AgentAssay: Token-Efficient Regression Testing for Non-Deterministic AI Agent Workflows

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.02601v1
• Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2026 04:59:25 GMT
• Title: AgentAssay: Token-Efficient Regression Testing for Non-Deterministic AI Agent Workflows
• Abstract summary: AgentAssay is the first token-efficient framework for regression testing non-deterministic AI agents.<n>It achieves 78-100% cost reduction while maintaining rigorous statistical guarantees.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Autonomous AI agents are deployed at unprecedented scale, yet no principled methodology exists for verifying that an agent has not regressed after changes to its prompts, tools, models, or orchestration logic. We present AgentAssay, the first token-efficient framework for regression testing non-deterministic AI agent workflows, achieving 78-100% cost reduction while maintaining rigorous statistical guarantees. Our contributions include: (1) stochastic three-valued verdicts (PASS/FAIL/INCONCLUSIVE) grounded in hypothesis testing; (2) five-dimensional agent coverage metrics; (3) agent-specific mutation testing operators; (4) metamorphic relations for agent workflows; (5) CI/CD deployment gates as statistical decision procedures; (6) behavioral fingerprinting that maps execution traces to compact vectors, enabling multivariate regression detection; (7) adaptive budget optimization calibrating trial counts to behavioral variance; and (8) trace-first offline analysis enabling zero-cost testing on production traces. Experiments across 5 models (GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Mistral-Large-3, Llama-4-Maverick, Phi-4), 3 scenarios, and 7,605 trials demonstrate that behavioral fingerprinting achieves 86% detection power where binary testing has 0%, SPRT reduces trials by 78%, and the full pipeline achieves 100% cost savings through trace-first analysis. Implementation: 20,000+ lines of Python, 751 tests, 10 framework adapters.

