comprehension scores and rankings remain stable, suggesting limited influence from memorisation.

Hossein A. Rahmani, Bin Wu, Chaeeun Lee +6

UCL AI Centre, University College London · School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh · Microsoft +1

Process-Based Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Agent Planning

Oct 19, 2026

The Control Layer Behind Rule-Following Agents Trading Across Market Conditions

Trading discipline often fails people. Our study tested whether four AI trading agents followed their strategies and risk rules. Offering traders the evidence and an agent evaluation toolkit to separate luck from following the rules, before giving agents meaningful autonomy or capital. Our study analysed 2,627 closed positions from 12 February to 27 August 2026 across the same asset universe and execution conditions. Most positions were simulated against live prices with a 0.09% round-trip fee; 18% involved real Hyperliquid orders. Each position declared a strategy, stop and target, with a limit of five open positions per agent. The fleet finished net positive after fees. Rule adherence was high across all four agents, including the unprofitable one. Profitability tracked how often agents won relative to their break-even win rates. Institutional-style controls ran by default and contained losses through a 29% market drawdown and recovery, with documented exceptions. The discipline held for all four agents. Agents kept 97.5% of gross loss within declared stops, and typical losses closed at declared levels. Declared risk remained stable after losses and broadly stable across calm and volatile months. Twenty-three of 24 runs respected the position limit; logs identify the exception's size and duration. The same live data produced different results across assigned strategies. The trade-log tests can be rerun from the published trade snapshot; regime tests also require the published Bitcoin prices and regime labels. Section 3.5 specifies the stop-breach tolerance. These trade-level results are not account-level returns or proof of a lasting edge. Our study provides an evaluation toolkit to help traders distinguish rule-following from luck before committing capital. For anyone considering allocating capital to agents to trade, discipline should be the entry test, not the only test.

Saad Naja, Nasser Odtallah, Jake Van-Praag +1

Hygentra AI

AI Agent Reliability Process-Based Agent Evaluation AI Agent Evaluation Algorithmic Trading AI Risk Management

Oct 19, 2026

Reliable Before Profitable: QuantHarness for Governing Financial Strategy Development with LLM Agents

LLM agents can turn natural-language financial research requests into executable and backtested strategies, but a successful run may still implement the wrong rule, use information unavailable at decision time, or obscure how repairs and candidate selection changed the strategy. Because these failures arise throughout development, final code and performance metrics alone are insufficient to establish either fidelity to the request or the validity of the development process. We therefore address the reliability of financial strategy development at the trajectory level: the system must control how intermediate outputs become downstream state and preserve the evidence needed to justify the terminal outcome. We introduce QuantHarness, a two-layer agent harness in which a finance-specific Workflow structures specification, data grounding, construction, testing, and review, while Harness Core enforces stage-specific information, action, and commitment boundaries. We also introduce FinRelBench, a benchmark that evaluates strategy-development reliability through execution success, requirement satisfaction, and runtime evidence. QuantHarness achieves the highest Task Success at 90.72%, compared with 74.23%--84.54% for the comparison systems. Controlled stress tests show that its boundaries contain targeted violations, while structured run records improve evidence retrieval and support decision replay under the evaluated protocol.

Jiasheng Mao, Jiacheng Liu, Hengwei Ye +1

ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, China

LLM Agent Harnesses LLM Agent Reliability Process-Based Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks

Oct 19, 2026

FinHopper: A Progressive Multi-Hop Benchmark for Complex Financial Agents with Step-wise Evaluation

Financial agents are expected to answer factual investment queries through open search, but financial multi-hop retrieval differs from general multi-hop QA in a crucial way: each intermediate answer is an exact typed constraint, such as an entity, date, event, or numerical indicator, that determines the next query. This strict answer-conditioned dependency makes small intermediate errors cascade into plausible but wrong search trajectories. We introduce FinHopper, a benchmark for complex financial agents with controlled reasoning depth from 1 to 6 hops, covering stocks, funds, and macroeconomic facts, with gold intermediate answers for process-level evaluation. To construct FinHopper at scale, we design a state-transition-based synthesis framework that composes verified atomic financial QA patterns into dependency-preserving chains, followed by targeted in-synthesis verification, model-ensemble checking, and public-search validation by financial experts. Experiments with 20 LLM-agent configurations show that public search tools are necessary but insufficient: performance drops sharply as hop depth increases, the best model remains far below human experts, and process-aware scoring reveals partial reasoning progress hidden by final-answer-only evaluation. The benchmark is available at https://github.com/justajustin/FinHopper/.

