SOURCE-LINKED INTELLIGENCE
Quantifying Overclaiming Propensity in Frontier LLM Agents
arXiv · AI, language, vision and robotics · article · Sep 17, 2026 · UTC
Frontier coding agents are increasingly trusted to work autonomously for long periods of time, yet what they actually did is often hard to tell from their final response. We quantify the propensity of such agents to overclaim task completion, which may mislead the user. We operationalize overclaiming as a final response that reports work that the agent's own transcript shows it did not do, for example, claiming to have read a file it never opened. This criterion requires no inference about intent and does not depend on whether the delivered work is correct; it asks only whether the reported wo
Read original source ↗ Open in workspace
- recordType
- paper
- region
- Global
Evidence & attribution
First collected: 2026-09-19T20:26:32.566Z. This is not the publication date.
Observed changes
AIIC observation times, not verified publisher revision times. Up to eight recent revisions.
2026-09-23T14:12:08.350Z
- summary:
Frontier coding agents are increasingly trusted to work autonomously for long periods, yet an agent's final response is often the only account of that work a user sees. We quantify the propensity of frontier agents to \emph{overclaim} task completion, a misrepresentation that can mislead the user. An agent overclaims when its final response contradicts information in its context. This definition requires no inference about intent and is independent of task success. We introduce \emph{OverclaimBench}, an evaluation suite composed of five file-review scenarios, transcript-based coverage measurem → Frontier coding agents are increasingly trusted to work autonomously for long periods of time, yet what they actually did is often hard to tell from their final response. We quantify the propensity of such agents to overclaim task completion, which may mislead the user. We operationalize overclaiming as a final response that reports work that the agent's own transcript shows it did not do, for example, claiming to have read a file it never opened. This criterion requires no inference about intent and does not depend on whether the delivered work is correct; it asks only whether the reported wo