InfraBench: Evaluating Infrastructure Agents Across Layers, Lifecycle, and Risk

Existing multi-agent LLM orchestration methods, ranging from brute-force ensembles to learned routers, select models and topologies based on task and model features. However, these methods do not consider the runtime state of the serving infrastructure. On shared GPU clusters under concurrent load, this infrastructure blindness causes systematic resource underutilization: preferred models accumulate deep request queues while equally capable alternatives sit idle. In multi-agent pipelines, where each query triggers multiple sequential model calls, these delays then compound across every downstream step. Closing this gap is challenging because the relevant infrastructure signals (queue depths, KV-cache pressure, latencies) are dynamic and noisy, and they must drive three different decisions: planning, per-step routing, and scheduling. We introduce INFRAMIND, a framework that makes the entire multi-agent stack infrastructure-aware. An infra-aware planner conditions topology and role selection on real-time system load and remaining budget, biasing toward simpler graphs under congestion and richer ones at low load. An infra-aware executor then observes per-model queue depths, cache utilization, and response latencies at each agent step to decide which model to call and how deeply to reason; a budget-aware scheduler further reorders each model's queue so that urgent requests are served first. Cast as a hierarchical constrained MDP and solved end-to-end via reinforcement learning, the system learns to balance quality against latency automatically. Across five benchmarks, INFRAMIND delivers up to +7.6 pp accuracy over the prior baseline at low load with up to 7x lower latency, and sustains up to 99.9% SLO compliance under high load where every baseline drops below 50%.

We present AgentSLABench, a resource-aware evaluation framework for autonomous AI agents that measures correctness alongside latency, cost, compute, memory, and network usage under declared resource budgets. Unlike standard benchmarks that report only accuracy, AgentSLABench produces a multi-dimensional profile per agent per task - the same way systems profilers (perf, pprof, cProfile) measure resource consumption of code, but extended with task correctness as a first-class dimension. AgentSLABench provides 16 task environments across 6 categories (5 core: multi-hop QA, retail substitution, code generation, web shopping, travel planning; 11 extended) with isolated Docker containers, declared CPU/memory/time/network budgets, sealed test sets with SHA256 hashes, and a standardized profiling protocol. We profile 5 general-purpose baseline agents (ReAct, PlanAndSolve, Reflexion, CoT, Random) plus 4 task-specialized agents, finding that specialized agents achieve 100% success on 3/5 core tasks (fact_qa, web_shopping, travel_planning) and 66.7-83.3% on retail and code_gen, while general baselines fail entirely on 4/5 domain tasks. Crucially, we report the Efficiency-Adjusted Success Rate (EASR) - success weighted by resource consumption relative to declared budgets - revealing that high accuracy at unbounded cost is not production-viable. We release the full infrastructure, sealed test sets, and profiling results to enable reproducible, resource-aware agent evaluation.

As benchmarks grow in complexity, many apparent agent failures are not failures of the agent at all - they are failures of the benchmark itself: broken specifications, implicit assumptions, and rigid evaluation scripts that penalize valid alternative approaches. We propose employing frontier LLMs as systematic auditors of evaluation infrastructure, and realize this vision through BenchGuard, the first automated auditing framework for task-oriented, execution-based agent benchmarks. BenchGuard cross-verifies all benchmark artifacts via structured LLM protocols, optionally incorporating agent solutions or execution traces as additional diagnostic evidence. Deployed on two prominent scientific benchmarks, BenchGuard identified 12 author-confirmed issues in ScienceAgentBench - including fatal errors rendering tasks unsolvable - and exactly matched 83.3% of expert-identified issues on the BIXBench Verified-50 subset, catching defects that prior human review missed entirely. A full audit of 50 complex bioinformatics tasks costs under USD 15, making automated benchmark auditing a practical and valuable complement to human review. These findings point toward AI-assisted benchmark development, where frontier models serve not only as subjects of evaluation but as active participants in validating the evaluation infrastructure itself.