AI Agent Benchmarks

As LLMs become more widely deployed, they are increasingly expected to work alongside other AI agents rather than operating in isolation. Effective coordination in these settings requires agents to communicate, share information and make decisions under uncertainty. We introduce SMAC-Talk, a natural language extension of the StarCraft Multi-Agent Challenge for evaluating LLM-based agents in cooperative multi-agent environments. The environment has several key features such as decentralized control, partial observability and long-horizon decision making. SMAC-Talk includes a natural language communication channel which is used to probe agent coordination and trust. We use this communication channel to construct different evaluation scenarios, including settings with an embedded deceptive communicator that tries to disrupt and deceive allies through communication alone. We provide three agents for benchmarking using 4 models from the Qwen3.5 family and study how reasoning structure, memory and model scale affect coordination between agents. We release SMAC-Talk as an open benchmark to support the research community in developing and evaluating LLM agents in cooperative multi-agent settings.

AI agents can increasingly handle the mechanical tasks of financial analysis: retrieving documents, calculating formulas, updating spreadsheets. The harder, more valuable challenge is reasoning through the open-ended questions that define expert Analyst work. Existing benchmarks do not capture this class of problem, and those that attempt to evaluate open-ended reasoning rely on model-judged outputs that introduce noise and circularity. We present Hedge-Bench 1.0: a benchmark of 102 actual, on-the-job tasks grounded in the explicit reasoning traces of professional hedge fund analysts working with relevant information sources. This approach enables deterministic grading against verified expert steps. Frontier models and agents score below 16% on the benchmark. We publish the dataset and evaluation harness at github.com/Trata-Inc/trata-hedge-bench.

Agentic AI coding tools write code with increasing autonomy and in doing so decide when to import a library and when to implement functionality from scratch. These decisions, whether to build functionality from scratch or buy into an external library, hereafter build-versus-buy, carry direct consequences for software security, licensing compliance, performance, and long-term maintainability. Yet no controlled experimental study has examined what governs build-versus-buy decisions in agentic AI coding tools. Configuration mechanisms, i.e., the means by which developers tailor agentic AI coding tool behavior to a project or workflow, are one of the primary means by which practitioners can influence these decisions. However, it is unclear which configuration mechanisms influence build-versus-buy decisions most effectively. We present a pre-registered protocol to study how configuration mechanisms alter build-versus-buy behavior in two popular agentic AI coding tools: Claude Code and OpenAI Codex. We will execute controlled programming tasks drawn from a benchmark of staged projects, each constructed around identifiable build-versus-buy points, and will manipulate the configuration supplied to each tool, ranging from no configuration, through context files with soft preferences and explicit prohibitions, to Skills (instructions that can be autonomously discovered), MCP-enabled library discovery tools, and permission controls, measuring which libraries the tool selects, whether it discloses newly introduced libraries, and whether those disclosures are complete and accurate. Nine pre-registered hypotheses structure the protocol. The resulting benchmark dataset and analysis pipeline will be released as a reusable artifact for evaluating build-versus-buy behavior in agentic AI coding tools.

Agent benchmarks should reflect what users actually ask deployed agents to do, yet existing benchmarks often miss key realism properties of real developer-agent sessions. We introduce RealClawBench, a live benchmark framework built from real OpenClaw sessions to capture the distribution, diversity, and real-world difficulty of deployed agent use. Real user requests are challenging to benchmark because they often depend on local execution environments, involve implicit or underspecified intent, and require nontrivial verification. RealClawBench addresses these challenges with two core mechanisms: reconstructed execution environments and deterministic verifiable scorers, which together convert real sessions into reproducible, automatically scored tasks. The resulting release contains 281 executable tasks sampled from a much larger real-session pool while preserving the source distribution, with maximum final-vs-source Jensen-Shannon divergence of 0.0448. Evaluating 14 contemporary models shows that the best system solves only 65.8% of tasks, revealing substantial headroom on realistic developer-agent workloads. By turning real deployed sessions into controlled evaluation instances, RealClawBench provides a practical path toward benchmarks that better measure agent capability in actual use. Code is available at:https://anonymous.4open.science/r/real-claw-bench-582B.

