Analyzing Probabilistic Methods for Evaluating Agent Capabilities
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
To mitigate risks from AI systems, we need to assess their capabilities accurately. This is especially difficult in cases where capabilities are only rarely displayed. Phuong et al. propose two methods that aim to obtain better estimates of the probability of an AI agent successfully completing a given task. The milestone method decomposes tasks into subtasks, aiming to improve overall success rate estimation, while the expert best-of-N method leverages human guidance as a proxy for the model's independent performance. Our analysis of these methods as Monte Carlo estimators reveals that while both effectively reduce variance compared to naive Monte Carlo sampling, they also introduce bias. Experimental results demonstrate that the milestone method underestimates true solve rates for many real-world tasks due to its constraining assumptions. The expert best-of-N method exhibits even more severe underestimation across all tasks, attributed to an inherently flawed re-weighting factor. To enhance the accuracy of capability estimates of AI agents on difficult tasks, we suggest future work should leverage the rich literature on Monte Carlo Estimators.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Sep 2024.
Builds on
13 of 21 references.
References · 13
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,182
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,568
- 2022Emergent Abilities of Large Language Modelscited by 2,512
- 2022Do As I Can, Not As I Say: Grounding Language in Robotic Affordancescited by 2,348
- 2021WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedbackcited by 1,745
- 2023HuggingGPT: Solving AI Tasks with ChatGPT and its Friends in Hugging Facecited by 1,190
- 2023Are Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models a Mirage?cited by 523
- 2024The WMDP Benchmark: Measuring and Reducing Malicious Use With Unlearningcited by 509
- 2023Large Language Models can Strategically Deceive their Users when Put Under Pressurecited by 146
- 2024Observational Scaling Laws and the Predictability of Language Model Performancecited by 130
- 2023Evaluating Language-Model Agents on Realistic Autonomous Taskscited by 96
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 1.
4 papers.
- 2024Towards evaluations-based safety cases for AI schemingcited by 33
- 2024Estimating the Probabilities of Rare Outputs in Language Modelscited by 16
- 2024Quantifying detection rates for dangerous capabilities: a theoretical model of dangerous capability evaluationscited by 1
- 2025Measuring temporal effects of agent knowledge by date-controlled tool usecited by 1
- 2025Measuring temporal effects of agent knowledge by date-controlled tool use6 Mar 2025
- 2024Quantifying detection rates for dangerous capabilities: a theoretical model of dangerous capability evaluations19 Dec 2024
- 2024Towards evaluations-based safety cases for AI scheming29 Oct 2024
- 2024Estimating the Probabilities of Rare Outputs in Language Models17 Oct 2024