Verify
Epistemic verification
Test whether an agent's beliefs are justified by the evidence it has observed. Identify when agents act confidently on incomplete or stale information.
Normal evaluation asks whether an agent passed the task. Epistemic evaluation asks whether it understood the environment well enough to keep passing as that environment changes.
An agent can pass a task because its map of the environment was correct, or because the environment happened to be forgiving. When conditions change, the agent may fail in ways that benchmarks never exposed.
Pelagic tests these conditions by changing, delaying, removing, or contradicting information the agent relies on. We find what you don't yet know will break.
Study what agents know, what they miss, and why they fail.
Test whether an agent's beliefs are justified by the evidence it has observed. Identify when agents act confidently on incomplete or stale information.
Uncover failures masked by correct answers or shortcuts. Find where agents succeed for the wrong reasons.
Compare what changes between agent versions: what gets noticed, what gets missed, and what assumptions change.
Run targeted checks that expose what agents notice, assume, and rely on. Test uncertainty tracking and belief revision.
Identify systematic failure modes across agent versions. Find shortcuts, brittleness, and cases where confidence exceeds justification.
Track agent intelligence over time. Compare any two versions and trace how cognition evolved.
Run standard benchmarks alongside epistemic checks. Correlate task performance with epistemic state.
Share evaluation results and methodologies. Build on common infrastructure for reproducible research.
Bring your research questions and agent models. We'll help you set up epistemic evaluations.
Contact Pelagic→