arXiv AI By Manuel Cherep, Nikhil Singh, Pattie Maes

Position: Behavioral Systems Require Behavioral Tests

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Oct 23

Fig: Automated Multiagent Behavior Elicitor

Fig (Finding Interactions in Games) is an agentic system that performs targeted elicitation interventions on game environments to study multiagent behaviors. It takes a natural‑language behavior description, decomposes it into sub‑behaviors, generates or selects appropriate social games, and applies interventions to the game engine, opponents, instructions, and context. The system evaluates model behavior using mechanical checks and synthetic rubric judgments, and human review validates the interventions, generated games, and evaluation mechanisms. In experiments, models attempted the target behavior in 45.2% of episodes on average for six test behaviors, and Fig’s interventions increased attempt rates by 10.9% compared to matched control games.

By Anrui Gu, Zhichao Wang, Nicolai Ouporov
arXiv AI
Sep 12

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

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 AI
Jun 2

From Features to Actions: Explainability in Traditional and Agentic AI Systems

arXiv:2602. 06841v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Over the last decade, Explainable AI has primarily focused on interpreting individual model predictions, producing post-hoc explanations that relate inputs to outputs under a fixed decision structure.

By Sindhuja Chaduvula, Jessee Ho, Kina Kim, Aravind Narayanan, Ahmed Y. Radwan, Mahshid Alinoori, Muskan Garg, Dhanesh Ramachandram, Shaina Raza