software quality assurance teams

Abstract: As large language models are increasingly deployed as tool-augmented legal agents, they introduce agentic hallucinations where tool-call and reasoning errors cascade into fabricated holdings and miscited authority. However, existing legal benchmarks evaluate only single-turn QA with outcome-level metrics, while agentic hallucination benchmarks lack legal-specific diagnostic capability. Neither answers to what extent and how a legal agent hallucinates along its trajectory. To address these limitations, we introduce LexAgentHallu, a legal agentic hallucination benchmark designed to evaluate to what extent and how legal agents fail along multi-step trajectories. Built through a four-stage expert-in-the-loop pipeline, LexAgentHallu contains 3414 instances across 17 legal categories and 6 task types. Each instance is annotated under a dual-layer hallucination taxonomy of 7 high-level categories and 27 fine-grained subclasses, covering both substantive errors and agent-procedural failures. We further design fine-grained metrics that quantify to what extent and localize how each failure occurs along an agent's execution path. Our evaluation across 18 proprietary and open-source agents uncovers a Right-Answer-Wrong-Reason effect and reveals that hallucination subclasses cluster rather than scatter, forming distinct agentic framework, legal task, and category profiles. These findings, invisible to outcome-level evaluation, validate the diagnostic power of LexAgentHallu for evaluating agentic hallucination in law.

Abstract: As LLM agents move from answering questions to carrying out procedures, failures can be unwarranted rather than visibly wrong: the final response looks acceptable even though the system skipped the check, branch, dependency, or invariant that made the answer justified. Output-only evaluation sees the answer, and trace-aware judging sees activity, but neither identifies which obligations were active for the query. We introduce CONTRACTEVAL, a diagnostic framework for making those active obligations explicit. It represents procedural instructions as query-active obligations and matches them against response or trace evidence, turning omissions, wrong branches, ordering errors, extra actions, invariant breaches, and output-contract violations into distinct conformance failures. On a controlled suite of audited procedural contracts, output-only and trace-aware LLM judges miss many injected structural failures; under gold expected and observed graphs, ContractEval detects and localizes all of them. LLM-backed extraction preserves much of this signal but remains calibration-sensitive. ContractEval is therefore not a compliance guarantee; it makes procedural conformance auditable rather than implicit in final-answer quality.

Abstract: Evaluating the quality of explanations produced by explainable AI (XAI) methods remains challenging because existing approaches often rely on subjective human judgment, limiting reproducibility, scalability, and comparability between studies. We examine whether LLMs can serve as a reproducible and scalable mechanism to make comparative assessments of the quality of XAI explanations. We introduce XAI-Arena, an LLM-as-a-judge framework for scalable, reproducible, multidimensional, and stakeholder-sensitive evaluation of XAI explanation quality. XAI-Arena then allows us to compare XAI explanations along various dimensions, namely, perceived simplicity, clarity, task adequacy, trust calibration, actionability, transparency, faithfulness, and overall interpretability. We then benchmark XAI explanation methods across various datasets, machine learning models, and stakeholder personas. Human validation shows a strong positive association between LLM-generated and human ratings (Spearman's rho=.693, p<.001). Together, LLM-based evaluations can capture systematic differences in XAI explanation quality and provide a scalable and reproducible framework for comparative assessment of XAI explanations.

Abstract: Software Fault Injection (SFI) supports testing of cloud systems by introducing software defects and observing their manifestation. Rule-based injectors such as ProFIPy provide controlled and reproducible source-level mutations but require fault patterns to be encoded manually. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a data-driven alternative by generating context-dependent software faults. We compare two code LLMs, Qwen2.5-Coder and DeepSeek-Coder, with ProFIPy in OpenStack's Nova and Cinder services. On shared injection targets, activation and observable-failure rates are comparable, but operational profiles differ: LLM-generated faults produce more Catastrophic outcomes on Nova, whereas ProFIPy produces more Silent and Multi-component effects. The sampled LLM outputs also differ in how they manifest failure, while showing greater agreement in their propagation scope. These findings show that LLM-based fault injection extends the behavioral coverage of fixed fault models without establishing general superiority, and that practical adoption still requires controlled generation, runtime validation, system-level oracles, and reproducible experimental provenance.