arXiv AI
What Counts as the Same Task? Executable Contracts for Robustness Evaluation of Tool-Using Agents
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
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
Sep 30
SINGED: Correct Outputs Do Not Certify Safe Execution in LLM Agents
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...
arXiv AI
Oct 9
TestJack: Should you trust the results in coding benchmarks? Agentic Coding Benchmarks Auditing via Evaluator Evolution
TestJack is a scalable framework that audits large language model (LLM) coding agents by generating new tests for each trial, focusing on prompt requirements that may be violated. It keeps only the tests passed by the ground‑truth patch and re‑examines failures, providing replayable evidence for each confirmed error. In experiments across six model backends and five benchmarks, TestJack found that 34.4% of trials deemed correct actually violated task requirements, reducing the overall resolution rate from 50.6% to 33.2%.
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 30
Frozen Judges, Moving Agents: Version-Dependent LLM-Judge Error and the Limits of Judge-Assisted Agent Evaluation
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.
arXiv AI
Jul 21
AEVAL: From Anecdotal to Deterministic Testing for Agentic Skill Workflows
arXiv:2607. 16345v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern agentic systems increasingly rely on skills: installable packages of natural language and code that teach an LLM agent to perform a domain task.
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 9
TRACE: Diagnosing Verifier Brittleness in Agentic Evaluation
The paper introduces TRACE, a protocol designed to diagnose whether changes in verifier scores for large language model agents reflect actual changes in agent behavior or merely alterations in the evaluation process. TRACE works by applying targeted changes to evaluation components, running paired experiments, and re‑scoring unchanged trajectories to isolate the source of score variation. Experiments on synthetic tasks and public benchmark tasks demonstrate that seemingly significant score shifts can often be attributed to evaluation artifacts, while TRACE can also detect genuine behavioral changes.