aiqbench analysis
This research reframes agentic evaluation by treating AI agents as configurable systems rather than static models, demonstrating that factors like task information significantly outweigh model size or time budgets in determining performance consistency. The study reveals substantial run-to-run variability driven by configuration choices and shows that dedicated verification tools are far more effective for improving reliability than simple prompting instructions. These findings provide a critical roadmap for building robust, cost-efficient agentic workflows grounded in empirical system dynamics rather than isolated model benchmarks.
Agents Are Systems, Not Models: Rethinking Agentic Evaluation
arXiv:2610.01618v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent evaluations increasingly go beyond a single success rate, reporting metrics such as cost, consistency, and robustness. Yet they typically treat the agent itself as fixed. In practice, an agent is a configurable system: users decide what to tell it, how long to let it run, and which model to use, and each of these choices can change how well and how consistently it performs. We study these choices on a new benchmark of four scientific tasks, where a coding agent must find and correctly operate a published specialist model. We investigate five parts of the agent's configuration: task information, reasoning, self-verification, time budget, and backbone model. We find substantial run-to-run variability, with approximately 54% of the outcome variance coming from repeating the same configuration rather than changing it. Across configurations, the information provided to the agent has the largest effect, exceeding both time budget and model size, while also reducing cost and improving calibration. Configuration choices also interact: additional time helps only when the agent has sufficient information or a capable enough model to use it. Finally, a trajectory-based taxonomy of agent behavior reveals that prompting an agent to verify its answer has little effect on its verification behavior, whereas providing a dedicated verification tool changes that behavior substantially. These results suggest that agents should be evaluated as configurable systems themselves, and that some desired behaviors are more effectively implemented in the system than requested through prompting. We release the benchmark and more than 18,000 agent trajectories.
Abstract:Agent evaluations increasingly go beyond a single success rate, reporting metrics such as cost, consistency, and robustness. Yet they typically treat the agent itself as fixed. In practice, an agent is a configurable system: users decide what to tell it, how long to let it run, and which model to use, and each of these choices can change how well and how consistently it performs. We study these choices on a new benchmark of four scientific tasks, where a coding agent must find and correctly operate a published specialist model. We investigate five parts of the agent's configuration: task information, reasoning, self-verification, time budget, and backbone model. We find substantial run-to-run variability, with approximately 54% of the outcome variance coming from repeating the same configuration rather than changing it. Across configurations, the information provided to the agent has the largest effect, exceeding both time budget and model size, while also reducing cost and improving calibration. Configuration choices also interact: additional time helps only when the agent has sufficient information or a capable enough model to use it. Finally, a trajectory-based taxonomy of agent behavior reveals that prompting an agent to verify its answer has little effect on its verification behavior, whereas providing a dedicated verification tool changes that behavior substantially. These results suggest that agents should be evaluated as configurable systems themselves, and that some desired behaviors are more effectively implemented in the system than requested through prompting. We release the benchmark and more than 18,000 agent trajectories.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.01618 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.01618v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.01618 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 342 words
Related coverage
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

From AI Copilots to Agent Swarms
IEEE Spectrum · Aug 17, 2026
The Case Against Slowing Down AI
LessWrong · Sep 29, 2026

451 Research report: How agentic AI is redefining identity security
1Password · Aug 20, 2026