Yuxuan Wu, Miaopei Lin, Qiufang Ying +9

South China University of Technology · FiT, Tencent · Shenzhen Technology University

Financial QA Financial Reasoning Benchmarks Multi-Hop QA Process-Based Agent Evaluation

Oct 19, 2026

CXBench: A Benchmark for Process-Compliant LLM Agents in Regulated Customer-Experience Workflows

Tool-using language agents increasingly perform regulated customer-service workflows, where a correct final state is insufficient: agents must also provide disclosures, obtain consent, and follow required procedures. Existing tool-agent benchmarks largely score final business states, accepting trajectories that reach correct outcomes through non-compliant processes. We introduce cxbench, a benchmark that evaluates outcome and process compliance separately across six regulated domains. Each task combines a customer request, a tool-based environment, and explicit process requirements. Rule cards link cited regulatory obligations to observable trace evidence. A hybrid grader combines deterministic checks for ordering and authority with an LLM judge for semantic requirements. We define a false-pass as an outcome-pass run that fails process checks. Across seven models and 120 tasks, 55.5% of the 840 retained executions are false-passes, representing 80.1% of outcome-passing runs; only 13.8% pass both checks. Process-inclusive evaluation changes the observed model ordering and exposes differences hidden by outcome-only scoring. cxbench makes these failures inspectable through trace-linked criteria.

Boxi Yu, Yuzhong Zhang, Zhenfeng Su +7

Lero, the Research Ireland Centre for Software, University of Limerick, Ireland. · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China. · Xi’an Jiaotong University, China. +3

LLM Agent Evaluation Process-Based Agent Evaluation AI Regulatory Compliance Customer Support Automation

Oct 19, 2026

MASIF: Implicit Failures for Process Observability in Multi-Agent Systems

Multi-agent systems (MAS) can complete a task despite local execution errors that are corrected, bypassed, or carried forward without individually determining its outcome. We call these implicit failures (IFs) and study them as signals for process observability beyond final task outcome. Across 1,828 traces from nine MAS-benchmark configurations, IFs occur in 54.3% of successful and 75.2% of failed traces. We develop taxonomies of error types and subsequent absorption mechanisms, supported by human and cross-model annotation audits. Counterfactual replay further probes how repairing an IF changes the final outcome. To examine the practical value of IFs, we evaluate IF-based best-of-N trace selection against existing process reward models, and introduce a novel RL algorithm, IF-GRPO, that uses IF costs to refine preferences among successful trajectories in GRPO. Experiments show that IF-GRPO exhibits some gains in accuracy and process metrics. Importantly, it exposes trade-offs between task performance, IF count and cost, and token-normalized IF density. Overall, our results show that IFs provide complementary process observability into how MAS reach their outcomes, including error recovery, propagation, and IF-based process differences that final task success alone does not expose.

Yanwei Huang, Arpit Narechania, Atanu Sinha

HKUST · Adobe Research

Multi-Agent Systems Agent Failure Analysis Process-Based Agent Evaluation

Oct 18, 2026

Design and Cross-Domain Evaluation of an Agent Execution Harness

Completing complex tasks with language-model agents requires coordinating planning, execution, and review so the final result addresses the user's original objective. We present an agent execution harness that keeps the original objective separate from a revisable plan and an execution record. A planner assigns scoped tasks, workers produce outputs and artifacts, and a reviewer examines results against the original request before submitting or requesting additional work. Reusable domain-specific instructions guide these roles and are refined during construction using task inputs and execution trajectories, without official grading feedback. We evaluate complete harness configurations across terminal tasks, clinical responses, application building, and scientific questions. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, the harness passes 83 of 89 instances (93.26%); on HealthBench Professional, a Fable-configured system achieves a length-adjusted rubric score of 69.63 across 525 tasks. In a 53-task paired HealthBench comparison, the Fable-configured harness achieves an aggregate score 19.89 points higher than direct completion, despite a