A central goal of large language model (LLM) research is to build agentic systems that can plan, act, and adapt through sustained interaction with dynamic environments. While recent LLM-based agents exhibit impressive contextual reasoning, their long-horizon decision-making remains fragile, often suffering from objective drift, where goals and plans drift over extended interactions. We introduce Multi$^2$, a hierarchical multi-agent decision-making framework that explicitly decomposes agent behavior into complementary roles. A high-level agent (System 1) focuses on context-aware sub-goal generation using supervised fine-tuning (SFT), while a low-level agent (System 2) executes atomic actions through offline-to-online reinforcement learning (RL) in interactive environments. This separation enables stable long-horizon control, mitigates objective drift, and allows efficient adaptation. Across diverse interactive environments, Multi$^2$ consistently outperforms strong agentic baselines, demonstrating improved robustness and coordination in multi-turn interaction. Beyond performance, we introduce and release three hierarchical benchmark datasets, filling a long-standing gap in training and evaluating hierarchical decision-making for LLM-based agents.

Self-improving language agents are typically evaluated in isolation: an agent attempts a task, receives feedback, and iteratively refines its own behavior. Yet agents increasingly operate alongside peers whose strategies and outcomes are publicly visible. This raises an under-studied question: when does shared experience produce improvements that self-improvement alone cannot achieve? We introduce SAGE (Social Agent Group Evolution),an evaluation framework that compares two compute-matched conditions: SocialEvo, where agents from five distinct model families co-evolve with access to all peers' histories; and SelfEvo, where each agent receives the same number of task attempts but sees only its own past, which is conventional in self-improving agent studies. We instantiate SAGE in three arenas: open-ended ML research, long-horizon economic planning, and strategic multiplayer play, evaluated across multiple evolutionary rounds. We find that group history is not a universal amplifier: the strongest agent does not exceed its self-evolution ceiling. However, agents that plateau under self-improvement can achieve significant breakthroughs when peer experience is available. In competitive settings, counterfactual controls reveal that agents improve generally rather than developing opponent-specific strategies. Across different forms of shared history, filtered peer traces and reflective summaries often outperform raw logs, indicating that social gains depend on abstraction rather than exposure volume. These findings reveal that peer-history gains are agent-specific, arena-dependent, and contingent on the capacity to abstract transferable knowledge from public traces.

Stronger code agents are commonly assumed to be superior teachers for post-training, yet this assumption remains poorly disentangled from task difficulty, harness design, and student capacity. We investigate this pedagogical link using Terminal-Lego, a scalable pipeline that transforms multi-domain real-world issues into environment-verified agentic tasks. Surprisingly, standalone performance does not dictate teaching efficacy: while Claude Opus 4.6 achieves higher scores on Terminal-Bench 2.0, students fine-tuned on trajectories from DeepSeek-V3.2, a lower-scoring agent, exhibit significantly stronger generalization. We attribute this "pedagogical paradox" to Environment-Grounded Supervision (EGS): trajectories that explicitly expose inspect-act-verify behaviors through harness-visible interactions allow students to internalize robust problem-solving routines rather than fragile action sequences. Scaling analysis reveals exceptional data efficiency: with only 15.3k Terminal-Lego trajectories, for example, Qwen3-32B achieves a 24.3% score on Terminal-Bench 2.0, rivaling previous SOTA performance established with over 30x the data volume. Our results suggest that the frontier of agent post-training lies beyond mere outcome-matching, shifting the focus toward "Harness Engineering", where the systematic design of environment-grounded interaction structures serves as the primary catalyst for reproducible and generalizable agentic intelligence.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for health-related decision support. Yet most evaluations treat diagnosis as a single-shot task with complete information provided upfront, often as a multiple-choice selection. This diverges from clinical practice, where diagnosis is interactive and open-ended, involving sequential hypothesis refinement through targeted questioning. We address this gap. We build MeDxBench, a large-scale benchmark of 4,421 clinical cases across 20 specialties. We further propose MeDxAgent, a multi-agent consultation system for interactive diagnosis, and systematically study its prompt-, flow- and agent-level design choices. MeDxAgent achieves a 10.3% accuracy gain over the baseline on MeDxBench, closing 52.3% of the gap to a full-information oracle. We find that specific design choices: collecting demographics first, passing summarized dialogue for diagnosis, and feeding candidate diagnoses for targeted questioning, improve accuracy, mirroring how physicians reason, though their effect emerges fully only in combination. Code and dataset will be released upon publication.

