DuMateBench: Evaluating Autonomous Agents in Complex Real-World Workflows
Organizations: Renmin University of China Beijing, China · Shandong University Jinan, China · Independent Researcher China · Michigan State University East Lansing, USA ·
Abstract
Autonomous agents are increasingly adopted to complete complex, multi-tool workflows in real-world settings. However, existing benchmarks typically separate tasks by application or capability and evaluate agents in environments that are cleaner and more stable than those encountered in practice. We introduce DuMateBench, a real-session benchmark reconstructed from anonymized and privacy-screened user sessions collected from a large-scale production agent platform. Each task preserves the relevant pre-solution interaction history, persistent configurations, and workspace state, and is then validated through human verification. The resulting benchmark comprises 200 tasks spanning 8 broad scenarios and 17 fine-grained capability categories, with most tasks requiring multiple capability coordination. We execute these tasks in isolated Docker containers injected with three forms of real-world environmental complexity: Insufficient, Unstable, and Noisy, and assess performance using a hybrid deterministic and LLM-as-Judge evaluation protocol. Experiments across five representative autonomous-agent frameworks paired with four state-of-the-art LLMs reveal substantial gaps in strict task completion. Complementary robustness, efficiency, and diagnostic analyses further show that performance under environmental perturbations is jointly shaped by the capabilities of the LLM and the surrounding agent framework. The code and data are publicly available at https://dumatebench.com/.
Figures & tables
| Benchmark | Year | Real-user Session | Execution Environment | ||
| Insufficient | Unstable | Noisy | |||
| Multi-tool workflow benchmarks | |||||
| OfficeBench ( Wang et al., 2024 ) | 2024 | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| OdysseyBench ( Wang et al., 2025a ) | 2025 | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| APEX-Agents ( Vidgen et al., 2026 ) | 2026 | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| WorkBuddy Bench ( Tencent WorkBuddy Bench Team, 2026 ) | 2026 | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Agent | GPT-5.5 | Opus-4.8 | GLM-5.2 | DeepSeek-V4-Pro | ||||||||
| Partial | Judge | Final | Partial | Judge | Final | Partial | Judge | Final | Partial | Judge | Final | |
| Claude Code | 0.8613 | 0.7494 | 0.7830 | 0.8734 | 0.7884 | 0.8139 | 0.7317 | 0.6398 | 0.6674 | 0.8373 | 0.7915 | 0.8052 |
| Hermes | 0.9001 | 0.7634 | 0.8044 | 0.8986 | 0.7836 | 0.8181 | 0.8253 | 0.7213 | 0.7525 | 0.8521 | 0.8096 | 0.8223 |
| DuMate | 0.9025 | 0.7768 | 0.8145 | 0.9088 | 0.8316 | 0.8548 | 0.8829 | 0.7711 | 0.8046 | 0.8631 | 0.8229 | 0.8350 |
| OpenCode | 0.7696 | 0.6568 | 0.6906 | 0.8555 | 0.7736 | 0.7982 | 0.8613 | 0.7396 | 0.7761 | 0.8721 | 0.7716 | 0.8017 |
| OpenClaw | 0.8279 | 0.7590 | 0.7797 | 0.6127 | 0.5690 | 0.5821 | 0.7668 | 0.7075 | 0.7253 | 0.8090 | 0.7800 | 0.7887 |
| Agent | Model | Final score | Time (s) | Input tokens | Output tokens | Total tokens |
| Claude Code | GPT-5.5 | 0.7830 | 274.99 | 281,539 | 7,625 | 289,164 |
| Claude Code | Opus-4.8 | 0.8139 | 464.43 | 336,549 | 14,744 | 351,293 |
| Claude Code | GLM-5.2 | 0.6674 | 943.78 | 4,579,662 | 24,268 | 4,603,930 |
| Claude Code | DS-V4-Pro | 0.8052 | 784.96 | 3,043,966 | 24,527 | 3,068,493 |
| Hermes | GPT-5.5 | 0.8044 | 376.43 | 356,906 | 9,608 | 366,514 |
| Hermes | Opus-4.8 | 0.8181 | 517.24 | 757,359 | 14,032 | 771,391 |
| Failure category | DuMate | Claude Code |
| Incomplete execution or budget exhaustion | 14 (28%) | 16 (32%) |
| Incorrect implementation or tool use | 15 (30%) | 11 (22%) |
| Requirement or context grounding failure | 7 (14%) | 18 (36%) |
| Environment or dependency failure | 12 (24%) | 3 (6%) |
| Other failures | 2 (4%) | 2 (4%) |
| Failure category | Task, failure point, and consequence |
| Incomplete execution or budget exhaustion | Task. Create 20 SVG slides and an inspection report at the specified output paths. Failure point. Although the task required multiple artifacts at exact output paths, the agent spent its remaining budget on pixel-level overflow checks after generating the slides, rather than exporting the deliverables. Consequence. The slides and inspection report were not exported before the run reached the time limit of 1800 seconds. |
| Environment or dependency failure | Task. Produce a Markdown report on Huaneng Power International (600011.SH), including market data, news, sentiment, and analysis from external sources. Failure point. Under unstable network conditions, web search returned a JSON parsing error and the fallback service failed DNS resolution. The agent attempted additional public sources but could not obtain a verified alternative before finalizing the report. Consequence. The delivered report marked the required news and sentiment sections as “unverifiable.” |
| Incorrect implementation or tool use | Task. Create an investment-facing report from supplied Word documents while keeping every figure consistent with the input content. Failure point. Although the task required consistency across source documents and the new artifact, the agent inserted an unverified share-lot value rather than tracing it to the references. Consequence. The report stated 2,000 shares per trading lot, whereas the reference specified 2,500. |
LLM Agent Evaluation
Large language model agent evaluation measures whether tool-using systems complete tasks reliably, safely, and efficiently.
See all 1,203 papers