arXiv:2606. 05872v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI agents are commonly evaluated using task success, reward, latency, and cost.
By Olasimbo Ayodeji Arigbabu
AuditKIT is a source‑available evaluation library that unifies benchmark accuracy, judge‑based assessment, runtime performance, tool‑use behavior, and retrieval quality into a single result representation. It offers direction‑aware metric contracts, configuration fingerprints, and extensible metrics and backends, while providing turn‑aware tool‑call matching and distinguishing verified task outcomes from trajectory‑level diagnostics. Seven case studies demonstrate how answer extraction, runtime behavior, and metric selection can alter evaluation outcomes across model comparison, serving runtimes, retrieval, tool calling, and interoperability.
By Shreeyans Arora, Utsav Avaiya, Zera Lyngkhoi, Hem Gosalia, Ram Mohan Rao Kadiyala, Vinay Kumar Sankarapu, Pratinav Seth
The article "Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks" surveys the lack of a standard definition for AI agents and organizes this ambiguity into five dimensions: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal‑directed behavior, and temporal coherence. It reviews how each dimension has been conceptualized in prior work and compiles the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess them. The authors also introduce the Agent Compendium, a public digital resource that extends these evaluation methods, aiming to provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems.
By Mia Lassiter, Brinnae Bent
arXiv:2602. 16666v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI agents are increasingly deployed to execute important tasks.
By Stephan Rabanser, Sayash Kapoor, Peter Kirgis, Kangheng Liu, Saiteja Utpala, Arvind Narayanan
The paper argues that artificial agentic systems, which operate as behavioral systems by interacting with dynamic environments, pursuing goals, and adapting over time, should be evaluated through systematic observation, perturbation, and interpretation of their actions rather than solely on performance outcomes. It draws on lessons from behavioral sciences to motivate this position and proposes a research agenda that includes methods for recovering decision strategies from action sequences, constructing environments that isolate behavioral differences, and probing emergent dynamics in multi‑agent systems. These directions aim to establish a rigorous science of AI behavior.
By Manuel Cherep, Nikhil Singh, Pattie Maes
The paper introduces TraceTrial-Bench, a benchmark that evaluates the reliability of AI agent harnesses across seven components—context, execution, governance, lifecycle, observability, tools, and verification—using 95 expert-level tasks with executable or state-based ground truth. It employs a Trajectory Tracing module to record agent execution, a two-layer evaluation framework to separately assess agent performance and harness reliability, and a Multi-source Evidence Acquisition module to gather evidence for LLM-based evaluation. The benchmark’s analysis of 3,420 runs across four harnesses and nine models shows harness scores between 59.8% and 72.0%, with 31.1% of runs succeeding despite failing at least one harness criterion, highlighting the need for auditable and reproducible harness evaluation.
By Zhiyong Cao, Hengjie Zhu, Yongxin Wang, Xuchen Li, Jintao Li, Shuxia Liu, Dunqiang Liu, Bo Wang, Kairan Zhang, Cong Lin, JiangDi Yu, Siyuan Liu, Sijia Yao, Yi-Liang Wei, Lingxu Ma, Aijia Wang, Anxin Chen, Zixian Wei, Xiang Ruan, Ruizhi Xu, Ruqian Shi, Baihua Xiao, Sicheng Zhou