Evaluating Tool-Using Language Agents: Judge Reliability, Propagation Cascades, and Runtime Mitigation in AgentProp-Bench
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.16706v1
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2026 21:15:35 GMT
- Title: Evaluating Tool-Using Language Agents: Judge Reliability, Propagation Cascades, and Runtime Mitigation in AgentProp-Bench
- Abstract summary: We introduce AgentProp-Bench, a 2,000-task benchmark with 2,300 traces across four domains.<n>We quantify judge reliability, characterize error propagation, and evaluate a runtime mitigation.<n>All code, data, traces, and human labels are released at https://github.com/bhaskargurram-ai/agenthallu-bench.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, but this assumption has rarely been validated against human annotation. We introduce AgentProp-Bench, a 2,000-task benchmark with 2,300 traces across four domains, nine production LLMs, and a 100-label human-validated subset. We quantify judge reliability, characterize error propagation, and evaluate a runtime mitigation. Substring-based judging agrees with human annotation at kappa=0.049 (chance-level); a three-LLM ensemble reaches kappa=0.432 (moderate) with a conservative bias. Under validated evaluation, a parameter-level injection propagates to a wrong final answer with human-calibrated probability approximately 0.62 (range 0.46-0.73 across models). Rejection (catching bad parameters) and recovery (correcting after acceptance) are independent model capabilities (Spearman rho=0.126, p=0.747). A tuned runtime interceptor reduces hallucination on GPT-4o-mini by 23.0 percentage points under a concurrent n=600 control, but shows no significant effect on Gemini-2.0-Flash, whose aggressive parameter rejection eliminates the target failure mode. All code, data, traces, and human labels are released at https://github.com/bhaskargurram-ai/agenthallu-bench.
Related papers
- AgentDrift: A Step-Labeled Benchmark of Injection-Hijacked LLM Agent Trajectories [0.0]
LLM agents complete tasks by issuing sequences of tool calls, and every observation they read is a channel through which an indirect prompt injection can enter.<n>Existing benchmarks measure whether such attacks succeed against live agents, and existing guard models judge a trace as a whole.<n>We present AgentDrift, a benchmark of 12,536 synthetic tool-call trajectories over five agent domains.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-09-07T03:10:23Z) - Invocation-Level Reliability of Tool-Using Agents [0.7874708385247353]
We measure a correct-invocation rate that separates the two, under both a clean teacher-forced context and the model's own free-running context.<n>By depth 6, roughly 70% of a model's own clean-context capability is lost to its own earlier mistakes.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-08-23T09:04:59Z) - Accurate Ensembles, Fragile Narratives: Multi-Scale Stacking and a Fidelity Audit of LLM-Generated Explanations for Credit Risk [0.0]
Credit scoring increasingly relies on models whose decision logic cannot be read off their parameters.<n>A common proposal closes that gap with a language model: compute feature attributions, hand them to an LLM, and let it write the rationale.<n>We build such a system end to end and test whether the second half of the promise holds.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-08-08T13:22:14Z) - 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) - AdversaBench: Automated LLM Red-Teaming with Multi-Judge Confirmation and Cross-Model Transferability [16.27940179594792]
AdversaBench is an end-to-end red-teaming pipeline that mutates seed prompts with five structured operators.<n>We report experiments on 45 seeds across three categories: reasoning, instruction-following, and tool use.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-06-23T13:50:51Z) - Catching One in Five: LLM-as-Judge Blind Spots in Production Multi-Turn Transaction Agents [45.148328075418156]
We study a deployed multi-turn food-and-beverage ordering agent and measure how many genuine quality problems it catches.<n>Our blind-spot taxonomy shows the failure is structured, not random.<n>For production multi-turn agents, automated judging is a regression floor, not a substitute for human review.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-06-09T02:11:01Z) - Hierarchical Certified Semantic Commitment for Byzantine-Resilient LLM-Agent Collaboration [30.310793549183117]
We introduce Hierarchical Certified Semantic Commitment (H-CSC), a BFT-inspired protocol that converts embedding-derived finality signals over verdict-emitting proposal groups into one of three typed outcomes.<n>H-CSC commits with low angular deviation on BFT-feasible buckets (0.31 to 2.04 degrees) and aborts 100% of beyond-BFT rounds (n3f+1) as intended.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-06-05T14:35:58Z) - Distributional Energy-Based Models for Uncertainty-Aware Structured LLM Reasoning [40.342912574072024]
Large Language Models produce structured outputs such as travel plans or code solutions.<n>Individual reasoning steps may appear correct while the output as a whole violates budgets, fails test cases, or contradicts earlier deductions.<n>We propose a learned quality scorer with deterministic analytical constraint penalties for verifying structured LLM outputs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-05-15T17:08:27Z) - PBT-Bench: Benchmarking AI Agents on Property-Based Testing [29.035258104995204]
We introduce PBT-Bench, a benchmark of 100 curated property-based testing problems across 40 real Python libraries.<n>Each problem injects one or more semantic bugs (365 in total, mean 3.65 per problem) designed so that default-strategy random inputs almost never trigger them.<n>Bug recall under the PBT-guided prompt ranges from 42.1% to 83.4% across models; under the open-ended baseline, from 31.4% to 76.7%.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-05-13T18:01:05Z) - When Simulation Lies: A Sim-to-Real Benchmark and Domain-Randomized RL Recipe for Tool-Use Agents [32.54888729689753]
