HFEPX · Eval paper review
Hongzhan Lin, Shidong Cao, Ziyang Luo, Wenhao Chai +2 more
Published
Oct 6, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
0/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
25% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Oct 6, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.
All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.
What to verify
Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.
Main weakness
This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Tool-using agents make consequential changes to external state, yet correct outcomes do not guarantee that their actions were supported by evidence established beforehand. We study where this evidence-to-action chain breaks as agents move from deciding whether to act to executing single actions and dependent workflows. Across ten model-harness configurations, strong static action assessment can coexist with much weaker interactive execution. Failures often begin before execution: agents stop with incomplete investigation or act before required evidence is established. Once required evidence is obtained, single-action execution is usually reliable, while multi-action workflows additionally expose unresolved prerequisites and incomplete execution. For this analysis, we introduce SafeActBench, comprising 656 cases across six operational domains and five protocols that progress from static action judgment and investigated non-action to single- and multi-action workflows. A provenance-bound Evidence Ledger and deterministic trajectory evaluator track what information was established, when actions occurred, and whether downstream dependencies were satisfied. These results show that failures arise not only from missing information, but also from how agents use established evidence when deciding and executing actions.
These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.
None explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Tool-using agents make consequential changes to external state, yet correct outcomes do not guarantee that their actions were supported by evidence established beforehand."
None explicit
Validate eval design from full paper text.
"Tool-using agents make consequential changes to external state, yet correct outcomes do not guarantee that their actions were supported by evidence established beforehand."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Tool-using agents make consequential changes to external state, yet correct outcomes do not guarantee that their actions were supported by evidence established beforehand."
Safeactbench
Useful for quick benchmark comparison.
"For this analysis, we introduce SafeActBench, comprising 656 cases across six operational domains and five protocols that progress from static action judgment and investigated non-action to single- and multi-action workflows."
Not extracted
No metric anchors detected.
"Tool-using agents make consequential changes to external state, yet correct outcomes do not guarantee that their actions were supported by evidence established beforehand."
No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.
Tool-using agents make consequential changes to external state, yet correct outcomes do not guarantee that their actions were supported by evidence established beforehand.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Evaluation mode is explicit
No clear evaluation mode extracted.
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
Detected: Safeactbench
Metric reporting is present
No metric terms extracted.
