Monitor Accuracy Isn't the Answer: A Decision-Value Framework for Evaluating AI Agent Restart Monitors

arXiv cs.AI 约 12 分钟读完

Classification accuracy and true-positive and false-positive rates alone do not determine whether restarting an AI agent improves success. Using an exact alarm-to-action identity for an independent clean restart with zero monitoring overhead, we show analytically that a monitor with fixed 90% accura…

Authors: Siddharth Jain , Venkat N. Vedam

View a PDF of the paper titled Monitor Accuracy Isn't the Answer: A Decision-Value Framework for Evaluating AI Agent Restart Monitors, by Siddharth Jain and 1 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

Abstract: Classification accuracy and true-positive and false-positive rates alone do not determine whether restarting an AI agent improves success. Using an exact alarm-to-action identity for an independent clean restart with zero monitoring overhead, we show analytically that a monitor with fixed 90% accuracy can swing from a five-percentage-point loss to a 35-point gain in success rate, depending solely on the replacement attempt's residual-budget success probability. We introduce two techniques for evaluating monitors and progress signals in decision terms. First, a decision-sufficiency criterion, a binary-action specialization of Blackwell's comparison of experiments, identifies which progress representations or context compressions preserve the information needed to choose optimally between the specified actions, independent of trace reconstruction fidelity. Second, a finite-sample, model-free decision audit uses simultaneous binomial intervals over existing agent traces, without additional model calls, to certify a preference for "restart" or "continue" under stated sampling assumptions, or return "abstain" when evidence is insufficient. In a study of 194 externally evaluated model executions on 19 selected SymPy issues from SWE-bench Verified, with a retrospective audit of 130 of these traces, we find a 2.29-point apparent restart gain traced to a single surviving failed attempt, a 42.29-point loss on a second model, no positive replication of the initial gain on prospective task cohorts, and zero of 103 live comparisons meeting the specified certification bar. These results motivate evaluating agent monitors through recovery opportunity, decision value, and statistical support, rather than classification performance alone.

Comments:

29 pages, 6 figures, 14 tables

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) ; Information Retrieval (cs.IR)

Cite as:

arXiv:2610.36544 [cs.AI]

(or

arXiv:2610.36544v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.36544

Focus to learn more

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Siddharth Jain [ view email ]

[v1]

Tue, 27 Oct 2026 02:59:21 UTC (179 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Monitor Accuracy Isn't the Answer: A Decision-Value Framework for Evaluating AI Agent Restart Monitors, by Siddharth Jain and 1 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.AI

< prev

next >

new

recent

| 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs

cs.IR

References & Citations

SciX

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

export BibTeX citation

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...

Data provided by:

Bookmark

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer ( What is the Explorer? )

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers ( What is Connected Papers? )

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps ( What is Litmaps? )

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations ( What are Smart Citations? )

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv ( What is alphaXiv? )

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers ( What is CatalyzeX? )

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub ( What is DagsHub? )

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub ( What is GotitPub? )

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face ( What is Huggingface? )

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast ( What is ScienceCast? )

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate ( What is Replicate? )

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces ( What is Spaces? )

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI ( What is TXYZ.AI? )

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower ( What are Influence Flowers? )

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender ( What is CORE? )

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? |

Disable MathJax ( What is MathJax? )

原文标题 Monitor Accuracy Isn't the Answer: A Decision-Value Framework for Evaluating AI Agent Restart Monitors
引用来源 arXiv cs.AI
本地存档 2026-10-28 16:15
引用格式 Siddharth Jain, Venkat N. Vedam. Monitor Accuracy Isn't the Answer: A Decision-Value Framework for Evaluating AI Agent Restart Monitors. 2026-10-28. https://www.ai007.site/news/52554

本文内容由 ai007 从公开渠道聚合,版权归原作者所有。若原文已删除或变更, 以原文站为准;本站存档仅为便于查阅而保留。