# Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantification for Continuous AI Agent Evaluation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.19779 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.19779/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 18 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 19 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13854/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04132/) (2024)
- [GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12983/) (2023)
- [Adaptive Conformal Inference Under Distribution Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.00170/) (2021)
- [AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.15366/) (2021)
- [Game-theoretic statistics and safe anytime-valid inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.01948/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Conformity Breaks Conformal Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.04445/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We adapt split conformal prediction and adaptive conformal inference (ACI) to continuous AI agent evaluation, providing distribution-free coverage guarantees for forecasted quality scores. Conformal intervals achieve calibration error below 0.02 across all nominal levels at the 24h horizon, while ACI correctly widens intervals by 35% following agent releases then reconverges. We further develop compositional uncertainty bounds for multi-agent pipelines (validated via simulation across inter-stage correlations rho in [-0.5, 0.9]), a conformal abstention rule for pairwise rankings with controlled false-ranking rate, and FDR-corrected abstention for leaderboard-scale multiple testing. Evaluating 50 agents via 18 real-time signals collected hourly, we show that per-agent conditional coverage is well-concentrated around the nominal level (mean 80.4%, 90% of agents within [72%, 90%]), and that cross-source sentiment divergence predicts ranking instability (r=0.64, p<0.01). A circularity-controlled validation confirms the framework captures signal beyond benchmarks (rho_s=0.52, p<0.01, n=35). Code and data are released under CC BY 4.0.