-1.46

-point median task-level change; mean inference cost rises from $0.29 to $2.13 per task. We combine these outcomes with latency, documented instruction revisions, and reviewer decisions. Evaluating outcomes alongside execution trajectories and resource use clarifies how coordination supports task completion, where it introduces regressions, and at what cost.

Saurav Joshi, Manas Gupta, Ashwin Venkatesh Raman +1

Spine AI

LLM Agent Harnesses LLM Agent Evaluation Process-Based Agent Evaluation LLM Agent Efficiency

Oct 17, 2026

Measuring Consensus in AI Agent Networks

As AI agents become increasingly connected through networks and take on tasks that require negotiation and joint decision-making, a systematic approach is needed to assess how their views converge and what information supports their decisions. We present an evaluation framework that treats consensus formation as the evolution of publicly stated positions toward a shared region, using accumulated communication history as context. The framework tracks position trajectories, group dispersion, and information expressed in public messages. Two case studies examine staffing decisions based on distributed facts and decisions requiring agents to reconcile duplicate information and a cancelled contract. Results from 1,872 completed runs associate sharing explanations with more accurate group decisions, while the second task reveals persistent disagreement despite accurate aggregate answers. Membership-change experiments provide a complementary evaluation. By separating convergence among agents from progress toward a task's full-information answer, the framework relates decision accuracy and bounded disagreement to the information available during the exchange.

Jin Gao

Independent Researcher, USA

Multi-Agent Consensus Multi-Agent Systems Process-Based Agent Evaluation Multi-Agent Communication

Oct 16, 2026

Cortex: A Fixed-Point Theory of Governed Coding Agents - Technical Report

A coding agent combines a large language model (LLM) with a harness that plans, edits, and executes code. We study Cortex, a supervisory layer for pre-execution governance, requirement tracking, and iterative validation and repair. We formalize requirement closure on a finite lattice. For a fixed requirement set and a sound, monotone validation rule with persistent evidence, exhaustive iteration reaches the least fixed point with no more strict increases than there are requirements. Fair consequence scheduling reaches the same closure. A separate stochastic model bounds expected completion time under a uniform positive-progress assumption. These results depend on their stated assumptions; artifact repair, fallible validation, and finite execution budgets do not satisfy them automatically. We define Gauntlet's trajectory-similarity and build-gated scores, attack-success estimators, Wilson intervals, and case-cluster bootstrap summaries. Effective-feedback accounting counts newly certified requirements, rather than estimating their information value or utility. The five evaluation families support raw-versus-governed comparisons. We report retained benchmark observations, including rescoring of existing artifacts; constructed outcomes are excluded. Unequal observation sets and incomplete provenance prevent causal claims about governance or measured long-horizon scaling.

Marius-Constantin Dinu, Florian Zeba

Alpha Omega Labs

AI Coding Agents AI Agent Governance Process-Based Agent Evaluation

Oct 9, 2026

Long-Horizon-Terminal-Bench 2.0: Automating Diverse Task Construction and Measuring Sustained Agent Progress