Computer-use agents could automate repetitive screen-based clinical work, but their reliability in medical graphical user interfaces remains largely unvalidated. Existing benchmarks focus on general web or desktop tasks and underrepresent medical software, which requires domain knowledge, exhibits markedly different UI design from mainstream applications, lacks public testing environments, and demands safety validation beyond task completion. We introduce MedCUA-Bench, an interactive benchmark for clinical computer-use agents. It covers 18 clinical scenarios across 10 medical domains, reconstructed from real product manuals and open-source medical systems to capture authentic clinical interfaces while avoiding licensing and privacy constraints. Each task ships with paired intent- and step-level goals to disentangle clinical reasoning from UI execution, and is evaluated by a deterministic checker over task completion and five clinical safety dimensions. Across 23 agents, the best closed-source model reaches 54.2% strict success, while all models remain below 9% on the real OpenEMR. Open-source agents average only 2.5%, with the best reaching 16.2%. MedCUA-Bench exposes the gap between current agents and reliable clinical software use, providing a reproducible testbed for future research.

Instance Goal Navigation (IGN) requires an embodied agent to find a specific object instance among distractors from an under-specified natural-language description. Such ambiguity often cannot be resolved from perception and language alone, making interaction with an oracle a natural mechanism for disambiguation. Prior interactive methods allow oracle queries but treat lightweight clarification and route-level guidance alike, letting agents boost success rate through repeated high-information questions rather than by resolving the underlying ambiguity efficiently. We recast interactive IGN as a cost-sensitive uncertainty-reduction problem, where the agent should ask the question whose answer provides the largest reduction in navigation uncertainty relative to its penalty. To this end, we apply an information-gain analysis on existing navigation corpora to identify which cues reduce navigation uncertainty, yielding a compact set of question types and data-derived weights. However, existing interactive navigation benchmarks do not model the cost of different question types or evaluate how efficiently agents use interaction, making them unsuitable for studying cost-sensitive interaction. Based on this taxonomy, we construct a benchmark for diagnosing interaction behavior and efficiency, together with a Weighted Success Rate metric that penalizes each query by its derived cost. We further propose a zero-shot MLLM navigator that selectively queries at each decision step only when the expected uncertainty reduction justifies the interaction cost.

Real-world professional desktop workflows in specialized creative and engineering software unfold over long horizons and often require human-in-the-loop coordination, where agents proactively seek necessary information and users provide additional instructions, clarifications, feedback, or corrections as the task progresses. Yet existing desktop GUI benchmarks mostly reduce this setting to short, simplified tasks with all user instructions provided upfront. To address this issue, we introduce DeskCraft, a desktop GUI benchmark targeting long horizon creative and engineering workflows and proactive human-agent collaboration. DeskCraft organizes tasks into a multilevel difficulty taxonomy, with long horizon tasks requiring over 50 execution steps, and covers professional creative software across design, video, audio, and 3D creation. Furthermore, DeskCraft formalizes human-agent collaboration into an interaction protocol covering mid-turn and post-turn exchanges. Mid-turn interaction captures both agent-initiated clarification under uncertainty and user-initiated interruption during execution, while post-turn interaction accommodates user-driven feedback after the agent signals completion, together spanning the full space of realistic collaboration patterns. We evaluate 18 proprietary and open source agents on 538 tasks and find that GPT-5.4 reaches 31.6% on standard tasks and 27.6% on interactive tasks. Further analyses reveal persistent failures in long horizon workflow delivery and proactive clarification. We will open-source all evaluation codes, tasks, and data at https://github.com/mrwwk/DeskCraft.

