# EIO-Agents: The Missing Semantic Layer for AI Agent Evaluation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.07675 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.07675/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 31 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [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)
- [Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18796/) (2024)
- [Holistic Evaluation of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.09110/) (2022)
- [ProofAgent Harness: Open Infrastructure for Adversarial Evaluation of AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.24134/) (2026)
- [Human-on-the-Bridge: Scalable Evaluation for AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.16871/) (2026)
- [AI Agents Do Not Fail Alone:The Context Fails First](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.14275/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

AI agents are entering production in increasingly consequential environments without a shared semantic standard for what their evaluations actually mean. Scores, traces, judge outputs, and multi juror findings are increasingly used to justify readiness and release decisions, yet they often do not specify what evidence supports a claim, what that evidence can establish, or how the claim leads to a decision. We introduce EIO-Agents, an open specification for interoperable AI agent evaluation built on two layers. The Evaluation Intelligence Ontology (EIO) provides the semantic layer through typed evidence, versioned behavioral predicates, evidence contracts, claims, witness rules, proof status, recurrence, and computable derivations for metrics, findings, controls, and PASS, REVIEW, or BLOCK decisions. The Portable Evaluation Record (PER) provides the system of record: a canonical, content addressed representation of one evaluation that preserves the evidence to decision chain and can be re derived, explained, and verified. Scores summarize, juries interpret, and traces record, but none of them define what the evidence means or what it can prove. EIO provides that missing semantic contract, while PER preserves the resulting evaluation as a portable and verifiable system of record. As AI agents assume greater operational responsibility, evaluation must become more than a collection of scores and verdicts; it must become an accountable artifact whose meaning, evidence, limitations, and decisions can be independently checked.