Measurement Without Validity: The Compounding Reliability Problem in Agentic AI Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00794v3
• Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2026 05:37:25 GMT
• Title: Measurement Without Validity: The Compounding Reliability Problem in Agentic AI Evaluation
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Agentic AI evaluation pipelines produce benchmark scores that justify deployment decisions, safety certifications, and regulatory compliance claims. No formal framework has yet characterized how validity degrades across the stages of these pipelines. We present a three-layer compounding validity model, V_total <= V_1 x V_2 x V_3, that captures multiplicative degradation across task generation (V_1), human-simulator calibration (V_2), and automated judgment (V_3). Under empirically grounded estimates, a pipeline retaining 70% validity at each stage is at most 34% valid against the intended construct (range 0.22--0.54). We validate the model against a structured survey of 55 published agentic evaluation papers, finding that approximately 82% apply structurally mismatched, incomplete, or absent inter-rater reliability (IRR) metrics---a pattern consistent with systematic V_3 collapse. We further identify empirical evidence of V_1 failures (task validity flaws in 7 of 10 popular benchmarks) and V_2 miscalibration (up to 9 percentage points inter-simulator variance, with systematic demographic disparities for non-Standard American English speakers). We derive eight prescriptions grounded in psychometric science and domain-stratified reliability thresholds (ICC>=0.70; alpha >= 0.67/0.70/0.80 by consequence level) that practitioners and benchmark authors can apply immediately. The framework provides a tractable knowledge-based tool for diagnosing and correcting evaluation pipeline validity before deployment decisions are made.

Related papers

• AI Slop and Hallucinations in Vulnerability Assessment: A Survey on Reasoning Failures and Trustworthy Mitigation [48.55515767840701]
  "AI slop" is artifacts, hallucinated vulnerabilities, plausible but incorrect patches, and semantically repackaged bug reports.<n>This paper surveys the empirical evidence, identifies a unifying mechanism, and traces a path toward trustworthy triage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T11:48:38Z)
• Evidence-State Reliability Under Controlled Degradation: Parser-Validity Divergence in a Multi-Stage LLM Pipeline [1.6921396880325779]
  Multi-stage LLM pipelines can remain structurally valid even when evidence available to downstream stages becomes incomplete, compressed, or conflicting.<n>This paper introduces and operationalizes Evidence-State Reliability (ESR), an evaluation layer concerned with whether intermediate evidence remains sufficiently complete, grounded, internally consistent, and usable for a stage's assigned function.<n>We evaluate the framework using GLM-5.2 on 60 sanitized base cases under four evidence conditions: clean, compressed-lossy, partial-dropout, and noisy-conflicting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-21T18:50:13Z)
• DFAH-Bench: Benchmarking Observable Agent Instability in Financial Decision-Making [0.7699235580548228]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-10T03:31:09Z)
• 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)
• Agentic Proving for Program Verification [44.663012714194025]
  Agentic systems have emerged as state-of-the-art approaches for automated theorem proving in formal mathematics.<n>We evaluate Claude Code in an agentic proving framework on CLEVER, a Lean 4 benchmark for verifiable code generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-22T15:41:27Z)
• RISED: A Pre-Deployment Safety Evaluation Framework for Clinical AI Decision-Support Systems [0.0]
  We propose a five-dimension pre-deployment evaluation covering Reliability, Inclusivity, Sensitivity, Equity, and Deployability.<n> RISED is released as an open-source Python package that supplies the quantitative verdicts existing clinical AI reporting standards require.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T02:17:13Z)
• 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)
• SAAG: Structured Agent Assessment and Grounding [13.62148061055744]
  We propose a cascaded diagnostic framework that decomposes agent-calling evaluation into three sequential stages.<n>We evaluate this framework on a benchmark derived from Glaive's function-calling dataset across registry sizes of 5, 10, and 15 agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T19:33:58Z)
• OccuBench: Evaluating AI Agents on Real-World Professional Tasks via Language Environment Simulation [57.505743202759646]
  OccuBench is a benchmark covering 100 real-world professional task scenarios across 10 industry categories and 65 specialized domains.<n>Our multi-agent synthesis pipeline automatically produces evaluation instances with guaranteed solvability, calibrated difficulty, and document-grounded diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T00:27:32Z)
• 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)
• Automated Self-Testing as a Quality Gate: Evidence-Driven Release Management for LLM Applications [51.56484100374058]
  We present an automated self-testing framework that introduces quality gates with evidence-based release decisions.<n>We evaluate the framework through a longitudinal case study of an internally deployed multi-agent conversational AI system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T20:44:15Z)
• PRIME: A Process-Outcome Alignment Benchmark for Verifiable Reasoning in Mathematics and Engineering [71.15346406323827]
  We introduce PRIME, a benchmark for evaluating verifiers on Process-Outcome Alignment verification.<n>We find that current verifiers frequently fail to detect derivation flaws.<n>We propose a process-aware RLVR training paradigm utilizing verifiers selected via PRIME.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T04:45:01Z)
• 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)
• When Small Models Are Right for Wrong Reasons: Process Verification for Trustworthy Agents [0.0]
  We reveal a critical reliability crisis: 50-69% of correct answers from small language models contain fundamentally flawed reasoning.<n>We introduce the Reasoning Integrity Score (RIS), a process-based metric validated with substantial inter-rater agreement.<n>We show RAG succeeds by grounding calculations in external evidence, reducing errors by 7.6%, while meta-cognition amplifies confusion without sufficient model capacity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-01T23:54:15Z)
• Adaptive Monitoring and Real-World Evaluation of Agentic AI Systems [3.215065407261898]
  Multi-agent systems that combine large language models with external tools are rapidly transitioning from research laboratories into high-stakes domains.<n>This "Advanced" sequel fills that gap by providing an algorithmic instantiation or empirical evidence.<n>AMDM cuts anomaly-detection latency from 12.3 s to 5.6 s on simulated goal drift and reduces false-positive rates from 4.5% to 0.9%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T15:52:49Z)

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.