arXiv Machine Learning
CatchBench: When Can an Agent Failure Be Caught?
Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Sep 30
Do Agent Benchmarks Do What They Say? An Executable-Contract Audit of Tool-Using Agent Environments
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 AI
Aug 12
Auditing Automated Evaluation, Error Propagation, and Runtime Mitigation in Tool-Using Language Agents
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.
arXiv AI
Aug 28
Invocation-Level Reliability of Tool-Using Agents
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 AI
4d ago
ReplayRCA: Measuring Post-hoc Diagnosis and Live Oversight of Agent Failures by Counterfactual Replay
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...
arXiv AI
Sep 15
Same Patient, Different Order: Action-Level Reliability of Clinical LLM Agents Under Repeated Runs
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.
arXiv AI
Sep 7
FinalityBench: An Effect-Level Benchmark for Agent Decisions Under Delayed and Conflicting Financial Finality
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.