CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Mar 30, 2026

Consistency Amplifies: How Behavioral Variance Shapes Agent Accuracy

arXiv AI Archived Mar 30, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2603.25764v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As LLM-based agents are deployed in production systems, understanding their behavioral consistency (whether they produce similar action sequences when given identical tasks) becomes critical for reliability. We study consistency in the context of SWE-bench, a challenging software engineering benchmark requiring complex, multi-step reasoning. Comparing Claude~4.5~Sonnet, GPT-5, and Llama-3.1-70B across 50 runs each (10 tasks $\times$ 5 runs), we f

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Software Engineering [Submitted on 26 Mar 2026] Consistency Amplifies: How Behavioral Variance Shapes Agent Accuracy Aman Mehta As LLM-based agents are deployed in production systems, understanding their behavioral consistency (whether they produce similar action sequences when given identical tasks) becomes critical for reliability. We study consistency in the context of SWE-bench, a challenging software engineering benchmark requiring complex, multi-step reasoning. Comparing Claude~4.5~Sonnet, GPT-5, and Llama-3.1-70B across 50 runs each (10 tasks \times 5 runs), we find that across models, higher consistency aligns with higher accuracy: Claude achieves the lowest variance (CV: 15.2\%) and highest accuracy (58\%), GPT-5 is intermediate (CV: 32.2\%, accuracy: 32\%), and Llama shows the highest variance (CV: 47.0\%) with lowest accuracy (4\%). However, within a model, consistency can amplify both correct and incorrect interpretations. Our analysis reveals a critical nuance: \textbf{consistency amplifies outcomes rather than guaranteeing correctness}. 71\% of Claude's failures stem from "consistent wrong interpretation": making the same incorrect assumption across all runs. Interestingly, GPT-5 achieves similar early strategic agreement as Claude (diverging at step 3.4 vs.\ 3.2) but exhibits 2.1\times higher variance, suggesting that divergence timing alone does not determine consistency. These findings suggest that for production deployment, interpretation accuracy matters more than execution consistency, with implications for agent evaluation and training. Comments: 8 pages, 8 figures Subjects: Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2603.25764 [cs.SE]   (or arXiv:2603.25764v1 [cs.SE] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.25764 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Aman Mehta [view email] [v1] Thu, 26 Mar 2026 04:39:13 UTC (1,003 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.SE < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-03 Change to browse by: cs cs.AI 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
    Mar 30, 2026
    Archived
    Mar 30, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