Organizations: Renmin University of China Beijing, China · Shandong University Jinan, China · Independent Researcher China · Michigan State University East Lansing, USA · Nankai University Tianjin, China · East China Normal University Shanghai, China · Imperial College London London, United Kingdom · Baidu, Inc. Beijing, China
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/.
Table 1. Comparison with representative workflow-oriented and environment-robustness benchmarks. A check mark indicates explicit benchmark-level coverage rather than incidental occurrence in individual tasks.
Figure 1. Overview of our proposed DuMateBench . It is built through two stages: task construction and environment design, detailed in Sections 3 and 4 , respectively. Agents execute each task as a multi-tool workflow, and the resulting artifacts are assessed through two complementary channels: deterministic checklists for objectively verifiable requirements and a rubric-based LLM judge for semantic and presentation quality. The evaluation protocol is detailed in Section 5 .
Figure 2. Coarse-grained scenario composition of DuMateBench .
Figure 3. Knowledge-domain distribution of the 200 tasks included in the MMMU-derived topic analysis.
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
Table 2. Results of autonomous agents on 200 DuMateBench tasks. “Partial” denotes the partial pass rate, “Judge” denotes the LLM judge score, and “Final” denotes the final score (computed as 0.3Partial+0.7Judge ). The best value for each metric within each model block is shown in bold.
Figure 4. Final scores of five agents with Opus-4.8 under increasing workspace noise.
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
Table 3. Efficiency results for the 20 agent–model configurations on DuMateBench . All quantities are averaged per task. DS-V4-Pro denotes DeepSeek-V4-Pro for short.
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%)
Table 4. Primary failure categories among 50 analyzed non-complete runs for DuMate and Claude Code. Percentages are computed within each agent’s sample.
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.
Table 5. Representative DuMate failure cases. Each case identifies the task, decisive agent error, and consequence.