arXiv — cs.AI preprintsInternational2 October 2026
Agent Evaluation Reliability: More Tasks Won't (Always) Fix An Agent Leaderboard
This is an official announcement record
Firsthand records what arXiv — cs.AI preprints announced and links to the original. The wording below is theirs, not ours.
arXiv:2610.00651v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent evaluations are increasingly used to compare LLMs and inform deployment decisions, yet ranks can reflect not only the model but also the effects of the evaluation conditions such as the scaffolds or tasks. This makes reliability claim-dependent: an evaluation that reliably ranks deployed systems may not reliably rank underlying models. We ask which conclusions current agent evaluations reliably support and what additional evaluation would improve them. We develop a Bayesian variance-decomposition framework for sparse, imbalanced agent leade
Read the official announcement
Opens arxiv.org
More from arXiv — cs.AI preprints
- Heavy-Tailed Memory Traces in Long-Horizon Language Agents2 October 2026
- When Do Causal World Models Help Modular LLM Agents2 October 2026
- From Proposal to Verified Effect: Praxa, an Evidence-Bound Harness for Governed AI Agent Execution2 October 2026
- What Do Rationales Communicate? A Message-Intervention Study in Role-Specialized QA2 October 2026
- Measuring the Microtask Eligibility Gap: When Is an Off-the-Shelf SLM Enough for an Agent Harness?2 October 2026
This content is for informational purposes only and is not professional advice. Specifications, prices, plan tiers, and features change frequently and may differ from what is shown here; verify current details on the manufacturer's or company's official page before purchasing. Ratings are based on analysis of published documentation, not independent lab testing.