Benchmarks for autonomous agents measure whether agents complete tasks, yet this framing is systematically blind to whether an agent should have proceeded at all. Agents trained under human-feedback objectives develop a structural tendency to proceed even when they lack the inputs, evidence, or authorization to act safely, a disposition we term compliance bias, because both the reward signal and the benchmark scoring regime treat proceeding as the correct default regardless of whether the preconditions for safe action are present. We make three contributions. We first show that compliance bias originates in reward hacking within human-feedback pipelines and is entrenched by prominent agent benchmarks, which either penalize agents for pausing or are architecturally unable to distinguish a principled pause from a silent failure. We then introduce a three-gap taxonomy of abstention-warranted scenarios, covering specification gaps where required information is absent, verification gaps where world state cannot be confirmed, and authority gaps where explicit authorization has not been given, which together provide a principled basis for constructing abstention-aware agent benchmarks. Finally, we propose abstention evaluation protocols (Safety Rate, Usability Rate, and Informed Refusal Rate) and report preliminary results across 144 enterprise agent scenarios and five model families, in which a runtime-enforced abstention mechanism achieves up to 89.2% hazardous-action blocking and 87.5% usability on authorized scenarios, demonstrating that the safety--usability tradeoff is tunable rather than inherent and that its shape varies substantially across model families. We treat this as preliminary work and offer the taxonomy and composite metrics as a starting point for further conversations.

Personalization is a crucial capability of modern language agents. However, current research primarily positions personalized agents as passive responders to user preferences, limiting their ability to interact with users and provide suggestions or guidance proactively. To systematically evaluate such proactive personalization in realistic interactions, we propose $Ψ$-Bench, a benchmark for assessing LLMs' ability to influence realistic users through conversation. We design three real-world interaction scenarios that involve persuasion in $Ψ$-Bench, and endow simulated clients with personal characteristics through explicit user profiles derived from dialogue histories. We evaluate 10 frontier LLMs on $Ψ$-Bench and find that while most models can produce coherent and reasonable arguments, even state-of-the-art models still leave considerable room for improvement in persuasion. We also find that providing access to client profiles yields an average performance gain of 18.24%, highlighting the importance of user-specific information for effective persuasion. Overall, our work highlights persona-sensitive influencing as a challenging yet practical direction for evaluating and developing more proactive personalized LLM agents. Codes are available at: https://github.com/Hanpx20/Psi-Bench.

Clinical practice is not the selection of an answer from enumerated options: a physician gathers heterogeneous information incrementally and commits to sequential, irreversible decisions under uncertainty. Static benchmarks cannot probe and existing interactive medical benchmarks each compromise on at least one of them. We present ClinEnv, an interactive benchmark that evaluates LLMs as attending physicians over real inpatient admissions under a paradigm we term Longitudinal Inpatient Simulation. Each case is automatically constructed into an ordered sequence of decision stages; at every stage the model must actively query four specialized agents before committing to medications, procedures, and diagnoses. ClinEnv scores both what the model decides, through deterministic ontology-grounded matching, and how it gathers information. Across seven models, the strongest reaches only 0.31 decision F1, and outcome quality is sharply decoupled from process quality. Difficulty concentrates in management decisions and later stages, where models recover discharge diagnoses far more reliably than management actions (0.51 vs. 0.17 F1) and continue to issue redundant queries as cases progress. ClinEnv makes this information-acquisition gap, invisible to outcome-only evaluation, directly measurable.

We introduce HERO'S JOURNEY, a benchmark for rule induction in goal-directed episodic tasks, where agents must infer hidden rules from demonstrations and act on them through multi-step execution. HERO'S JOURNEY covers eight tasks across attribute and procedural induction families, each with four structural rule forms, controllable lexical grounding, and identifiability conditions. Evaluating state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that models show evidence of rule induction, but the ability is limited and uneven across tasks. Meanwhile, process execution adds an execution bottleneck for models, whereas surface semantics has minimal effect. Induction-specific steering methods improve performance on attribute tasks but show no reliable gains on procedural tasks, suggesting the gap in procedural induction remains an open challenge.

