aiqbench analysis
This study empirically challenges the assumption that error rates in stacked agent safety gates multiply linearly, finding that coupling between deterministic rules and LLM judges yields diminishing returns rather than independent failure modes. The analysis reveals significant variability in judge effectiveness across different corpora and highlights how uncontrolled model versioning can invalidate rigorous evaluation protocols. For developers building autonomous agents, these findings suggest that relying on simple layer stacking may provide a false sense of security regarding tool call safety.
Evaluate the Stack, Not the Layer: Do Deterministic and LLM Gates for Agent Actions Fail Independently?
arXiv:2610.07359v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Runtime gates for agent tool calls are stacked on the assumption that their errors multiply. We test it on 1,119 labelled agent actions from three corpora, without an adaptive adversary. The stack has one deterministic rule layer and four LLM judges, three of them re-collected with the served model recorded on every call. We read each stack as a number of multiplication-equivalent layers, n_mult, with its floor under perfect coupling. Under the STRICT miss definition (escalation to a human scored as not stopped), any two judges compose to about 1.2 to 1.4 layers ({\phi} median +0.430, 6 of 6 pairs significant, floors 1.02 to 1.17). The rule layer plus one judge composes to 1.86 to 2.09 layers ({\phi} median +0.014, 0 of 4 significant, floors 1.01 to 1.09). Under PRIMARY (escalation scored as caught) the bands are 1.21 to 1.57 and 1.80 to 2.13. Intervals separate on the pooled data, point estimates split on each corpus, and a third-vendor judge lands in the judge band. Solo accuracy does not predict what a layer adds: a cloud rule pack lowers the rule layer's solo miss rate by 20% and adds no new joint coverage. The difficulty share of judge coupling is not identifiable: 31.8% to 61.8% depending on the probe and the miss definition. One judge tier was served by an unrequested model version in 50 of 112 batches, concentrated on the external corpus. That event overturned a pre-declared analysis rule, and the scoring of review verdicts reversed five conclusions. We report both.
Title:Evaluate the Stack, Not the Layer: Do Deterministic and LLM Gates for Agent Actions Fail Independently?
Abstract:Runtime gates for agent tool calls are stacked on the assumption that their errors multiply. We test it on 1,119 labelled agent actions from three corpora, without an adaptive adversary. The stack has one deterministic rule layer and four LLM judges, three of them re-collected with the served model recorded on every call. We read each stack as a number of multiplication-equivalent layers, n_mult, with its floor under perfect coupling. Under the STRICT miss definition (escalation to a human scored as not stopped), any two judges compose to about 1.2 to 1.4 layers ({\phi} median +0.430, 6 of 6 pairs significant, floors 1.02 to 1.17). The rule layer plus one judge composes to 1.86 to 2.09 layers ({\phi} median +0.014, 0 of 4 significant, floors 1.01 to 1.09). Under PRIMARY (escalation scored as caught) the bands are 1.21 to 1.57 and 1.80 to 2.13. Intervals separate on the pooled data, point estimates split on each corpus, and a third-vendor judge lands in the judge band. Solo accuracy does not predict what a layer adds: a cloud rule pack lowers the rule layer's solo miss rate by 20% and adds no new joint coverage. The difficulty share of judge coupling is not identifiable: 31.8% to 61.8% depending on the probe and the miss definition. One judge tier was served by an unrequested model version in 50 of 112 batches, concentrated on the external corpus. That event overturned a pre-declared analysis rule, and the scoring of review verdicts reversed five conclusions. We report both.
15 pages, 1 figure, 10 tables. Artifact (data, scripts, provenance): this https URL
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.07359 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.07359v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.07359 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 · 375 words
Related coverage

Automated agent evaluation with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore and GitHub Actions
AWS · Sep 8, 2026

Building trust in AI agents: A production-ready evaluation framework with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · Oct 16, 2026

Evaluating AI Agents: A production blueprint with Strands and AgentCore
AWS · Jul 23, 2026

Article: Multi-Agent AI for Production Security Operations: an A2A and MCP Architecture in a 5G Core
InfoQ · Jul 23, 2026