aiqbench analysis
This research challenges the standard practice of scoring AI agents solely based on their state at run termination, highlighting critical risks from delayed outcomes and shared service states that can invalidate trial labels. The authors propose rigorous conditions for "outcome finality" and cross-unit separation to ensure evaluation integrity, suggesting a new framework for tracking open effects after an agent stops executing.
When Is an Agent Evaluation Over? Outcome Finality and Cross-Unit Separation
arXiv:2608.14940v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current agent evaluations score models on the state visible at the end of a stopped run which they count as one trial. However, interpreting the score as a final result would require two conditions that the endpoint does not itself necessarily establish: outcome finality and cross-unit separation. These conditions are independent, since reconciling a delayed outcome can settle the label while runs still share state and isolating runs can prevent carryover while the scored outcome remains unfinished. We develop a completion argument that specifies the evidence needed for each decision and argue that a final label is justified only when anything that could still change the claimed outcome is resolved, bounded, or retained as uncertainty. First, in a controlled replay to demonstrate the mechanism where an agent's actions were held fixed, we find that the endpoint and terminal labels differ for every delayed operation, while a delayed write changes the next run's score when service state persists between runs but not after isolation or verified reset. Second, in a review of ten public protocols, we find that all protocols identify when a run stops and what is scored, while unfinished operations and the evidence for treating runs as separate trials are documented less consistently. Finally, we propose an open-effects record that lists operations or resources that may remain relevant after the endpoint, their current status, and whether they could change the scored outcome or affect another run.
Title:When Is an Agent Evaluation Over? Outcome Finality and Cross-Unit Separation
Abstract:Current agent evaluations score models on the state visible at the end of a stopped run which they count as one trial. However, interpreting the score as a final result would require two conditions that the endpoint does not itself necessarily establish: outcome finality and cross-unit separation. These conditions are independent, since reconciling a delayed outcome can settle the label while runs still share state and isolating runs can prevent carryover while the scored outcome remains unfinished. We develop a completion argument that specifies the evidence needed for each decision and argue that a final label is justified only when anything that could still change the claimed outcome is resolved, bounded, or retained as uncertainty. First, in a controlled replay to demonstrate the mechanism where an agent's actions were held fixed, we find that the endpoint and terminal labels differ for every delayed operation, while a delayed write changes the next run's score when service state persists between runs but not after isolation or verified reset. Second, in a review of ten public protocols, we find that all protocols identify when a run stops and what is scored, while unfinished operations and the evidence for treating runs as separate trials are documented less consistently. Finally, we propose an open-effects record that lists operations or resources that may remain relevant after the endpoint, their current status, and whether they could change the scored outcome or affect another run.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY)
arXiv:2608.14940 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.14940v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.14940 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 · 346 words
Related coverage

The Entangled Dimensions of Decision Theory
LessWrong · Jul 30, 2026
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 13, 2026

Digital States 2026: AI Moves From Experiment to Infrastructure
govtech.com · Sep 24, 2026

Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · Oct 12, 2026