Consistency as a Testable Property: Statistical Methods to Evaluate AI Agent Reliability
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This paper establishes a rigorous measurement science for AI agent reliability, providing a foundational framework for quantifying consistency under semantically preserving perturbations. By leveraging U-statistics for output-level reliability and kernel-based metrics for trajectory-level stability, we offer a principled approach to evaluating agents across diverse operating conditions. Our proposal highlights the important distinction between the core capability and execution robustness of an agent, showing that minor task-level variations can induce complete strategy breakdowns despite the agent possessing the requisite knowledge for the task. We validate our framework through extensive experiments on three agentic benchmarks, demonstrating that trajectory-level consistency metrics provide far greater diagnostic sensitivity than traditional pass@1 rates. By providing the mathematical tools to isolate where and why agents deviate, we enable the identification and rectification of architectural concerns that hinder the deployment of agents in high-stakes, real-world environments.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 May 2026.
Builds on
25 of 33 references.
References · 25
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
- 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 1,808
- 2022Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Themcited by 1,807
- 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,402
- 2023Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIscited by 1,332
- 2023Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant Contextcited by 841
- 2026Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfacescited by 585
- 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandboxcited by 548
- 2022PlanBench: An Extensible Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models on Planning and Reasoning about Changecited by 382
- 2021Measuring and Improving Consistency in Pretrained Language Modelscited by 364
- 2024AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agentscited by 339
13 more
- 2023MINT: Evaluating LLMs in Multi-turn Interaction with Tools and Language Feedbackcited by 297
- 2023Certifying LLM Safety against Adversarial Promptingcited by 266
- 2023PromptRobust: Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models on Adversarial Promptscited by 226
- 2023T-Eval: Evaluating the Tool Utilization Capability of Large Language Models Step by Stepcited by 93
- 2026Towards a Science of AI Agent Reliabilitycited by 65
- 2024Spider2-V: How Far Are Multimodal Agents From Automating Data Science and Engineering Workflows?cited by 56
- 2022Measuring Reliability of Large Language Models through Semantic Consistencycited by 38
- 2025What Prompts Don't Say: Understanding and Managing Underspecification in LLM Promptscited by 32
- 2024Reasoning Robustness of LLMs to Adversarial Typographical Errorscited by 31
- 2023Predicting Question-Answering Performance of Large Language Models through Semantic Consistencycited by 28
- 2025E-valuator: Reliable Agent Verifiers with Sequential Hypothesis Testingcited by 17
- 2025Consistency in Language Models: Current Landscape, Challenges, and Future Directionscited by 14
- 2024Quantifying perturbation impacts for large language modelscited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026OTAP: Structure-Aware Optimal Transport for Evaluating Planning and Execution in Agent Trajectoriescited by 2
- 2026Cross-View Correspondence Is a Measurement Intervention: Two-Sided Validation for Agent Evaluation and Credit Assignmentcited by 0
- 2026Reliability Engineering for AI Systems: Challenges, Methods, and Directionscited by 0
- 2026Reliability Engineering for AI Systems: Challenges, Methods, and Directions28 Sep 2026
- 2026Cross-View Correspondence Is a Measurement Intervention: Two-Sided Validation for Agent Evaluation and Credit Assignment18 Aug 2026
- 2026OTAP: Structure-Aware Optimal Transport for Evaluating Planning and Execution in Agent Trajectories19 Jul 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Closing the Consistency Gap: Self-Evolving Agents That Learn to Stay on Course
- 2026Measuring Cross-Task Behavioral Consistency in Language Model Agents
- 2026Agentic Confidence Calibration
- 2026AI Agents Do Not Fail Alone:The Context Fails First
- 2026Black-Box Reliability Certification for AI Agents via Self-Consistency Sampling and Conformal Calibration
- 2026Measurement Without Validity: The Compounding Reliability Problem in Agentic AI Evaluation
- 2025Beyond Black-Box Benchmarking: Observability, Analytics, and Optimization of Agentic Systems
- 2025Beyond Accuracy: A Multi-Dimensional Framework for Evaluating Enterprise Agentic AI Systems