Related papers

• Beyond Pass@k: Measuring Reliability and Security of Agentic Code Generation [2.1734195143282693]
  We propose reliability@k, the same estimator applied correctly, with n = independent rollouts and c = fully-passing rollouts per (task, agent) pair.<n>Motivated by evidence that functional correctness does not imply security safety, we additionally propose security-adjusted reliability@k.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-11T16:01:15Z)
• Fantastic Adaptive Taxonomies and How to Use Them [100.20614173157708]
  AdaMAST converts execution traces into a compact, evidence-grounded failure taxonomy.<n>No code is hand-authored, no trace human-annotated.<n>In agent-system search, taxonomy-coded diagnoses of failed candidates outperform free-form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T17:41:16Z)
• Perception, Verdict, and Evolution: Hindsight-Driven Self-Refining Forensics Agent for AI-Generated Image Detection [80.15317858033534]
  ForeAgent is an agentic forensics framework for AI-generated image detection with iterative self-evolution.<n>ForeAgent achieves state-of-the-art performance on the Chameleon benchmark, reaching 82.18% accuracy.<n>ForeAgent produces more consistent and causally grounded reasoning compared to GPT-5 and GPT-5-mini.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-25T02:59:33Z)
• Claw-Eval: Toward Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents [66.97968363332465]
  We introduce Claw-Eval, an end-to-end evaluation suite addressing all three gaps in agent benchmarks.<n>Claw-Eval comprises 300 human-verified tasks spanning 9 categories across three groups.<n>Every agent action is recorded through three independent evidence channels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T17:43:18Z)
• TRAJEVAL: Decomposing Code Agent Trajectories for Fine-Grained Diagnosis [23.834704102474927]
  Code agents can resolve GitHub issues, yet when they fail, current evaluation provides no visibility into where or why.<n>We introduce TRAJEVAL, a diagnostic framework that decomposes agent trajectories into three interpretable stages.<n>We validate that these diagnostics are predictive, achieving model-level Pass@1 prediction within 0.87-2.1% MAE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T05:27:03Z)
• TDAD: Test-Driven Agentic Development - Reducing Code Regressions in AI Coding Agents via Graph-Based Impact Analysis [0.0]
  TDAD builds a dependency map between source code and tests so that before committing a patch, the agent knows which tests to verify and can self-correct.<n>This paper presents TDAD, an open-source tool that performs pre-change impact analysis for AI coding agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-18T17:38:22Z)
• AgentProcessBench: Diagnosing Step-Level Process Quality in Tool-Using Agents [50.481033105867205]
  We introduce AgentProcessBench, the first benchmark dedicated to evaluating step-level effectiveness in realistic, tool-augmented trajectories.<n>The benchmark comprises 1,000 diverse trajectories and 8,509 human-labeled step annotations with 89.1% inter-annotator agreement.<n>It features a ternary labeling scheme to capture exploration and an error propagation rule to reduce labeling ambiguity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-15T16:13:58Z)
• Re-Evaluating EVMBench: Are AI Agents Ready for Smart Contract Security? [10.248746359119625]
  EVMbench is the first large-scale benchmark for AI agents on smart contract security.<n>Its results have fueled expectations that fully automated AI auditing is within reach.<n>These findings challenge the narrative that fully automated AI auditing is imminent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T14:07:16Z)
• Test-Driven AI Agent Definition (TDAD): Compiling Tool-Using Agents from Behavioral Specifications [0.0]
  Test-Driven AI Agent Definition (TDAD) is a methodology that treats agent prompts as compiled artifacts.<n>We evaluate TDAD on SpecSuite-Core, a benchmark of four deeply-specified agents spanning policy compliance, grounded analytics, runbook adherence, and deterministic enforcement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-09T18:04:54Z)
• When Agents Disagree With Themselves: Measuring Behavioral Consistency in LLM-Based Agents [0.0]
  ReAct-style agents produce 2.0--4.2 distinct action sequences per 10 runs on average, even with identical inputs.<n>Tasks with consistent behavior achieve 80--92% accuracy, while highly inconsistent tasks achieve only 25--60%.<n>Our results suggest that monitoring behavioral consistency during execution could enable early error detection and improve agent reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T06:15:14Z)
• Information Fidelity in Tool-Using LLM Agents: A Martingale Analysis of the Model Context Protocol [69.11739400975445]
  We introduce the first theoretical framework for analyzing error accumulation in Model Context Protocol (MCP) agents.<n>We show that cumulative distortion exhibits linear growth and high-probability deviations bounded by $O(sqrtT)$.<n>Key findings include: semantic weighting reduces distortion by 80%, and periodic re-grounding approximately every 9 steps suffices for error control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T21:08:53Z)
• On Randomness in Agentic Evals [6.177270420667714]
  Agentic systems are evaluated on benchmarks where agents interact with environments to solve tasks.<n>Most papers report a pass@1 score computed from a single run per task, assuming this gives a reliable performance estimate.<n>We find substantial variance: single-run pass@1 estimates vary by 2.2 to 6.0 percentage points depending on which run is selected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T19:49:13Z)
• Replayable Financial Agents: A Determinism-Faithfulness Assurance Harness for Tool-Using LLM Agents [0.7699235580548228]
  LLM agents struggle with regulatory audit replay: when asked to reproduce a transaction flagged decision with identical inputs, most deployments fail to return consistent results.<n>This paper introduces the DeterminismFaithfulness Assurance Harness (DFAH), a framework for measuring trajectory determinism and evidence-conditioned faithfulness in tool-using agents deployed in financial services.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-17T19:47:55Z)
• SWE-RM: Execution-free Feedback For Software Engineering Agents [61.86380395896069]
  Execution-based feedback is widely used in the development of coding agents through test-time scaling (TTS) and reinforcement learning (RL)<n>In contrast, execution-free feedback from reward models can provide more fine-grained signals without depending on unit test cases.<n>We introduce SWE-RM, an accurate and robust reward model adopting a mixture-of-experts architecture with 30B total parameters and 3B activated during inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-26T08:26:18Z)
• Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systems [79.64446272302287]
  We formalize a definition for agent evaluation and characterize scaling laws as the interplay between agent quantity, coordination structure, modelic, and task properties.<n>We derive a predictive model using coordination metrics, that cross-validated R2=0, enabling prediction on unseen task domains.<n>We identify three effects: (1) a tool-coordination trade-off: under fixed computational budgets, tool-heavy tasks suffer disproportionately from multi-agent overhead, and (2) a capability saturation: coordination yields diminishing or negative returns once single-agent baselines exceed 45%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T06:52:21Z)
• E-valuator: Reliable Agent Verifiers with Sequential Hypothesis Testing [7.984665398116918]
  We introduce e-valuator, a method to convert any black-box verifier score into a decision rule with provable control of false alarm rates.<n>Evaluator builds on tools from eprocesses to develop a sequential hypothesis test that remains statistically valid at every step of an agent's trajectory.<n>We show that e-valuator provides greater statistical power and better false alarm rate control than other strategies across six datasets and three agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-02T05:59:18Z)
• Impatient Users Confuse AI Agents: High-fidelity Simulations of Human Traits for Testing Agents [58.00130492861884]
  TraitBasis is a lightweight, model-agnostic method for systematically stress testing AI agents.<n>TraitBasis learns directions in activation space corresponding to steerable user traits.<n>We observe on average a 2%-30% performance degradation on $tau$-Trait across frontier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-06T05:03:57Z)
• Adaptive Monitoring and Real-World Evaluation of Agentic AI Systems [3.215065407261898]
  Multi-agent systems that combine large language models with external tools are rapidly transitioning from research laboratories into high-stakes domains.<n>This "Advanced" sequel fills that gap by providing an algorithmic instantiation or empirical evidence.<n>AMDM cuts anomaly-detection latency from 12.3 s to 5.6 s on simulated goal drift and reduces false-positive rates from 4.5% to 0.9%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T15:52:49Z)
• Runaway is Ashamed, But Helpful: On the Early-Exit Behavior of Large Language Model-based Agents in Embodied Environments [54.67512489842682]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong planning and decision-making capabilities in complex embodied environments.<n>We take a first step toward exploring the early-exit behavior for LLM-based agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T08:23:36Z)
• AegisLLM: Scaling Agentic Systems for Self-Reflective Defense in LLM Security [74.22452069013289]
  AegisLLM is a cooperative multi-agent defense against adversarial attacks and information leakage.<n>We show that scaling agentic reasoning system at test-time substantially enhances robustness without compromising model utility.<n> Comprehensive evaluations across key threat scenarios, including unlearning and jailbreaking, demonstrate the effectiveness of AegisLLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T17:36:05Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.