aiqbench analysis
The paper argues that output-based evaluations of LLM agents can't detect a tampered runtime stack, and its experiments suggest that stronger LLM judges accept tampered outputs at slightly higher rates than rule-based scorers. For practitioners, the practical takeaway is that behavioral scores alone don't establish which model and components were actually deployed, so evaluation reports may need verifiable stack-identity information such as manifest hashes. The results are from a single benchmark, so their generality across real deployments still needs independent replication.
Stronger Judges Do Not See More: Deployment-Integrity Blindness in LLM Evaluation
arXiv:2610.21135v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-agent evaluation reports behavioral scores but leaves the identity of the deployed runtime stack unreported. A tampered deployment that preserves evaluated outputs passes every output-only evaluator. We introduce DIB-Bench, a benchmark that measures this deployment-integrity blindness across 7,560 scored examples, six tamper types, and an evaluator ladder from regex scorers through LLM judges to GPT-5-nano. Stronger evaluators accept more tampered outputs: mean acceptance rises from 88.6% (rule-based) to 94.1% (GPT-5-nano), and a trigger-conditional tamper invisible on the evaluation suite produces 48-100% harmful outputs, rising with model capability. A PAC-style bound shows that tampers with zero output shift are undetectable from outputs at any sample size; a manifest-hash identity channel detects them with zero samples. Behavioral fingerprinting identifies the model component above chance (76.7%) but covers one of six stack components. We also propose a graded deployment-identity descriptor for evaluation reports.
Abstract:LLM-agent evaluation reports behavioral scores but leaves the identity of the deployed runtime stack unreported. A tampered deployment that preserves evaluated outputs passes every output-only evaluator. We introduce DIB-Bench, a benchmark that measures this deployment-integrity blindness across 7,560 scored examples, six tamper types, and an evaluator ladder from regex scorers through LLM judges to GPT-5-nano. Stronger evaluators accept more tampered outputs: mean acceptance rises from 88.6% (rule-based) to 94.1% (GPT-5-nano), and a trigger-conditional tamper invisible on the evaluation suite produces 48-100% harmful outputs, rising with model capability. A PAC-style bound shows that tampers with zero output shift are undetectable from outputs at any sample size; a manifest-hash identity channel detects them with zero samples. Behavioral fingerprinting identifies the model component above chance (76.7%) but covers one of six stack components. We also propose a graded deployment-identity descriptor for evaluation reports.
Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.21135 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2610.21135v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.21135 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 · 238 words
Related coverage
[AINews] AI Engineer NYC: Gemini 4 Argon, Vals AI Benchmarks
Latent Space · Oct 14, 2026

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026

[AINews] Claude Opus 5.5, the new default model for AINews — and everybody cuts prices 40-50%
Latent Space · Sep 23, 2026
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026