Long-horizon terminal benchmarks measure whether an agent can sustain progress through extended workflows with process rewards, not only whether its final state passes a binary check. We present Long-Horizon-Terminal-Bench 2.0 (LHTB 2.0), an extension of Long-Horizon-Terminal-Bench that preserves its 46 original tasks while correcting task and evaluation-infrastructure defects and extending 31 tasks. LHTB 2.0 contains 77 tasks across 13 domains and eight task types. The extended tasks are produced through a systematic reconstruction-task pipeline. We start from a working scientific or engineering artifact, then use a parameterized reference implementation to generate multiple scenarios, reveal six as behavioral evidence, hold out three for evaluation, and use dense progress ladders to reward partial progress while preventing memorization of public outputs. We also extend the evaluation horizon from 90 minutes to three hours and record verifier checkpoints every 30 minutes, enabling direct measurement of sustained progress within a run. Across 1,145 scored model-task runs from 15 frontier models, GPT-6-astra leads with dense mean reward 0.69 and 37 tasks at R at least 0.95, followed by GPT-5.6-sol with dense mean reward 0.67 and 32 tasks at the same threshold. On the 30 reconstruction tasks, binary verifier scores average 0.221, whereas dense ladder scores average 0.653, showing that outcome-only evaluation discards substantial intermediate progress. LHTB 2.0 provides a broader, hardened, and process-aware testbed for studying reliable agent execution over hours.

Zongxia Li, Zhongzhi Li, Yucheng Shi +14

Tencent HY LLM Frontier · University of Maryland, College Park · University of Georgia +7

Process-Based Agent Evaluation LLM Agent Evaluation Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks

Oct 1, 2026

Continuous Process-Level Evaluation for Evolving Enterprise AI Agent Skills

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

Ngoc Phuoc An Vo, Aarya Doshi, Vadim Sheinin

IBM · Georgia Institute of Technology · IBM Research

Process-Based Agent Evaluation Tool-Use Evaluation AI Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation

Sep 21, 2026

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

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

Zhilin Wang, Shaokun Zhang, Yifan Zhang +9

NVIDIA

Computer-Use Agent Benchmarks Process-Based Agent Evaluation Computer-Use Agents Agent Evaluation

Sep 21, 2026

Beyond Endpoint Performance: Process-Level Evaluation of Self-Evolving Agents

Self-evolving agents convert interaction feedback into persistent artifacts, such as memories or skills, which in turn guide subsequent decisions. As these artifacts are iteratively updated throughout an experience stream, the capabilities they support may evolve. Consequently, endpoint performance alone offers an incomplete view of self-evolution. Process-level evaluation is therefore essential to identify when a target capability emerges and whether later updates strengthen, preserve, or weaken it. Motivated by this, we propose EvoPathBench, a benchmark that tracks individual capabilities during artifact-level self-evolution. EvoPathBench fixes the base model, tools, freezes evolving artifacts at successive checkpoints, and evaluates the target capability on held-out episodes. This benchmark evaluates agent self-evolution using public trading data and calibrated trajectories. It tests three capabilities: generalization to unseen tasks, retention after unrelated learning, and rule adaptation to new evidence. Experimental results show that gains on similar unseen tasks often weaken under distribution shift, retention losses are concentrated in a minority of evolution paths, and no method achieves reliable rule adaptation. Moreover, while self-evolution enables agents to generate candidate artifacts with substantial held-out gains, the selected updates consistently fall short of realizing this potential. Together, these findings establish capability-level process evaluation as a foundation for analyzing self-evolution, identifying candidate evaluation and selection as key targets for improvement.

Hongqiang Lin, Chao Liu, Xiaofan Bai +4

Zhejiang University · Alibaba Group

Process-Based Agent Evaluation Self-Evolving Agents Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation

Sep 10, 2026

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

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

Hanhua Hong, Yizhi Li, Luu Gia Huy +3

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

Process-Based Agent Evaluation AI Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Scientific Reproducibility

Sep 5, 2026

OpenDiscoveryTrace: Process Traces for Evaluating AI Scientist Workflows

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

\times

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

p < 0.0001

, Cliff's

δ= 0.613

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

Aayam Bansal, Keertan Balaji

Process-Based Agent Evaluation AI for Science AI Agent Auditing LLM Auditing AI Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation+1

Aug 24, 2026

What Process Evaluation of Coding Agents Actually Measures: Action, Task, and Step Are Three Different Levels

