mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Measuring Cross-Task Behavioral Consistency in Language Model Agents

arXiv 2608.13598 ↗First posted 31 Jul 2026cs.AIcited by 1

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

Abstract (arXiv)

Agent evaluation relies almost entirely on outcome metrics such as success rate, which capture whether an agent succeeds but not how consistently it behaves. We argue that behavioral consistency across tasks is a distinct and measurable property, and we introduce the Behavioral Consistency Metric (BCM) to quantify it. BCM trains a model to predict task success from behavioral features of agent execution traces, derives a per-trajectory feature-attribution vector, and measures the mean pairwise similarity of these vectors within an agent system. Across roughly 9,000 trajectories from six language model agents on software engineering tasks, our central finding is that cross-task and within-task consistency are distinct axes that can diverge: some systems are locally reproducible, behaving similarly on repeated attempts at one task, yet globally fragmented, with no stable strategy across different tasks, while others are consistent at both scales. Prior work measures only same-task reproducibility and so cannot observe this separation. We further find that consistency is not reducible to success rate, since systems with comparable success can differ sharply in consistency, and that the frontier-versus-open-source consistency gap persists under a within-task control that holds task difficulty constant. We position BCM as a process-level reliability signal that complements outcome metrics, and we are explicit about the conditions under which it is meaningful.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 10 of its 14 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Jul 2026.

Builds on

10 of 14 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025The Measurement Imbalance in Agentic AI Evaluation Undermines Industry Productivity Claims1 Jun
  2. 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains17 Jun
  3. 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents7 Aug

Other references · 7

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  2. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
  3. 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineeringcited by 1,737
  4. 2025Understanding Software Engineering Agents: A Study of Thought-Action-Result Trajectoriescited by 81
  5. 2025Understanding Code Agent Behaviour: An Empirical Study of Success and Failure Trajectoriescited by 33
  6. 2026Beyond Resolution Rates: Behavioral Drivers of Coding Agent Success and Failurecited by 11
  7. 2023K-SHAP: Policy Clustering Algorithm for Anonymous Multi-Agent State-Action Pairscited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026How Consistent Are LLM Agents? Measuring Behavioral Reproducibility in Multi-Step Tool-Calling Pipelines
  2. 2026Capable but Unreliable: Canonical Path Deviation as a Causal Mechanism of Agent Failure in Long-Horizon Tasks
  3. 2026AM-Bench: Understanding Agents under Task Underspecification across Models and Harnesses
  4. 2026Beyond Task Completion: Revealing Corrupt Success in LLM Agents through Procedure-Aware Evaluation
  5. 2025Stochasticity in Agentic Evaluations: Quantifying Inconsistency with Intraclass Correlation
  6. 2026The Unreliable Progress Bar: Can LLM Agents Reliably Report Task Progress Throughout Execution?
  7. 2026Consistency as a Testable Property: Statistical Methods to Evaluate AI Agent Reliability
  8. 2026When Agents Disagree With Themselves: Behavioral Consistency as an Uncertainty Signal for LLM Agents