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) has emerged as a transformative standard for connecting large language models (LLMs) with external data sources and tools, and has been rapidly adopted across personal applications and development platforms. However, existing benchmarks predominantly focus on generic information-seeking tools and fail to capture the practical challenges posed by personal social applications, where tools interact with individual accounts or local databases. To bridge this critical gap, we introduce MCP-Persona, the first benchmark specifically designed for evaluating agent performance on real-world, personalized MCP tools. MCP-Persona encompasses a diverse set of widely-used applications, ranging from social media platforms like Reddit and Xiaohongshu (Rednote) to enterprise collaboration suites such as Lark (Feishu) and Slack. Our extensive experiments on various state-of-the-art (SOTA) agents demonstrate their significant struggles with personalized tool use, thereby highlighting the benchmark's crucial role in identifying and addressing these limitations. MCP-Persona is publicly available at https://github.com/wwh0411/MCP-Persona}{https://github.com/wwh0411/MCP-Persona.

Multimodal agents are increasingly expected to operate interfaces on behalf of users, raising a central deployment question: can they truly substitute for humans in workflows that services deliberately protect against automation? CAPTCHA verification makes this question concrete. It is not merely a visual puzzle, but a human-verification boundary placed before account creation, content access, form submission, and other protected actions. We introduce \textbf{Humanity's Last Line of Verification (HLL)}, a controlled benchmark that uses interactive CAPTCHA verification to evaluate whether agents can cross this boundary through grounded, human-like interaction rather than recognition alone. HLL covers diverse CAPTCHA interactions and exposes agents to controlled realism stressors, including cluttered webpages, harder task variants, and trace-conditioned validation of the solving process. We evaluate eight frontier multimodal agents in a closed-loop GUI environment. The results show that current agents remain brittle at this human-substitution boundary: performance varies sharply across verification types, degrades under realistic interface conditions, and drops further when correct answers must be supported by valid action traces. By exposing gaps in localization, action calibration, state tracking, and process consistency, HLL provides a concrete testbed for measuring how close multimodal agents are to acting as human substitutes in protected real-world workflows. Our code is available at https://github.com/XinhaoS0101/HLL

Frontier model evaluations are shifting from foundational capabilities (e.g., instruction following and reasoning) toward compositional, agentic ones, but Korean agentic benchmarks remain scarce. We introduce K-BrowseComp, a web-browsing agent benchmark grounded in Korean contexts, consisting of 400 problems. The 300-problem K-BrowseComp-Verified subset is manually constructed and validated by native Korean speakers. On this subset, frontier LLMs, including GPT-5.5, DeepSeek-V4-Pro, and GLM-5.1, reach only 30.00--45.67%, a substantial drop from BrowseComp, while Korean LLMs released through Korea's Proprietary AI Foundation Model program obtain only 0.00--10.33%. We further construct a 100-problem synthetic split using hard few-shot exemplars and failure-mode-targeted generation to exploit the asymmetry between solving and creating web browsing problems. On the adversarially filtered synthetic diagnostic split, the strongest model reaches only 26.00%, and we report this split separately as a targeted stress test. We publicly release our data and code.

As LLM-based agents expand their operational scope, reliability becomes a prerequisite for real-world deployment. However, in practical applications, human users cannot monitor every immediate behavior; instead, the execution process often remains a black box, leaving users dependent solely on the agent's self-reported updates. This opacity creates a critical risk: agents may present observer-facing reports that diverge from their executed actions, rendering the system uncontrollable, especially in high-stakes autonomous scenarios. We term such self-reported plan-action divergence as agent deception. To assess this, we introduce SPADE-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate spontaneous plan-action divergence. Unlike prior deception benchmarks, SPADE-Bench simultaneously integrates actual tool execution and controlled pressure scenarios. This design ensures ecological validity and rigorously distinguishes strategic deception from mere hallucination through controlled plan-action comparisons under pressure. Experiments across mainstream models confirm that agent deception is a genuine and pressing issue in tool-use contexts. By providing a comprehensive and robust evaluation framework, SPADE-Bench fills a critical gap in agent safety, facilitating the community's progress toward building trustworthy and controllable autonomous systems.

