DFAH-Bench: Benchmarking Observable Agent Instability in Financial Decision-Making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20491v1
• Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 03:31:09 GMT
• Title: DFAH-Bench: Benchmarking Observable Agent Instability in Financial Decision-Making
• Abstract summary: DFAH-Bench is a replay benchmark that measures observable behavioral instability in financial agent decision-making.<n>We find that frontier models can agree on decisions 95% of the time while following the same tool path only 77% of the time.<n>We identify three behavioral profiles: pattern matchers that achieve near-perfect agreement by collapsing to a single output regardless of input, stable executors with relatively consistent tool-use processes, and trajectory divergers that reach the same conclusions through materially different tool paths and evidence contacts.
• Score: 0.7699235580548228
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Standard evaluation benchmarks measure what a tool-using agent decides, not whether it arrives at that decision through the same process each time. We introduce DFAH-Bench, a replay benchmark that measures observable behavioral instability in financial agent decision-making across three channels -- tool-call trajectories, evidence contacts, and decision concentration -- none of which require access to hidden reasoning text. Across 8,127 replay episodes spanning 10 models and 3 financial tasks, we find that outcome agreement alone is an incomplete stability signal: frontier models can agree on decisions 95% of the time while following the same tool path only 77% of the time -- an 18-percentage-point gap (95% CI: [0.14, 0.22]) that outcome-only evaluation misses entirely. Among frontier-model case groups with high decision agreement, over 55% exhibit meaningful trajectory divergence. We identify three behavioral profiles: pattern matchers that achieve near-perfect agreement by collapsing to a single output regardless of input, stable executors with relatively consistent tool-use processes, and trajectory divergers that reach the same conclusions through materially different tool paths and evidence contacts. The benchmark code, metric scripts, replay logs, benchmark card, dataset README, and release manifest are released in the accompanying repository.

Related papers

• FORESIGHT-9: Prospective and Process-Aware Evaluation of Adaptive Trading Agents [0.0]
  FORESIGHT-9 is a prospective and process-aware benchmark built from nine auditable counterfactual stress worldlines.<n>A common contract standardizes observations and execution while preserving each agent's native adaptation loop.<n>We evaluate two adaptive trading-agent frameworks with two foundation-model backbones across 36 long-horizon runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-29T17:12:49Z)
• Credit Without Ground Truth: Auditing Step-Level Credit Assignment in LLM Agents Against Executed Replay [0.6768558752130311]
  We audit against policy-conditional ground truth from executed replay in a single-agent tool environment.<n>No step-level credit signals we audit show reliable incremental fidelity beyond marginal-matched shuffled control.<n>A confidence-only router recovers pivotal steps at chance level, but cuts judge cost by 13.1% per turn.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-20T08:04:00Z)
• From Sequence to Structure: Relational Uncertainty Propagation for LLM Agents [75.69180947909148]
  We propose a trajectory-level UQ framework for large language model (LLM) agents.<n>RuPA represents an execution history as a directed trajectory graph in which reasoning states, tool interactions, and environment feedback are nodes connected by temporal and semantic dependency edges.<n>We evaluate RUPA on representative agent benchmarks, including $$-2, Terminal-Bench-2, and GAIA, using 6 open-source LLMs spanning multiple model families.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T01:40:14Z)
• Measurement Without Validity: The Compounding Reliability Problem in Agentic AI Evaluation [0.0]
  Agentic AI evaluation pipelines produce benchmark scores that justify deployment decisions, safety certifications, and regulatory compliance claims.<n>No formal framework has yet characterized how validity degrades across the stages of these pipelines.<n>We present a three-layer compounding validity model that captures multiplicative degradation across task generation, human-simulator calibration, and automated judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-01T17:50:12Z)
• Evidence-Grounded Ensemble Diagnosis of 802.11 Packet Captures: A Multi-Stage Pipeline with Deterministic Reliability Scoring [1.0170129555792935]
  Diagnosing 802.11 packet captures requires expert protocol knowledge, is slow, inconsistent across engineers, and unscalable.<n>LLM-based approaches sound plausible but fabricate protocol events absent from captures, produce uncalibrated confidence scores, and suffer evaluation bias when golden references are co-produced by the model under test.<n>We introduce PROBE, a multi-stage pipeline addressing all three failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T03:39:58Z)
• The Reliability Gap in Benchmark Auditing: Distribution Shift and Scale as Failure Modes of Contamination Detection [4.921591758479804]
  Statistical tools for detecting training-data membership exist, but have been validated almost exclusively in controlled academic regimes.<n>We identify two under-studied failure modes: distribution shift and scale constraints.<n>Across 335 evaluations, only 199 yield correct outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T08:21:22Z)
• Auditable Decision Models with Learned Abstention and Real-Time Steering [6.287457666346811]
  Production AI systems often operate with incomplete, conflicting, or insufficient evidence.<n>We study operational decision control for AI systems, where uncertainty must be explicitly routable.<n>We present EvaluatorDPT, a bounded decision-control model that predicts YES, NO, or TBD.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T23:37:56Z)
• ClawForge: Generating Executable Interactive Benchmarks for Command-Line Agents [59.626170560327274]
  We present textbfClawForge, a generator-backed benchmark framework for executable command-line categories under state conflict.<n>We instantiate this framework as the ClawForge-Bench (17 scenarios, 6 ability categories)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T21:34:08Z)
• ComplexMCP: Evaluation of LLM Agents in Dynamic, Interdependent, and Large-Scale Tool Sandbox [61.862814740220806]
  $textbfComplexMCP$ is a benchmark designed to evaluate agents in rigorous conditions.<n>Built on the Model Context Protocol (MCP), $textbfComplexMCP$ provides over 300 meticulously tested tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T16:20:51Z)
• SELFDOUBT: Uncertainty Quantification for Reasoning LLMs via the Hedge-to-Verify Ratio [0.038379177968040606]
  We propose SELFDOUBT, a single-pass uncertainty framework for reasoning language models.<n>Our key signal, the Hedge-to-Verify Ratio (HVR), detects whether a reasoning trace contains uncertainty markers and, if so, whether they are offset by explicit selfchecking behavior.<n> SELFDOUBT operates on a single observed reasoning trajectory, making it suitable for latency- and cost-constrained deployment over any proprietary API.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T19:19:29Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Information Fidelity in Tool-Using LLM Agents: A Martingale Analysis of the Model Context Protocol [69.11739400975445]
  We introduce the first theoretical framework for analyzing error accumulation in Model Context Protocol (MCP) agents.<n>We show that cumulative distortion exhibits linear growth and high-probability deviations bounded by $O(sqrtT)$.<n>Key findings include: semantic weighting reduces distortion by 80%, and periodic re-grounding approximately every 9 steps suffices for error control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T21:08:53Z)
• Replayable Financial Agents: A Determinism-Faithfulness Assurance Harness for Tool-Using LLM Agents [0.7699235580548228]
  LLM agents struggle with regulatory audit replay: when asked to reproduce a transaction flagged decision with identical inputs, most deployments fail to return consistent results.<n>This paper introduces the DeterminismFaithfulness Assurance Harness (DFAH), a framework for measuring trajectory determinism and evidence-conditioned faithfulness in tool-using agents deployed in financial services.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-17T19:47:55Z)

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.