SimVerity: When Does Simulated Agent Success Survive Physical Deployment?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.25067v1
• Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2026 19:00:49 GMT
• Title: SimVerity: When Does Simulated Agent Success Survive Physical Deployment?
• Abstract summary: We present SimVerity, a verdict-transfer assurance framework.<n>It replays matched scenarios on target smart home deployments.<n>It crosses-validates agent execution against independently qualified physical witnesses.
• Score: 5.081228499547384
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Simulated evaluation is widely used to benchmark AI agents, yet how much evidence a simulated pass provides about physical deployment has not been systematically quantified. We present SimVerity, a verdict-transfer assurance framework: it replays matched scenarios on target smart home deployments and cross-validates agent execution against independently qualified physical witnesses. Our evaluation highlights that deployment success is a real-world process, not a static property in simulation: completion, reported state, observable effect, and settled outcome diverged within the same execution. Although an advanced simulator cleared all 240 light trials, a camera caught 42 sub-second failures invisible to settled-state checks. False clearance was predictable: a risk profile learned from measured trials and locked before evaluation predicted failures on a path it never physically measured, beating a property-blind baseline in all eleven held-out sessions across two cohorts. Agent auditability was also measurable: switching one agent loop's model-client/serving configuration raised its scenario-matching share from 52-88% to 100%. Finally, a second qualified simulator added no independent cross-check: it never disagreed on any overlapping case, and only physical measurement exposed their shared blind spots. SimVerity turns verdict transfer into an explicit decision: clear, abstain, or escalate before deployment.

Related papers

• S3Gym: Can LLMs Turn Self-Testing and Self-Judging into Self-Improvement? [66.17176838165994]
  Large language models (LLMs) increasingly interact with external environments and accumulate substantial behavioral experience.<n>It remains unclear whether an agent can actively test its behavior, judge the resulting experience, and use that experience to improve future decisions.<n>We introduce textbfStextsuperscript3Gym, an interactive benchmark for evaluating LLM self-improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-31T17:05:41Z)
• Safety Does Not Compose: Non-Decaying Loop State for Autonomous LLM Agents [16.24087700490158]
  Large language model agents are increasingly deployed as autonomous loops.<n>We show that this is a failure of composition rather than an implementation detail.<n>We present LoopHarness, which restores a persistent, non-decaying safety state at the loop level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-27T13:52:31Z)
• ADeptS-Bench: Measuring the Trustworthiness of Computer Use Agents Across Devices [48.36933831982682]
  We introduce ADeptS-Bench, a trustworthiness benchmark grounded in the ADEPTS capability framework.<n>The Safety stream provides paired benign/malicious tasks with threats embedded in the visual interface.<n>The Disambiguation stream evaluates whether agents seek clarification when intent is ambiguous.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T23:21:57Z)
• DeepInsight II: One Trace from Benchmark to Robot [8.388561928330978]
  DeepInsight II keeps that substrate fixed and quantifies the embodied half.<n> MotionBench places four released whole-body controllers under one workload and metric contract.<n>A composed System 2--1--0 study extends trace localization into five evidence-grounded handoff labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T13:25:24Z)
• When Do Agent Loops Mistake Stagnation for Progress? Self-Evaluation Bias and Externally Grounded Verification in Long-Running Autonomous LLM Agent Loops [0.0]
  Long-running autonomous agents plan, act, and judge their own completion without human intervention.<n>When an agent grades its own work, self-evaluation bias takes hold: plausible changes are accepted as progress while real-world outcomes stagnate or regress.<n>We build a testbed that holds the agent and its tool surface fixed and manipulates only the information-channel type of the evaluator that gates the loop.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T23:52:15Z)
• Self-Authored Verification Is Unreliable in Heuristic Self-Improving Agents [5.91817208489443]
  We study the verifier-acceptance-deployment gap.<n>This gap refers to the discrepancy between an agent's self-authored verification signal and a sealed deployment evaluation.<n>We introduce a Sealed Exogenous Acceptance Loop (SEAL)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T11:45:14Z)
• PhyAgentOS: A Self-Evolving Operating System for Embodied Agents with Decoupled Cognitive Planning and Physical Execution [49.776611937968]
  We present PhyAgentOS, a foundation delivering scheduling, verification, memory, benchmarking, and safety as system-level services.<n>Its Session-Centered treats a session, not an action, as the minimum unit of scheduling, compatibility, supervised execution, evidence collection, and acceptance.<n>SessionVerifier distinguishes execution termination from semantic task completion via evidence-grounded verdicts of success, failure, or replan.<n> Benchmarking reuses the deployment session and verification path, so results trace to real execution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-18T04:46:53Z)
• Validate the Dream Before You Trust Its Verdict: Admissibility for World-Model Simulators [2.299872239734834]
  We argue that any World Model (WM) used as a test oracle must first be accredited before its verdicts can serve as evidence.<n>Our framework is embodiment-agnostic, and is instantiated in autonomous driving.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-08T09:30:31Z)
• 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)
• RealUserSim: Bridging the Reality Gap in Agent Benchmarking via Grounded User Simulation [43.758401022409465]
  RealUserSim is the first user simulation framework grounded in real behavioral data.<n>From 14,000+ authentic human-LLM conversations (WildChat), we extract 7,275 executable behavioral profiles.<n>A fidelity benchmark (PT3) on 600 conversations across 71+ domains with anti-leakage controls shows that grounded simulation raises match rate from 24.2% to 45.3%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T19:42:36Z)
• Detecting Object Tracking Failure via Sequential Hypothesis Testing [80.7891291021747]
  Real-time online object tracking in videos constitutes a core task in computer vision.<n>We propose interpreting object tracking as a sequential hypothesis test, wherein evidence for or against tracking failures is gradually accumulated over time.<n>We propose both supervised and unsupervised variants by leveraging either ground-truth or solely internal tracking information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-13T14:57:15Z)
• Can We Predict Before Executing Machine Learning Agents? [74.39460101251792]
  We formalize the task of Data-centric Solution Preference and construct a comprehensive corpus of 18,438 pairwise comparisons.<n>We demonstrate that LLMs exhibit significant predictive capabilities when primed with a Verified Data Analysis Report.<n>We instantiate this framework in FOREAGENT, an agent that employs a Predict-then-Verify loop, achieving a 6x acceleration in convergence while surpassing execution-based baselines by +6%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T16:44:17Z)

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.