Claw-Eval: Toward Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.06132v1
• Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2026 17:43:18 GMT
• Title: Claw-Eval: Toward Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 66.97968363332465
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents executing multi-step workflows in real-world software environments. However, existing agent benchmarks suffer from three critical limitations: (1) trajectory-opaque grading that checks only final outputs, (2) underspecified safety and robustness evaluation, and (3) narrow modality coverage and interaction paradigms. We introduce Claw-Eval, an end-to-end evaluation suite addressing all three gaps. It comprises 300 human-verified tasks spanning 9 categories across three groups (general service orchestration, multimodal perception and generation, and multi-turn professional dialogue). Every agent action is recorded through three independent evidence channels (execution traces, audit logs, and environment snapshots), enabling trajectory-aware grading over 2,159 fine-grained rubric items. The scoring protocol evaluates Completion, Safety, and Robustness, reporting Average Score, Pass@k, and Pass^k across three trials to distinguish genuine capability from lucky outcomes. Experiments on 14 frontier models reveal that: (1) trajectory-opaque evaluation is systematically unreliable, missing 44% of safety violations and 13% of robustness failures that our hybrid pipeline catches; (2) controlled error injection primarily degrades consistency rather than peak capability, with Pass^3 dropping up to 24% while Pass@3 remains stable; (3) multimodal performance varies sharply, with most models performing poorer on video than on document or image, and no single model dominating across all modalities. Beyond benchmarking, Claw-Eval highlights actionable directions for agent development, shedding light on what it takes to build agents that are not only capable but reliably deployable.

Related papers

• CockpitHAT: Dependency-Graph-Driven Hierarchical Attribution for Embodied Multi-Agent Cockpits [3.9502278152528625]
  LLM multi-agent systems suffer from Correctness Collapse, where high task-level accuracy conceals severe process-level failures.<n>We introduce CockpitHAT, a hierarchical attribution framework that replaces positional windows with dependency-distance thresholds from interaction DAGs.<n>We release CockpitBench, a benchmark of 212 annotated failure traces spanning dialogue, vehicle-state, environmental severity, and memory channels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T07:13:00Z)
• 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)
• Are We Overconfident in Models and Results for Semi-Supervised 3D Medical Image Segmentation? [4.120238673372104]
  Semi-supervised learning has become a dominant paradigm for reducing annotation costs.<n>We argue that the current progress is clouded by a twofold overconfidence problem.<n>We propose a tri-space principled segmentation framework founded on a dual-axis reliability assessment engine.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-25T08:16:40Z)
• Agentic Adversarial Rewriting Exposes Architectural Vulnerabilities in Black-Box NLP Pipelines [34.37967130277969]
  We propose a two-agent evasion framework operating in a semantic perturbation space.<n>Evasion rates are 19.95 to 40.34% on modern large language model (LLM) based systems.<n>A pattern-informed defense reduces the evasion rate by up to 65.18%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T00:58:36Z)
• TraceSafe: A Systematic Assessment of LLM Guardrails on Multi-Step Tool-Calling Trajectories [20.868825285848196]
  Safety guardrails are well-benchmarked for natural language responses, but their efficacy remains largely unexplored within multi-step tool-use trajectories.<n>To address this gap, we introduce StructuralSafe-Bench, the first comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to assess mid-trajectory safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-08T15:46:14Z)
• 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)
• Towards a Science of AI Agent Reliability [9.570634569436535]
  AI agents are increasingly deployed to execute important tasks.<n>While rising accuracy scores on standard benchmarks suggest rapid progress, many agents still continue to fail in practice.<n>We propose twelve metrics that decompose agent reliability along four key dimensions: consistency, robustness, predictability, and safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T18:05:44Z)
• 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)
• A Benchmark for Evaluating Outcome-Driven Constraint Violations in Autonomous AI Agents [4.851169906977996]
  We introduce a new benchmark comprising 40 distinct scenarios.<n>Each scenario presents a task that requires multi-step actions, and the agent's performance is tied to a specific Key Performance Indicator (KPI)<n>We observe outcome-driven constraint violations ranging from 1.3% to 71.4%, with 9 of the 12 models exhibiting misalignment rates between 30% and 50%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-23T21:52:53Z)
• Building a Foundational Guardrail for General Agentic Systems via Synthetic Data [76.18834864749606]
  LLM agents can plan multi-step tasks, intervening at the planning stage-before any action is executed-is often the safest way to prevent harm.<n>Existing guardrails mostly operate post-execution, which is difficult to scale and leaves little room for controllable supervision at the plan level.<n>We introduce AuraGen, a controllable engine that synthesizes benign trajectories, injects category-labeled risks with difficulty, and filters outputs via an automated reward model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-10T18:42:32Z)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)
• ReasoningShield: Safety Detection over Reasoning Traces of Large Reasoning Models [20.274878511727945]
  ReasoningShield is a framework for moderating Chain-of-Thoughts (CoTs) in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs)<n> ReasoningShield achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming task-specific tools like LlamaGuard-4 by 35.6% and general-purpose commercial models like GPT-4o by 15.8% on benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T19:44:41Z)
• 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.