arXiv preprint ·
SSCBench: Evaluating the Evidential Validity of Fault-Injection Tests for Tool-Using LLM Agents
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Fault injection is increasingly used to evaluate the reliability of tool-using LLM agents. However, there has been limited study of how fault-adoption results should be interpreted when the agent itself determines which authoritative observations become visible during execution. In this paper, we present a systematic study of this evidential validity problem in agent fault-injection evaluation. We develop a measurement protocol that specifies what observations can refute an injected assertion, determines whether they can become visible before the affected fact is first used, and records whether the evaluated execution actually realizes this condition. We construct SSCBench as an instantiation of the protocol and evaluate four fault operators and five agent configurations over 1,191 faulted executions in two $τ$-bench environments. Our experiments show that an admitted fault case and agent configuration can realize substantially different evidential conditions across executions, and that aggregate adoption can remain well defined even when the population supporting a timely-counterevidence claim is sparse or absent. For example, among 44 adopted runs in which counterevidence eventually became visible, only 17 received it before first use, while 27 received it afterward. We also find that first-error timing and later stance revision need not coincide, and that automated trajectory analysis can recover adoption without reliably recovering the first faulty-reliance event needed for temporal diagnosis. We argue that the evidential condition realized by an execution and the population supporting a claim-specific interpretation are part of fault-injection evaluation itself and should be reported before adoption is interpreted as failure under pre-use counterevidence.
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 Software Engineering
Following Breadcrumbs in Code: What Accidentally Committed Ad-Hoc Logs Reveal about Developer Comprehension
Co-Modifying Application Code and Deployment Infrastructure: A Causal Study of AI Agent Pull Requests
IRONPROOF: COBOL-to-Python Transpilation with SMT-Based Equivalence Checking
Evaluation of Software Quality Through Refactoring Commit-Impact Analysis
Skill Constellations: Tracing the Supply Chain of Agent Skills on GitHub
Get the few papers worth your time in Software Engineering 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.