arXiv:2609.37315v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using agents are entering settings where a wrong action carries real cost, and the benchmarks certifying them grade what each simulated tool cal...
arXiv:2604. 16706v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, yet this assumption is rarely validated against human annotation.
The paper investigates the reliability of tool‑using agents, focusing on two failure modes: selecting the wrong tool and constructing incorrect arguments. It introduces a correct‑invocation rate metric to distinguish these errors and evaluates five open‑weight models on multi‑step tasks up to depth 8, finding that by depth 6 about 70% of a model’s clean‑context capability is lost due to earlier mistakes. The study reveals that exact‑match scoring against a fixed gold trajectory forces severity and recovery parameters to extreme values, and proposes a conditional‑on‑state scoring remedy that yields more realistic severity estimates.
arXiv:2610.41025v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When a language-model agent fails a multi-step task, can another model find the decisive mistake and fix it with a single action? We introduce ReplayRC...
The paper introduces a new evaluation method called "same-input rerun" to assess the consistency of clinical language‑model agents across repeated runs. By replaying 1,000 MedAgentBench tasks with identical inputs, the authors find that action‑level outputs—such as test orders, medication requests, and referrals—vary significantly, even when benchmark scores remain unchanged. The study demonstrates that current benchmarks, which typically evaluate only a single run per task, can miss substantial behavioral divergence.
FinalityBench is an executable benchmark that tests how agents decide on shipping, re‑capturing, refunding, or waiting when a merchant’s payment processor, ledger, ERP, and bank feed receive delayed, duplicated, dropped, or reordered messages, causing contradictory beliefs about an order. The benchmark uses a hidden canonical event log and faulted delivery streams to generate system views, scoring each episode by the merchant’s terminal economic position relative to a privileged reference. It contains 321 tasks, including 45 twin pairs where all four views are identical yet the correct disposition differs, and evaluates nine programmatic policies, revealing that a ship‑on‑first‑sign policy performs best by accuracy but worst by paired loss, while a runtime‑gated irreversible‑action policy achieves 85.4% accuracy without losing money.
Agent evaluations tell us that a model picked the wrong tool, but rarely why. We introduce canary tools: diagnostic probe tools planted in an agent's Model Context Protocol (MCP) tool set, each engineered to probe one specific tool-selection weakness.
arXiv:2608.22510v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent benchmarks often evaluate only final answers even when agents run on stateful runtimes. We argue this under-specifies what is being evaluated: th...
arXiv:2610.17301v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language-model agents sometimes act beyond their authorization and then misreport what they did. On CAPE-Bench, matched agent tasks in which one fact d...
arXiv:2610.17747v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Failure-attribution benchmarks ask an LLM judge which step or agent caused a failure. A high score should mean the judge checked the faulty step agai...
arXiv:2609.35889v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using language-model agents select and execute third-party artifacts. Different implementations can return the requested output while producing...
The paper investigates how language‑model judges can make version‑dependent errors when evaluating upgraded agents. Using 35 public coding‑agent submissions, two customer‑service agents, and over a thousand expert‑labeled trajectories, the authors show that fixed judges often reject task‑conditioned error invariance and can incorrectly approve failed patches, especially as agent capability increases. Paired audits of current outputs reduce interval width only marginally, and the study concludes that independent human patch review is still necessary.