We study failures as a sim-to-real gap in the tool-use partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP)<n>We propose ToolRL-DR, a domain-randomization reinforcement learning (RL) recipe that trains a tool-use agent on perturbation-augmented trajectories.<n>On a 3B backbone, ToolRL-DR-Full retains roughly three-quarters of clean accuracy and reaches an aggregate accuracy comparable to open-source 14B function-calling baselines.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-05-12T10:40:28Z) - VERDI: Single-Call Confidence Estimation for Verification-Based LLM Judges via Decomposed Inference [0.0]
VERDI (VERification-Decomposed Inference Inference) is a method that extracts confidence from a structured judge.<n> VERDI decomposes each evaluation into sub-checks and derives three structural signals.<n>On three public benchmarks, VERDI achieves AUROC 0.72-0.91 on GPT-4.1-mini and 0.66-0.80 on GPT-5.4-mini.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-05-11T23:39:19Z) - Disposition Distillation at Small Scale: A Three-Arc Negative Result [0.0]
Internal draft reported +33.9-point MCAS and +15.3-point HumanEval gains on a Qwen3-0.6B student; a second-pass sanity check falsified both numbers before publication.<n>We find no operator that moves judge-measured disposition without damaging content or collapsing into stylistic mimicry.<n>We contribute a three-arc negative result with mechanism, a two-failure-mode taxonomy for linear h_last probes, and an honest falsification pipeline that converts the class of false positives we ourselves produced into publishable negatives.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-04-13T17:40:31Z) - 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) - Governing Dynamic Capabilities: Cryptographic Binding and Reproducibility Verification for AI Agent Tool Use [0.0]
No existing security layer verifies what an AI agent can do, whether it executed what it claims, or what happened in a multi-agent interaction.<n>Existing frameworks conflate the two, enabling silent capability escalation and leaving interactions without verifiable provenance.<n>We derive three Agent Governance Requirements: capability integrity (G1), behavioral verifiability (G2), and interaction auditability (G3)<n>We validate with two crypto-agnostic instantiations -- basic (Ed25519, SHA-256; 97 us verify) and enhanced (BBS+ selective disclosure, Groth16 DV-SNARK; 13.8 ms)
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-03-15T11:46:57Z) - OpenSec: Measuring Incident Response Agent Calibration Under Adversarial Evidence [0.0]
We introduce OpenSec, a dual-control reinforcement learning environment that evaluates defensive incident response agents.<n>Unlike static capability benchmarks, OpenSec scores world-state-changing containment actions under adversarial evidence.<n>We find consistent over-triggering in this setting: GPT-5.2, Gemini 3, and DeepSeek execute containment in 100% of episodes with 90-97% false positive rates.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-01-28T22:12:54Z) - Solver-in-the-Loop: MDP-Based Benchmarks for Self-Correction and Behavioral Rationality in Operations Research [19.31559944205485]
Operations Research practitioners routinely debug infeasible models through an iterative process.<n>We introduce two benchmarks that place the textbfsolver in the evaluation loop<n>We find that domain-specific RLVR training enables an 8B model to surpass frontier APIs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-01-28T20:02:44Z) - SpatialBench-UC: Uncertainty-Aware Evaluation of Spatial Prompt Following in Text-to-Image Generation [0.0]
SpatialBench-UC is a small, reproducible benchmark for pairwise spatial relations.<n>We release a benchmark package, versioned prompts, pinned configs, per-sample checker outputs, and report tables.<n>We evaluate three baselines, Stable Diffusion 1.5, SD 1.5 BoxDiff, and SD 1.4 GLIGEN.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-01-19T23:37:10Z) - VulAgent: Hypothesis-Validation based Multi-Agent Vulnerability Detection [55.957275374847484]
VulAgent is a multi-agent vulnerability detection framework based on hypothesis validation.<n>It implements a semantics-sensitive, multi-view detection pipeline, each aligned to a specific analysis perspective.<n>On average, VulAgent improves overall accuracy by 6.6%, increases the correct identification rate of vulnerable--fixed code pairs by up to 450%, and reduces the false positive rate by about 36%.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-09-15T02:25:38Z) - T2IShield: Defending Against Backdoors on Text-to-Image Diffusion Models [70.03122709795122]
We propose a comprehensive defense method named T2IShield to detect, localize, and mitigate backdoor attacks.
We find the "Assimilation Phenomenon" on the cross-attention maps caused by the backdoor trigger.
For backdoor sample detection, T2IShield achieves a detection F1 score of 88.9$%$ with low computational cost.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-05T01:53:21Z) - Malicious Agent Detection for Robust Multi-Agent Collaborative Perception [52.261231738242266]
Multi-agent collaborative (MAC) perception is more vulnerable to adversarial attacks than single-agent perception.
We propose Malicious Agent Detection (MADE), a reactive defense specific to MAC perception.
We conduct comprehensive evaluations on a benchmark 3D dataset V2X-sim and a real-road dataset DAIR-V2X.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-18T11:36:42Z)
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.