{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "builder_plan": {
    "scenario": "An agent looks good in demos, but you cannot tell which product tasks it fails.",
    "change": "Use the study's evaluation idea to inspect a small set of tasks with human-checked answers.",
    "baseline": "Your current evaluator and a manually reviewed reference set.",
    "steps": [
      "Locate the paper's implementation and check its license, model support, data needs, and hardware requirements. Stop here if you cannot obtain the required artifacts.",
      "Save a small set of representative product tasks and expected outcomes. Keep evaluation tasks out of any training or tuning, and choose quality and cost limits before running.",
      "Run the baseline and the proposed change on identical inputs. Keep other settings fixed and repeat paired runs to expose variation.",
      "Save per-task outputs, failures, timings, and all usage costs. Review regressions before expanding the test."
    ],
    "measure": "Agreement with human review, missed failures, false alarms, and evaluation cost per task.",
    "decision": "Keep the change only if it meets your preselected quality and latency limits and improves the metric you care about after setup and operating costs. Otherwise retain the baseline. This is an exploration plan, not a validated recommendation."
  },
  "builder_review": null,
  "arxiv_id": "2610.21624",
  "title": "AgentPerturb: Evaluating LLM Agent Robustness under Controlled Interaction Perturbations",
  "summary": "AgentPerturb replaces ad hoc agent evaluation with a two-dimensional perturbation framework (targets by types) applied to APEX-Agents and Toolathlon trajectories. It costs evaluation budget rather than training: constructing perturbed task variants and running multi-step agent rollouts against third-party APIs or a local model, which fits constrained infrastructure but adds benchmark-construction and inference expense. It can fail as a guide to practice if perturbation types do not match the reader's actual production noise distribution, and its findings indicate agents rarely detect corrupted inputs, so robustness gains require separate training or verification logic that this benchmark alone does not provide.",
  "rationale": "It is an evaluation methodology rather than a deployable capability, so its value for a small team depends on whether its perturbation taxonomy matches their production failure modes, which requires a small-scale validation run before adoption.",
  "technique": "Controlled interaction perturbation benchmark for agent robustness",
  "family": "avaliacao_de_agente",
  "recommendation": "testar",
  "published": "2026-10-15",
  "as_of": "2026-10-18",
  "editorial_status": "indexed",
  "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.21624",
  "independent_implementations": 1,
  "total_implementations": 2,
  "stars": 132,
  "citations": 0,
  "claims": [
    {
      "claim_id": "claim-01",
      "statement": "AgentPerturb replaces ad hoc agent evaluation with a two-dimensional perturbation framework (targets by types) applied to APEX-Agents and Toolathlon trajectories. It costs evaluation budget rather than training: constructing perturbed task variants and running multi-step agent rollouts against third-party APIs or a local model, which fits constrained infrastructure but adds benchmark-construction and inference expense. It can fail as a guide to practice if perturbation types do not match the reader's actual production noise distribution, and its findings indicate agents rarely detect corrupted inputs, so robustness gains require separate training or verification logic that this benchmark alone does not provide.",
      "basis": "inferred",
      "result": "",
      "baseline": "",
      "conditions": "",
      "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.21624",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    }
  ],
  "exposure_map": [
    {
      "dimension": "quality",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "compute",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "latency",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "operations",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "compatibility",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "security",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "data_and_training",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "reproducibility",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    }
  ],
  "risks": [],
  "minimum_test": [],
  "open_questions": [],
  "independent_tests": [],
  "lab_reproductions": [],
  "report_available": false,
  "validation_tier": "unknown",
  "evidence_tier": "unknown",
  "infrastructure_basis": "unknown",
  "equations": [],
  "equations_status": "not_fetched",
  "core_kind": "",
  "equations_fetched_at": "",
  "equations_source_url": "",
  "equations_source_sha256": "",
  "exposures_reviewed_at": "",
  "exposures_source_sha256": ""
}