analiza aiqbench
The paper proposes a graph-based way to measure how consistently an LLM agent acts across repeated runs of the same task, merging equivalent states so actions are compared at shared decision points. Its global consistency score predicts task success with an average AUROC of 0.811 on ALFWorld, AppWorld, and WebShop, beating the strongest behavioral-consistency baseline (0.729) and verbalized confidence (0.769). These are benchmark results on three LLMs, so the gains need independent replication, but the state-conditioned framing is a useful lever for anyone trying to judge agent reliability without labeled outcomes.
GraphACM: Graph-based Action Consistency Measurement for Uncertainty Quantification in LLM Agents
arXiv:2610.22031v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Behavioral consistency across repeated executions provides an informative signal for assessing the reliability of large language model (LLM) agents. However, existing approaches typically summarize consistency with a single task-level score, without identifying where behavioral differences occur or whether actions are compared under equivalent decision contexts. We propose a graph-based framework for fine-grained behavioral consistency measurement and uncertainty quantification. Given multiple rollouts of the same task, we merge equivalent states into a directed, action-labeled graph, enabling action comparisons at shared decision states. We introduce node-level and global measures of action consistency, using the global consistency score as a proxy for uncertainty to predict task success or failure. Experiments across three LLMs on ALFWorld, AppWorld, and WebShop demonstrate that our measure is positively associated with task success and achieves an average AUROC of 0.811 for task-success prediction, outperforming the strongest behavioral-consistency baseline (0.729) and verbalized confidence (0.769). These results highlight the effectiveness of state-conditioned behavioral consistency and pinpoint where agent actions agree.
Abstract:Behavioral consistency across repeated executions provides an informative signal for assessing the reliability of large language model (LLM) agents. However, existing approaches typically summarize consistency with a single task-level score, without identifying where behavioral differences occur or whether actions are compared under equivalent decision contexts. We propose a graph-based framework for fine-grained behavioral consistency measurement and uncertainty quantification. Given multiple rollouts of the same task, we merge equivalent states into a directed, action-labeled graph, enabling action comparisons at shared decision states. We introduce node-level and global measures of action consistency, using the global consistency score as a proxy for uncertainty to predict task success or failure. Experiments across three LLMs on ALFWorld, AppWorld, and WebShop demonstrate that our measure is positively associated with task success and achieves an average AUROC of 0.811 for task-success prediction, outperforming the strongest behavioral-consistency baseline (0.729) and verbalized confidence (0.769). These results highlight the effectiveness of state-conditioned behavioral consistency and pinpoint where agent actions agree.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.22031 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.22031v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.22031 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 254 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Hint-based CoT faithfulness evals still mostly work on Claude
LessWrong · 30 iul. 2026
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · 15 iun. 2026
GRUET: Quantifying Uncertainty of Agentic Reasoning-and-Acting Processes
arXiv · 22 sept. 2026
Current AIs out-persuade professionals in lab settings but (probably) not in the world
LessWrong · 5 oct. 2026