Monte Carlo Query Search: Active Capability Assessment of AI Agents

LLM agents operate in two distinct regimes: open-weight agents amenable to reinforcement learning (RL) and black-box agents whose behaviour must be controlled purely at test time. Although black-box agents are often backed by state-of-the-art proprietary LLMs, API-only access precludes parameter-level optimization, rendering most RL methods inapplicable. To address this limitation, we turn to a known equivalence between RL and Bayesian inference. We propose Agentic Monte Carlo (AMC) to directly sample from the optimal policy of a black-box agent rather than training it through RL. The optimal policy is a posterior over trajectories whose prior we define as the fixed black-box LLM agent. We employ Sequential Monte Carlo to sample from this posterior by learning a value function to steer the agent while leaving the underlying black-box model unchanged. We validate AMC on three diverse environments from the AgentGym benchmark, demonstrating significant improvements over prompting baselines and even outperforming Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) as we scale the test-time compute of our method. AMC demonstrates the feasibility of performing principled RL-style optimization of black-box LLM agents. Code is available at https://github.com/layer6ai-labs/Agentic-Monte-Carlo

Multi-step search is a fundamental capability for search agents, enabling them to iteratively acquire, refine, and integrate external evidence for complex reasoning QA. However, vanilla GRPO allocates rewards exclusively based on the model's final outputs, yielding outcome-only supervision with no supervisory signals for intermediate reasoning steps. Such sparse supervision easily causes training instability and redundant search behaviors on multi-step search tasks. To mitigate this limitation, we adopt process reward to deliver stepwise supervision signals. For this process reward, we propose two complementary criteria to judge each search step: whether the step yields new evidence to facilitate problem solving, and whether it forms an efficient, pivotal intermediate decision within the overall reasoning trajectory. Building on this insight, we propose BiCAA: a bidirectional credit assignment framework that delivers dense, distinguishing process rewards for search-augmented agents. BiCAA builds bidirectional process rewards by fusing two complementary signals: forward solvability gain and hindsight success criticality. The former quantifies step-wise improvements in answer plausibility, while the latter evaluates each step's necessity for final success via hindsight outcome-based criticality scoring. We modulate and aggregate the two signals and then fuse them with the outcome reward. Experiments on search-augmented QA benchmarks show that BiCAA stabilizes policy optimization, reduces redundant search behavior, and achieves competitive performance.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed over Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers, yet the benchmarks used to evaluate them score the final answer or a fixed "ground-truth" list of tools, both of which are fragile once the underlying data is live and stateful. We present DynamicMCPBench, a reusable framework rather than a fixed dataset. A practitioner can run it on their own MCP servers to test models on their own tasks, or let it collect servers automatically to measure a model's general ability to solve agentic tasks. Given the servers and any set of models, it generates realistic goals, pursues each one live to record a successful trajectory, distills that trajectory into path-agnostic effect checkpoints, and scores an agent on whether it reproduces those effects, never on the final answer. To show what the framework reveals, we run it at scale: 24 models over 121 servers and 750 tasks spread evenly over 15 task categories (50 each), where each category targets a distinct tool-use challenge of the generated questions. Each task is scored by pass^3: it counts as solved only if all three independent attempts succeed. Even the strongest agents solve only about half of the tasks, 31% of tasks are solved by no model at all, and accuracy collapses as the required tool chain grows longer (from 39% on the shortest chains to 13% on the longest). A human validation study confirms the automatic scoring is reliable (chance-corrected agreement of 0.76). DynamicMCPBench thus turns benchmark construction into something practitioners can rerun on their own servers and models, while exposing a consistent inability of current agents to handle long, multi-step agentic tasks.