Coding agents are increasingly evaluated not only by whether they solve a task, but also by how they execute it. However, existing process-level evaluations often treat action prediction, task uncertainty, and step attribution as if they were the same problem, which makes it unclear what such evaluations actually measure. In this paper, we introduce a measurement framework for process evaluation in coding agents and instantiate step-level causal attribution with SCAE, a replay-based estimator derived from a structural causal model of agent execution. Our framework combines prefix-conditioned identification, replay/intervention-based estimation, and controlled judge-information manipulation to study process evaluation at the action, task, and step levels. Experiments on 499 file-localization episodes from 12 repositories show that next actions are driven primarily by execution provenance rather than code-graph transitions, execution uncertainty is structured at the task rather than step level, and full-trace judges exhibit systematic collider bias, suggesting that current process evaluation often measures semantic relevance rather than certified causal contribution.

Jiawei He, Mengyu Shi, Jie jia +2

Amap, Alibaba Group, China

Process-Based Agent Evaluation AI Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation Coding Agents Causal Attribution Step-Level Credit Assignment

Jul 30, 2026

ClawTrack: Towards Trace-Level Evaluation and Improvement of Real-World Autonomous Agents

As LLM-based agents are deployed in complex, multi-step workflows, a critical evaluation gap has emerged: most existing benchmarks judge only final outcomes, unable to distinguish reliable reasoning from lucky success or attribute failures to specific process deficiencies, hindering attribution in long-horizon tasks. In this work, we present ClawTrack, a dual-assessment benchmark that simultaneously measures what an agent achieves (Task Score) and how it achieves it (Process Score). ClawTrack comprises 320 tasks across 8 domains with 25+ deterministic mock services. A Process Grader scores each reasoning turn along four dimensions (goal alignment, efficiency, information utilization, and result verification), anchored by 12,541 task-specific rubric items. Evaluating 21 models over 16,000+ trials, we find that: (1) process scores effectively attribute success and failure to specific reasoning dimensions, filtering lucky passes invisible to outcome-only evaluation; (2) the four dimensions are complementary, with result verification as the systematic bottleneck; (3) the framework is robust to evaluator choice across different judge LLMs; and (4) process-based trajectory filtering yields consistent post-training improvements across model scales.

Xingjian Wu, Xuhang Zhu, Xingchen Liu +6

Meituan

AI Agent Reliability LLM Agent Evaluation Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Agent Training Process-Based Agent Evaluation

Jun 22, 2026

GroundEval: A Deterministic Replacement for LLM-as-Judge in Stateful Agent Evaluation

Before letting an agent operate over real context, can you prove it used the right evidence? GroundEval turns that question into a deterministic test of what the agent searched, fetched, cited, and was permitted to access. In one case study, two frontier LLM judges scored a plausible agent response 0.85 and higher. But the trace told a different story: the agent had never retrieved the artifact its answer depended on, yielding a GroundEval score of 0.000. We introduce GroundEval, a judge-free framework for evaluating agents against grounded, time-bounded, and access-controlled evidence. GroundEval uses a domain configuration to generate questions, lets the agent choose how to answer, and then scores both the final answer and the recorded trajectory that produced it. The benchmark targets three failures that LLM-as-judge evaluation struggles to detect: whether an agent checked before claiming absence, reasoned only from evidence available to the actor at the relevant time, and used the correct causal mechanism rather than a plausible one. These correspond to three tracks: Silence, Perspective, and Counterfactual. GroundEval exposes when plausible answers rest on invalid evidence paths, and produces structured per-question diagnostics that pair tool activity with the agent's turn-level narration, making each score inspectable rather than merely reported. Our case studies suggest this failure mode is common rather than exceptional, one that final-answer and judge-based evaluation cannot detect by construction.

