aiqbench analysis
This research exposes a critical "silent failure" in AI agent evaluation pipelines where serving stack adapters censor tool calls before they reach downstream executors, rendering standard metrics unreliable. The study demonstrates that this interface-induced mismatch is an interaction effect rather than a defect in the model or parser alone, significantly distorting performance reports across different model scales. For developers building autonomous agents, adopting the authors' preflight checks is essential to distinguish between genuine capability limitations and infrastructure-induced trajectory loss.
Interface-Induced Trajectory Censoring
arXiv:2609.03966v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agent evaluations report a tool-call rate read off the serving stack. That number can be zero while the model is emitting well-formed calls: the interface censors the trajectory before anything downstream sees it. On BFCL v4's own data, executor and scorer, holding weights, cases, decoding and seeds fixed and changing only the serving adapter, the same model scores 0.00 or 0.96 / 0.19. A 2x2 over chat template and parser locates the effect exactly: both main effects are exactly zero and all of it sits in the interaction -- no component is defective, and repairing one side of the contract buys precisely nothing. On tau-bench's 115 interactive retail tasks the same swap moves server-parsed calls from 0 to 636 and tasks reaching any tool execution from 0 to 103. Our probe reproduces the funnel across a 21x scale range of Qwen2.5-Coder: the server parses 0/100 at every size while well-formed emitted calls rise to 80/100 at 32B (~72 after calibration against an adjudicated gold standard). Under a matched envelope, across a comparable scale span, the silent fraction stays at 0-2, a prediction committed to the repository before the run. Llama-3.1-8B's 23% rate of calling the task function itself as a tool falls to 0 under one strict:true flag. The mismatch reaches inside the training loop, and its consequence is scale-dependent: in verl's AgentLoop at 7B, 45 of 115 generations carry a complete call; 0 are accepted, 0 execute, 0 return an observation. At 1.5B the same zero is over-determined, so we report the two scales separately. At evaluation time, repairing the adapter restores the mechanism but not a significant outcome gain: parsing 0->84, rescues 0->9, pass rate 53->62 (n.s.). We release a 98-line preflight check that catches every silent failure here. The observed tool-call rate is not a property of the model alone; it is a property of the model-interface stack that measures it.
Abstract:Agent evaluations report a tool-call rate read off the serving stack. That number can be zero while the model is emitting well-formed calls: the interface censors the trajectory before anything downstream sees it. On BFCL v4's own data, executor and scorer, holding weights, cases, decoding and seeds fixed and changing only the serving adapter, the same model scores 0.00 or 0.96 / 0.19. A 2x2 over chat template and parser locates the effect exactly: both main effects are exactly zero and all of it sits in the interaction -- no component is defective, and repairing one side of the contract buys precisely nothing. On tau-bench's 115 interactive retail tasks the same swap moves server-parsed calls from 0 to 636 and tasks reaching any tool execution from 0 to 103. Our probe reproduces the funnel across a 21x scale range of Qwen2.5-Coder: the server parses 0/100 at every size while well-formed emitted calls rise to 80/100 at 32B (~72 after calibration against an adjudicated gold standard). Under a matched envelope, across a comparable scale span, the silent fraction stays at 0-2, a prediction committed to the repository before the run. Llama-3.1-8B's 23% rate of calling the task function itself as a tool falls to 0 under one strict:true flag. The mismatch reaches inside the training loop, and its consequence is scale-dependent: in verl's AgentLoop at 7B, 45 of 115 generations carry a complete call; 0 are accepted, 0 execute, 0 return an observation. At 1.5B the same zero is over-determined, so we report the two scales separately. At evaluation time, repairing the adapter restores the mechanism but not a significant outcome gain: parsing 0->84, rescues 0->9, pass rate 53->62 (n.s.). We release a 98-line preflight check that catches every silent failure here. The observed tool-call rate is not a property of the model alone; it is a property of the model-interface stack that measures it.
39 pages, 14 pages main text. Code, data, and pre-registrations: this https URL
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.03966 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.03966v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.03966 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 · 421 words
Related coverage
Fantastic Adaptive Taxonomies and How to Use Them
arXiv · Jul 21, 2026
Event-Structured Physics-Informed Neural Networks for Differentiable Critical Clearing Boundaries
arXiv · Jul 31, 2026
Test-time Adversarial Takeover: A Real-time Hijacking Interface against Robotic Diffusion Policies
arXiv · Jun 10, 2026
See Less, Specify More: Visual Evidence Budgets for Generalizable VLAs
arXiv · Jun 9, 2026