# Success Is Not Self-Explanatory: Auditing Success Provenance in Agent Evaluation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.24054 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.24054/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 23 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 23 of 23)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.09600/) (2018)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07974/) (2024)
- [ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16789/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.07972/) (2024)
- [GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12983/) (2023)
- [BrowseComp: A Simple Yet Challenging Benchmark for Browsing Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12516/) (2025)
- [Enabling Large Language Models to Generate Text with Citations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14627/) (2023)
- [Dynabench: Rethinking Benchmarking in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.14337/) (2021)
- [WorkArena: How Capable Are Web Agents at Solving Common Knowledge Work Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07718/) (2024)
- [AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.13178/) (2024)
- [RAGTruth: A Hallucination Corpus for Developing Trustworthy Retrieval-Augmented Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.00396/) (2023)
- [ARES: An Automated Evaluation Framework for Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09476/) (2023)
- [LiveBench: A Challenging, Contamination-Limited LLM Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.19314/) (2024)
- [Proving Test Set Contamination in Black Box Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17623/) (2023)
- [GTA: A Benchmark for General Tool Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.08713/) (2024)
- [Why So Gullible? Enhancing the Robustness of Retrieval-Augmented Models against Counterfactual Noise](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01579/) (2023)
- [Dynamic Benchmarking of Reasoning Capabilities in Code Large Language Models Under Data Contamination](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.04149/) (2025)
- [Search-Time Contamination in Deep Research Agents: Measuring Performance Inflation in Public Benchmark Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.05241/) (2026)
- [Can Agent Benchmarks Support Their Scores? Evidence-Supported Bounds for Interactive-Agent Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.10448/) (2026)

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

- [RoutePrism: Tracing Construction Order Effects in Agent Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.34160/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

A correct answer can conceal why an agent succeeded. Once agents change their information state during evaluation, correctness no longer distinguishes intended reasoning from answer acquisition. Outcome evidence and exposure detection do not establish whether success depended on an acquired target; we call this missing evaluation object success provenance. AcquaBench audits it through matched CLEAN, GOLD, and SHAM value substitution on four standardized surfaces with joint qid-clustered analysis. CLEAN retains benchmark-authorized information. GOLD makes the correct target available. SHAM preserves source structure and exposure opportunity but substitutes a matched incorrect value. GOLD minus CLEAN measures the total score response to correct-target availability; GOLD minus SHAM tests whether that response tracks target correctness beyond matched source exposure. In D0, GOLD exceeds SHAM by 19.1 to 25.9 percentage points, showing that success follows the correct value. In D2, GOLD still exceeds SHAM under distributed sufficiency while coloc no longer transfers as a high-score marker, with AUROC 0.376 and 0.142. Behavioral dependence can thus persist beyond this probe's intended observation unit. In model comparison, a supported 5.0-point CLEAN score gap compresses to a raw GOLD difference of -0.6 points without establishing rank inversion. Agent benchmarks should report success together with whether the evaluated information state supported it.