Jeffrey Flynt

Independent Researcher

AI Agent Reliability Agent Evaluation LLM Agent Verification AI Agent Benchmarks Tool-Use Evaluation LLM Grounding+7

Jun 15, 2026

Agent trajectories as programs: fingerprinting and programming coding-agent behavior

Benchmark scores tell you what an agent got right; they do not tell you how it got there. In this work, we introduce methods for comparing agents procedurally in different contexts, where the model, tasks, and approaches vary. We compare ten agents and find that they are identifiable by their behavioral habits, which we define as fingerprints: a probe over these procedural signatures attributes an unseen trajectory to the correct agent at 85.7% accuracy, controlling for leakage across tasks. We develop procedural representations for agent problem-solving procedures with an emergent vocabulary induction technique that is meant to be maximally compressive to avoid surface-level variation while being expressive enough to unveil the quirks of the models' patterns. We apply our framework to the software engineering evaluation dataset SWE-Bench to study the structural distinctness of agent trajectories and find that behavior is most similar between models from similar release periods and those that are distilled from one another (e.g., a distilled student model and its teacher have a Jensen-Shannon divergence of 0.25, about half the distance between other model pairs). As more models saturate evaluations, we believe that it will be important to probe model behavior along more holistic dimensions than success rates alone. We introduce ProcGrep, a library for auditing and evaluating agents for how they approach tasks at a procedural level given their traces in a top-down fashion. We believe this work has a range of applications to help developers work with and program coding agents, such as task-aware model routing, agent monitoring, and finer-grained cost analysis.

Hamidah Oderinwale

Work done with support from Taste Labs

AI Coding Agents AI Agent Evaluation Language Model Fingerprinting Agent Trajectory Analysis Process-Based Agent Evaluation

May 19, 2026

AgentAtlas: Beyond Outcome Leaderboards for LLM Agents

Large language model agents now act on codebases, browsers, operating systems, calendars, files, and tool ecosystems, but their evaluations often collapse behavior into final task success. AgentAtlas reframes agent evaluation as a diagnostic vocabulary and audit protocol for separating outcome success from control-decision quality and trajectory quality. The paper contributes: (i) a six-state control-decision taxonomy (Act / Ask / Refuse / Stop / Confirm / Recover); (ii) a trajectory-failure vocabulary with primary error source and downstream impact; (iii) a 0/1/2 benchmark-coverage audit over fifteen agent benchmarks; and (iv) an illustrative protocol study on a synthetic 1,342-item set evaluated with eight models under taxonomy-aware and taxonomy-blind prompt formats. The synthetic demonstration is not a public benchmark release and should not be read as a definitive model comparison. Instead, it illustrates two measurement risks: mapped label agreement can change substantially when the explicit label menu is removed, and axis choice can change apparent rankings. AgentAtlas is intended to help benchmark designers state what behavior they cover, and to help evaluators diagnose failures that outcome-only leaderboards hide.

Parsa Mazaheri, Kasra Mazaheri

University of California, Santa Cruz · Massachusetts Institute of Technology

LLM Agent Reliability Computer-Use Agent Benchmarks Agent Failure Analysis Benchmark Auditing AI Agent Auditing LLM Agent Evaluation+3

May 13, 2026

AgentLens: Revealing The Lucky Pass Problem in SWE-Agent Evaluation

Evaluation of software engineering (SWE) agents is dominated by a binary signal: whether the final patch passes the tests. This outcome-only view treats a principled solution and a chaotic trial-and-error process as equivalent. We show that this equivalence is empirically false. We evaluate 2,614 OpenHands trajectories from eight model backends on 60 SWE-bench Verified tasks. Of these, 47 have enough passing trajectories to construct task-level process references, yielding a 1,815-trajectory evaluation subset. Among passing trajectories in this subset, 10.7% exhibit behavior we call a Lucky Pass: regression cycles, blind retries, missing verification, or temporally disordered exploration, implementation, and verification. We introduce AgentLens, a framework for process-level assessment of SWE-agent trajectories, and define AgentLens-Bench, a dataset of 1,815 trajectories annotated with quality scores, waste signals, divergence points, and 47 task-level Prefix Tree Acceptor (PTA) references. AgentLens builds PTA references by merging multiple passing solutions for the same task, and uses a context-sensitive intent labeler to assign actions to Exploration, Implementation, Verification, or Orchestration based on trajectory history rather than tool identity alone. On AgentLens-Bench, the quality score separates passing trajectories into Lucky, Solid, and Ideal tiers and further decomposes Lucky Passes into five recurring mechanisms. Across the eight model backends, Lucky rates range from 0.5% to 23.2%, and some models move by as many as five rank positions when ranked by quality score instead of pass rate. We plan to release the project repository soon, including AgentLens-Bench artifacts, the AgentLens SDK, and the analysis tooling.

