Beyond Benchmark Islands: Toward Representative Trustworthiness Evaluation for Agentic AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.14987v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 08:51:33 GMT
• Title: Beyond Benchmark Islands: Toward Representative Trustworthiness Evaluation for Agentic AI
• Abstract summary: We propose a systematic evaluation paradigm that characterizes agent trustworthiness over a scenario manifold.<n>The framework integrates four complementary components: static cognitive and policy analysis, (ii) interactive sandbox simulation, (iii) social-ethical alignment assessment, and (iv) a distribution-aware representative sampling engine.
• Score: 45.21562889170875
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As agentic AI systems move beyond static question answering into open-ended, tool-augmented, and multi-step real-world workflows, their increased authority poses greater risks of system misuse and operational failures. However, current evaluation practices remain fragmented, measuring isolated capabilities such as coding, hallucination, jailbreak resistance, or tool use in narrowly defined settings. We argue that the central limitation is not merely insufficient coverage of evaluation dimensions, but the lack of a principled notion of representativeness: an agent's trustworthiness should be assessed over a representative socio-technical scenario distribution rather than a collection of disconnected benchmark instances. To this end, we propose the Holographic Agent Assessment Framework (HAAF), a systematic evaluation paradigm that characterizes agent trustworthiness over a scenario manifold spanning task types, tool interfaces, interaction dynamics, social contexts, and risk levels. The framework integrates four complementary components: (i) static cognitive and policy analysis, (ii) interactive sandbox simulation, (iii) social-ethical alignment assessment, and (iv) a distribution-aware representative sampling engine that jointly optimizes coverage and risk sensitivity -- particularly for rare but high-consequence tail risks that conventional benchmarks systematically overlook. These components are connected through an iterative Trustworthy Optimization Factory. Through cycles of red-team probing and blue-team hardening, this paradigm progressively narrows the vulnerabilities to meet deployment standards, shifting agent evaluation from benchmark islands toward representative, real-world trustworthiness. Code and data for the illustrative instantiation are available at https://github.com/TonyQJH/haaf-pilot.

Related papers

• AgentCanary: A Security Evaluation Framework for Autonomous AI Agents in Real Executable Environments [32.982317538632806]
  We propose AgentCanary, a comprehensive security evaluation framework for autonomous AI agents.<n>AgentCanary provides a systematic solution along three contributions.<n>We evaluate a broad set of frontier models on AgentCanary against multiple established adversarial attack methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-09T06:55:37Z)
• From Holistic Evaluation to Structured Criteria: Rubrics Across the Evolving LLM Landscape [79.30826980815927]
  rubrics are explicit criteria sets that transform complex quality judgments into structured and actionable standards.<n>We systematically organize existing rubric designs, examine their construction and optimization, and analyze their role across evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-07T13:34:55Z)
• The Meta-Agent Challenge: Are Current Agents Capable of Autonomous Agent Development? [80.24951682268332]
  We introduce the Meta-Agent Challenge (MAC), an evaluation framework designed to test the capacity of frontier models for autonomous agent development.<n>To ensure evaluation integrity, this framework is secured by multi-layer defenses against reward hacking.<n>We demonstrate that meta-agents rarely match human-engineered baseline policies, and the few that do are dominated by proprietary frontier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T04:58:17Z)
• Towards trustworthy agentic AI: a comprehensive survey of safety, robustness, privacy, and system security [57.35851886874902]
  Agentic AI systems execute complex tasks autonomously, but their multi-step trajectories introduce new failure modes that challenge trustworthiness.<n>This survey provides a focused examination of trustworthy agentic AI through two core dimensions that are critical for high-risk deployments.<n>For each dimension, we clarify key concepts, identify where risks emerge along the agent workflow, and summarize stage-targeted mitigation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T10:26:37Z)
• Rethinking XAI Evaluation: A Human-Centered Audit of Shapley Benchmarks in High-Stakes Settings [8.934085986179019]
  Shapley values are a cornerstone of explainable AI, yet their proliferation into competing formulations has created a fragmented landscape.<n>We use a unified amortized framework to isolate semantic differences between eight Shapley variants.<n>Our results reveal a fundamental misalignment: standard quantitative metrics, such as sparsity and faithfulness, are decoupled from human-perceived clarity and decision utility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-24T15:38:44Z)
• Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment [59.536125286960186]
  Multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing.<n>We find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry.<n>ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T15:05:58Z)
• A Systematic Security Evaluation of OpenClaw and Its Variants [26.64519805689193]
  This paper presents a systematic security assessment of six representative OpenClaw-series agent frameworks.<n>We construct a benchmark of 205 test cases covering representative attack behaviors across the full agent execution lifecycle.<n>Our results show that all evaluated agents exhibit substantial security vulnerabilities, and that agentized systems are significantly riskier than their underlying models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T15:52:36Z)
• The Emergence of Lab-Driven Alignment Signatures: A Psychometric Framework for Auditing Latent Bias and Compounding Risk in Generative AI [0.0]
  This paper introduces a novel auditing framework to quantify latent trait estimation under ordinal uncertainty.<n>The research audits nine leading models across dimensions including Optimization Bias, Sycophancy, and Status-Quo Legitimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T06:56:01Z)
• The Necessity of a Unified Framework for LLM-Based Agent Evaluation [46.631678638677386]
  General-purpose agents have seen fundamental advancements.<n> evaluating these agents presents unique challenges that distinguish them from static QA benchmarks.<n>We propose that a unified evaluation framework is essential for the rigorous advancement of agent evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T08:18:37Z)
• The Shadow Self: Intrinsic Value Misalignment in Large Language Model Agents [37.75212140218036]
  We formalize the Loss-of-Control risk and identify the previously underexamined Intrinsic Value Misalignment (Intrinsic VM)<n>We then introduce IMPRESS, a scenario-driven framework for systematically assessing this risk.<n>We evaluate Intrinsic VM on 21 state-of-the-art LLM agents and find that it is a common and broadly observed safety risk across models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-24T07:09:50Z)
• RADAR: A Risk-Aware Dynamic Multi-Agent Framework for LLM Safety Evaluation via Role-Specialized Collaboration [81.38705556267917]
  Existing safety evaluation methods for large language models (LLMs) suffer from inherent limitations.<n>We introduce a theoretical framework that reconstructs the underlying risk concept space.<n>We propose RADAR, a multi-agent collaborative evaluation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-28T09:35:32Z)
• Mind the Gap: Evaluating Model- and Agentic-Level Vulnerabilities in LLMs with Action Graphs [1.036334370262262]
  We introduce AgentSeer, an observability-based evaluation framework that decomposes agentic executions into granular action and component graphs.<n>We demonstrate fundamental differences between model-level and agentic-level vulnerability profiles.<n>Agentic-level assessment exposes agent-specific risks invisible to traditional evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-05T04:36:17Z)
• ASSERT: Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming for Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models [65.79770974145983]
  ASSERT, Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming, consists of three methods -- semantically aligned augmentation, target bootstrapping, and adversarial knowledge injection. We partition our prompts into four safety domains for a fine-grained analysis of how the domain affects model performance. We find statistically significant performance differences of up to 11% in absolute classification accuracy among semantically related scenarios and error rates of up to 19% absolute error in zero-shot adversarial settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-14T17:10:28Z)

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.