arXiv preprint ·
Policy Loopholes in Agent Evaluation: When Policy Ambiguity Masquerades as Agent Error
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Agent benchmarks evaluate policy compliance but assume each policy determines a unique correct action. Natural-language policies can violate this assumption through silence, ambiguity, or contradiction, admitting multiple defensible readings that a single gold trajectory cannot capture. Auditing two $τ^2$-bench domains, we develop a taxonomy of such policy loopholes and show that affected tasks produce unreliable scores: they lower scores across different models in different ways and make every model less consistent across repeated trials. A cross-domain comparison reveals that exploitability requires both policy ambiguity and tool permissiveness: when policy complexity exceeds what tools can enforce, agents resolve gaps inconsistently and scores become unreliable. Policy specification quality sets the ceiling on evaluation quality. Benchmark developers should audit policies before collecting gold annotations.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
Learning to Refer from Estimated Listener Gaze
ModularRSI: Modular and Generalizable Recursive Harness Self-Improvement
Corpus Characterization and Inverse Constitutional Fine-Tuning for Style-Aware Radiology Reports
Dream-RSI: Recursive Self-Improvement through Evolving Worlds
The Attribution-Compression Frontier in Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.