Priyam Sahoo, Gaurav Mittal, Xiaomin Li +4

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA · Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA

Agent Failure Analysis Process-Based Agent Evaluation Software Engineering Agents Software Engineering Benchmarks LLM Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation

Apr 8, 2026

Where Did It Go Wrong? Process-Level Evaluation of Web Agents with Semantic State Tracking

Web agents act through long interaction sequences, yet existing benchmarks evaluate only terminal success, discarding all process information and offering little guidance on improvement. In this work, we conduct a process-level analysis of web agents. We introduce WebStep, a benchmark of 1,800 task instances with controlled difficulty and automatic semantic state tracking. Each website exposes a deterministic semantic MDP alongside the GUI: the agent operates on the interface, while the environment records high-level states and transitions in the background, enabling fine-grained analysis without manual annotation. Based on the semantic trajectory, we first show that process metrics reveal differences invisible to outcome evaluation: three agents whose success rates cluster within 34-37% diverge in exploration reach versus execution accuracy. Then, decomposing by skill characterizes the nature of these differences, exposing opposite per-skill rankings hidden within the same website: e.g., on Q&A, Claude CUA outperforms OpenAI CUA by 30% on navigation actions yet underperforms it by 6.7% on inspection, pinpointing a concrete skill to improve even within a domain. Bifurcation analysis further localizes the decisive error that loses the task and shows that this error is agent-specific rather than shared. Finally, these differences widen as tasks grow harder: success rate is similar on easy tasks but separates sharply as exploration becomes more demanding. Our process-level analysis opens a new avenue in web agent evaluation, providing fine-grained and actionable insight into where and how each agent should be improved. Project page: https://jiwanchung.github.io/webstep

Jiwan Chung, JiHyuk Byun, Vibhav Vineet +1

Yonsei University · Microsoft Research

Process-Based Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation AI Agent Evaluation Web Agents Web Agent Benchmarks State Tracking

Mar 15, 2026

AgentProcessBench: Diagnosing Step-Level Process Quality in Tool-Using Agents

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have evolved into tool-using agents, they remain brittle in long-horizon interactions. Unlike mathematical reasoning where errors are often rectifiable via backtracking, tool-use failures frequently induce irreversible side effects, making accurate step-level verification critical. However, existing process-level benchmarks are predominantly confined to closed-world mathematical domains, failing to capture the dynamic and open-ended nature of tool execution. To bridge this gap, we introduce AgentProcessBench, the first benchmark dedicated to evaluating step-level effectiveness in realistic, tool-augmented trajectories. The benchmark comprises 1,000 diverse trajectories and 8,509 human-labeled step annotations with 89.1% inter-annotator agreement. It features a ternary labeling scheme to capture exploration and an error propagation rule to reduce labeling ambiguity. Extensive experiments reveal key insights: (1) weaker policy models exhibit inflated ratios of correct steps due to early termination; (2) distinguishing neutral and erroneous actions remains a significant challenge for current models; and (3) process-derived signals provide complementary value to outcome supervision, significantly enhancing test-time scaling. We hope AgentProcessBench can foster future research in reward models and pave the way toward general agents. The code and data are available at https://github.com/RUCBM/AgentProcessBench.

Shengda Fan, Xuyan Ye, Yupeng Huo +9

Renmin University of China Beijing, China · Beijing Jiaotong University Beijing, China · Shanghai Jiao Tong University Shanghai, China +1

LLM Agent Evaluation Process-Based Agent Evaluation Tool-Using Agents Agent Benchmarks Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation Process Supervision