CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Apr 21, 2026

Evaluating Tool-Using Language Agents: Judge Reliability, Propagation Cascades, and Runtime Mitigation in AgentProp-Bench

arXiv AI Archived Apr 21, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2604.16706v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, but this assumption has rarely been validated against human annotation. We introduce AgentProp-Bench, a 2,000-task benchmark with 2,300 traces across four domains, nine production LLMs, and a 100-label human-validated subset. We quantify judge reliability, characterize error propagation, and evaluate a runtime mitigation. Substring-based judging a

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 17 Apr 2026] Evaluating Tool-Using Language Agents: Judge Reliability, Propagation Cascades, and Runtime Mitigation in AgentProp-Bench Bhaskar Gurram Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, but this assumption has rarely been validated against human annotation. We introduce AgentProp-Bench, a 2,000-task benchmark with 2,300 traces across four domains, nine production LLMs, and a 100-label human-validated subset. We quantify judge reliability, characterize error propagation, and evaluate a runtime mitigation. Substring-based judging agrees with human annotation at kappa=0.049 (chance-level); a three-LLM ensemble reaches kappa=0.432 (moderate) with a conservative bias. Under validated evaluation, a parameter-level injection propagates to a wrong final answer with human-calibrated probability approximately 0.62 (range 0.46-0.73 across models). Rejection (catching bad parameters) and recovery (correcting after acceptance) are independent model capabilities (Spearman rho=0.126, p=0.747). A tuned runtime interceptor reduces hallucination on GPT-4o-mini by 23.0 percentage points under a concurrent n=600 control, but shows no significant effect on Gemini-2.0-Flash, whose aggressive parameter rejection eliminates the target failure mode. All code, data, traces, and human labels are released at this https URL. Comments: 9 pages, 5 figures, 12 tables (8 main + 4 supplementary). Under review at Information Processing & Management. Code and data: this https URL Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Multiagent Systems (cs.MA) ACM classes: I.2.7; H.3.4 Cite as: arXiv:2604.16706 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2604.16706v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.16706 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Bhaskar Gurram [view email] [v1] Fri, 17 Apr 2026 21:15:35 UTC (637 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-04 Change to browse by: cs cs.CL cs.MA References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Apr 21, 2026
    Archived
    Apr 21, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