Where Does Agent Reliability Come From? A Cross-Benchmark Decomposition of Verification Loops, Specialist Models, and Scaffolding in a Production Enterprise Agent

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17044v1
• Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2026 03:20:33 GMT
• Title: Where Does Agent Reliability Come From? A Cross-Benchmark Decomposition of Verification Loops, Specialist Models, and Scaffolding in a Production Enterprise Agent
• Abstract summary: We study one production system whose architecture installs verification loops.<n>We instrument the loop end-to-end, yielding an empirical verifier confusion matrix.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Multi-step enterprise agent tasks fail in a characteristic way: single-pass inference has no checkpoint between deciding an answer and committing to it. We study one production system (Leni) whose architecture installs such checkpoints: verification loops (execute, observe, compare, correct) staffed by lightweight task-specialized post-trained models. We evaluate the unmodified production configuration on three public benchmarks stressing distinct failure modes: SpreadsheetBench Verified (silent computation error), BullshitBench v2 (premise confabulation), and the GAIA validation split (cascade error over long tool chains). The full system improves over its frontier base model by +11.0 percentage points on SpreadsheetBench (91.25% vs 80.25%, n=400, p<0.001), +7 to +10 percentage points on BullshitBench (98% vs 91%, n=100), and roughly +15 points on GAIA validation (75.2% pass@1, n=165; 83.0% best-of-k). Our central contribution is a decomposition of that uplift: most of it comes from scaffolding, routing, and specialist models rather than from the verification step itself, whose isolated contribution is small (+1.5 points) but concentrated at the top of the score distribution, where it converts otherwise-failing tasks. We instrument the loop end-to-end, yielding an empirical verifier confusion matrix (catch rate about 0.20, fix rate 0.75, no false-alarm regressions) that grounds a compounding-reliability model. Specialist-swap ablations suggest that the loop's value depends on who observes it: replacing the small trained verifier with the generating frontier model eliminates most rescues. A valid-premise control shows zero over-rejections in 100 expert-level questions.

Related papers

• BenchShield: Formal Model-Backed Instrumentation for Reward Integrity in LLM-Agent Evaluation Infrastructure [47.61632934139226]
  LM-agent benchmarks increasingly function as interactive evaluation infrastructure.<n>This interactivity makes evaluations vulnerable to reward hacking.<n>This paper presents BenchShield, a model-backed instrumentation layer for reward integrity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T03:10:58Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Cybersecurity Detection Classification with Reasoning-enabled Language Models [50.72675435043546]
  A major issue in Security Operations Centers (SOCs) is alert fatigue.<n>Prior work prompts or fine-tunes large language models (LLMs) to emit a triage label directly, but does not train them to reason about whether a detection is a genuine threat.<n>We train a chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning-enabled triage classifier on real, human-labeled Windows endpoint detections.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T16:22:13Z)
• Determinants and Limits of LLM Security-Tool Orchestration: A Study with HexStrike-AI [2.2616066835313253]
  We run 86 picoCTF challenges across seven categories and three difficulty tiers, under three tool-access regimes and three model/client configurations.<n>We apply corrections to existing tools, agent-behavior changes, and eleven new capability tools, and re-run the previously-unsuccessful trials.<n>The overall solve rate rises from 55.4% to 72.0%, and every configuration improves significantly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-03T02:20:04Z)
• Efficient Visual Pointing for Embodied AI:Agent-Driven Data Synthesis, Cross-Block Attention, and Iterative Correction [55.11480729304395]
  We describe our PointArena 2026 solution, which achieves 77.2% overall accuracy and ranks second on the benchmark.<n>The ap proach targets three failure modes. First, agent-driven syn thesis builds large semantic and anchor-relative candidate pools.<n>Second, a determinis tic steerable-data pipeline creates a verified 10,000-sample main set, plus reserve samples, using masks, templates, and path verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T06:39:03Z)
• SEVA: Self-Evolving Verification Agent with Process Reward for Fact Attribution [6.908637308550535]
  SEVA is a structured verification agent that emits evidence alignments, step-by-step reasoning chains, calibrated confidence, and a six-category error diagnosis.<n>On ClearFacts, SEVA-3B matches GPT-4o-mini (69.0 vs. 69.8 F1) while producing substantially richer, auditable output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T02:37:13Z)
• 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)
• CRANE: Constrained Reasoning Injection for Code Agents via Nullspace Editing [5.661334639541121]
  We present CRANE, a training-free parameter-editing method that treats the Thinking-Instruct delta as a pool of candidate reasoning edits for the Instruct backbone.<n>By merging paired Instruct and Thinking checkpoints, CRANE delivers strong gains over either individual model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T20:09:35Z)
• Correct Answers from Sound Reasoning: Verifiable Process Supervision for Language Models [94.68358825189738]
  We propose a post-training framework for verifiable domains that jointly optimize prediction accuracy and reasoning quality.<n>We evaluate VPS on chess, a controlled testbed where reasoning steps can be deterministically verified against engine signals.<n>VPS preserves accuracy while significantly improving reasoning quality, reducing win-rate error by up to 30% and restoring consistency to near saturation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T15:19:46Z)
• HLE-Verified: A Systematic Verification and Structured Revision of Humanity's Last Exam [63.84155758655084]
  Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models.<n>We introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy.<n>We evaluate seven state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T02:50:15Z)
• SABER: Small Actions, Big Errors -- Safeguarding Mutating Steps in LLM Agents [52.20768003832476]
  We analyze execution traces on $$-Bench (Airline/Retail) and SWE-Bench Verified.<n>We formalize emphdecisive deviations, earliest action, level divergences that flip success to failure.<n>We introduce cm, a model-agnostic, gradient-free, test-time safeguard.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-26T01:28:22Z)
• Abduct, Act, Predict: Scaffolding Causal Inference for Automated Failure Attribution in Multi-Agent Systems [20.846301581161978]
  Failure attribution in multi-agent systems is a critical yet unsolved challenge.<n>Current methods treat this as a pattern recognition task over long conversation logs.<n>A2P Scaffolding transforms failure attribution from pattern recognition into a structured causal inference task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-12T16:51:15Z)
• TACRED Revisited: A Thorough Evaluation of the TACRED Relation Extraction Task [80.38130122127882]
  TACRED is one of the largest, most widely used crowdsourced datasets in Relation Extraction (RE) In this paper, we investigate the questions: Have we reached a performance ceiling or is there still room for improvement? We find that label errors account for 8% absolute F1 test error, and that more than 50% of the examples need to be relabeled.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T15:07:37Z)

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.