Agent-ValueBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Agent Values

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.10365v1
• Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 11:09:04 GMT
• Title: Agent-ValueBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Agent Values
• Abstract summary: Agent-ValueBench is the first benchmark dedicated to agent values.<n>It features 394 executable environments across 16 domains, offering 4,335 value-conflict tasks.<n>Agent values first manifest as a Value Tide of cross-model homogeneity beneath interpretable counter-currents.
• Score: 17.752804388034583
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Autonomous agents have rapidly matured as task executors and seen widespread deployment via harnesses such as OpenClaw. Safety concerns have rightly drawn growing research attention, and beneath them lie the values silently steering agent behavior. Existing value benchmarks, however, remain confined to LLMs, leaving agent values largely uncharted. From intuitive, empirical, and theoretical vantage points, we show that an agent's values diverge from those of its underlying LLM, and the agentic modality further introduces dataset-, evaluation-, and system-level challenges absent from text-only protocols. We close this gap with Agent-ValueBench, the first benchmark dedicated to agent values. It features 394 executable environments across 16 domains, offering 4,335 value-conflict tasks that cover 28 value systems and 332 dimensions. Every instance is co-synthesized through our purpose-built end-to-end pipeline and curated per-instance by professional psychologists. Each task ships with two pole-aligned golden trajectories whose checkpoints anchor a trajectory-level rubric-based judge. Benchmarking 14 frontier proprietary and open-weights models across 4 mainstream harnesses, we uncover three concerted findings. Agent values first manifest as a Value Tide of cross-model homogeneity beneath interpretable counter-currents. This tide bends non-additively under harness pull, and yet more decisively under deliberate steering via embedded skills. Together these results signal that the agent-alignment lever is shifting from classical model alignment and prompt steering toward harness alignment and skill steering.

Related papers

• SingGuard-NSFA: Extensible Guardrails for Agentic AI via Generative Reasoning and Real-Time Classification [0.0]
  nsfaguard is a guardrail framework for securing agentic AI systems against operational threats.<n>We first introduce the NSFA taxonomy, which organizes 185 risk variants into a CIA-triad-grounded hierarchy.<n>We develop a dual-mode approach combining SFT-based generative reasoning for interpretable offline auditing with discriminative classification heads on the frozen backbone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-13T07:28:45Z)
• Low Variance Trust Region Optimization with Independent Actors and Sequential Updates in Cooperative Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning [5.8010446129208155]
  We introduce a clipping objective to control the upper bounds of the advantage fluctuation in sequential updates.<n>We derive two new practical algorithms using our clipping objective.<n>Our proposed method is highlighted with both stable convergence properties and the desired low advantage variance estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-24T08:05:11Z)
• Consistency as a Testable Property: Statistical Methods to Evaluate AI Agent Reliability [6.195988633460139]
  This paper establishes a rigorous measurement science for AI agent reliability.<n>By leveraging $U$-statistics for output-level reliability and kernel-based metrics for trajectory-level stability, we offer a principled approach to evaluating agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T13:06:24Z)
• AJ-Bench: Benchmarking Agent-as-a-Judge for Environment-Aware Evaluation [71.49152943451328]
  We introduce a benchmark AJ-Bench to evaluate Agent-as-a-Judge across three domains-search, data systems, and graphical user interfaces-comprising 155 tasks and 516 annotated trajectories.<n>Experiments demonstrate consistent performance gains over LLM-as-a-Judge baselines, while also revealing substantial open challenges in agent-based verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-20T13:23:38Z)
• 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)
• ATBench: A Diverse and Realistic Agent Trajectory Benchmark for Safety Evaluation and Diagnosis [96.92417622318267]
  ATBench is a trajectory-level benchmark for structured, diverse, and realistic evaluation of agent safety.<n>It organizes agentic risk along three dimensions: risk source, failure mode, and real-world harm.<n>It contains 1,000 trajectories (503 safe and 497 unsafe), averaging 9.01 turns and 3.95k tokens, with 1,954 invoked tools drawn from pools spanning 2,084 available tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T13:26:20Z)
• RewardHackingAgents: Benchmarking Evaluation Integrity for LLM ML-Engineering Agents [0.9821874476902969]
  LLM agents increasingly perform end-to-end ML engineering tasks where success is judged by a single scalar test metric.<n>This creates a structural vulnerability: an agent can increase the reported score by compromising the evaluation pipeline rather than improving the model.<n>We introduce RewardHackingAgents, a workspace-based benchmark that makes two compromise vectors explicit and measurable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T22:06:44Z)
• Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation [76.5533899503582]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance.<n>We show this paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state.<n>We demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T06:07:43Z)
• SmartSnap: Proactive Evidence Seeking for Self-Verifying Agents [45.71333459905404]
  SmartSnap is a paradigm shift from passive, post-hoc verification to proactive, in-situ self-verification by the agent itself.<n>We introduce the Self-Verifying Agent, a new type of agent designed with dual missions: to complete a task and to prove its accomplishment with curated evidences.<n>Experiments on mobile tasks across model families and scales demonstrate that our SmartSnap paradigm allows training LLM-driven agents in a scalable manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-26T14:51:39Z)
• 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)
• Know your Trajectory -- Trustworthy Reinforcement Learning deployment through Importance-Based Trajectory Analysis [6.7842735984907465]
  We introduce a novel framework that ranks entire trajectories by defining and aggregating a new state-importance metric.<n>We demonstrate that our method successfully identifies optimal trajectories from a heterogeneous collection of agent experiences.<n>Our experiments in standard OpenAI Gym environments validate that our proposed importance metric is more effective at identifying optimal behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-07T16:52:08Z)
• Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluation [87.47155146067962]
  We provide a standardized evaluation harness that orchestrates parallel evaluations across hundreds of tasks.<n>We conduct three-dimensional analysis spanning models, scaffolds, and benchmarks.<n>Our analysis reveals surprising insights, such as higher reasoning effort reducing accuracy in the majority of runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T22:22:28Z)

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.