Deep Research Agents have shown strong capability in multi-step information retrieval, reasoning, and long-form report generation, but existing benchmarks and systems remain predominantly text-centric, with limited evaluation of whether visual elements are factually reliable and well aligned with the surrounding analysis. To address this gap, we introduce TVIR (Text-Visual Interleaved Report Generation), which includes TVIR-Bench, a benchmark of 100 expert-curated multimodal deep research tasks that require visual elements to serve specific analytical sub-goals, and TVIR-Agent, a hierarchical multi-agent framework that serves as a strong baseline for constructing outlines, retrieving images, generating charts with traceable sources, and composing reports through context-aware sequential writing. We further develop a dual-path evaluation framework that combines Textual Assessment and Visual Assessment. Experiments across nine deep research systems show that TVIR-Agent achieves strong overall performance, underscoring the importance of explicit multimodal design and evaluation for evidence-driven report generation.

Large language model agents achieve strong performance on text-based benchmarks but incur prohibitive inference costs, motivating the use of compact neural rerankers for action selection. We investigate whether a single lightweight model can perform action selection across multiple diverse environments, a capability that would eliminate per-environment model maintenance. Training DeBERTa-v3 (184M-434M parameters) jointly on ALFWorld, WebShop, and ScienceWorld with minority-class upsampling, we find that rebalanced two-environment joint training substantially improves over single-environment ALFWorld performance (net gain +0.412) while maintaining competitive WebShop performance (+0.214 vs. +0.249 single-environment). Three-environment training yields a mean combined net gain of +0.551 +/- 0.024 across 4 seeds, with per-environment results approaching specialized single-environment models while providing positive cross-domain transfer. Cross-environment adaptation is highly sample-efficient: fine-tuning on only 9.2% of target-domain data recovers 93% of full-data performance, and scaling model capacity yields limited benefits, indicating data diversity is the primary driver. Environment-aware LoRA adapter routing with PCGrad achieves a best-seed result of +0.611 (seed 42), with seeds 456 and 789 at +0.554 and +0.559, but exhibits high variance due to seed 123 collapsing to +0.263 (4-seed mean +0.497 +/- 0.158), representing a promising but currently unstable direction. Joint training with clean splits and data rebalancing is a key ingredient. We will release our three-environment benchmark of 51,580 training instances (41,740 raw unique states with minority-class upsampling) and all model checkpoints upon acceptance.

Deep-research agents solve tasks through long trajectories of search, tool use, evidence inspection, and answer synthesis. Evaluation based on final answers shows whether an agent succeeds, but not which parts of the trajectory make the answer unreliable. We study span-level error localization for deep-research agents. We collect 2,790 real trajectories from two agent frameworks, three backbone models, and three benchmarks, convert raw logs into semantic spans, and annotate harmful error spans through LLM-assisted expert review. From these annotations, we build TELBench, a 1,000-instance benchmark for identifying error spans among normal exploration, failed searches, tentative hypotheses, and harmless noise. We further propose DRIFT, a claim-centric auditing framework that tracks agent claims, checks their support in trajectory evidence, and marks spans where unsupported or conflicting claims affect the answer path. Experiments across model families and auditing frameworks show that DRIFT improves span-level error localization and first-error accuracy by up to 30 percentage points. Our work provides a process-level view of reliability in deep-research agents.

Abundant procedural knowledge on the Web holds great potential for helping agents solve long-horizon tasks. However, such knowledge is often multimodal, heterogeneous, noisy, and implicitly assumes human executors, making it difficult to use directly as the skills required by agents. To bridge the gap between human-oriented guides and agent-executable skills, we formalize this problem as guide-to-skill learning: converting in-the-wild guides into executable skills and continuously improving them from trajectories observable to the agent. To evaluate the capability of existing agents on this task, we introduce MMG2Skill-Bench, the first benchmark designed for this problem. We further propose MMG2Skill, a closed-loop framework that compiles guides into editable skills, conditions a fixed vision-language model (VLM) agent on these skills during execution, and revises the skills from trajectory-level root-cause feedback without using benchmark scores. Across GUI control, open-ended gameplay, and strategic card play with six VLM backbones, MMG2Skill consistently outperforms vanilla baseline agents in every model-domain setting, achieving macro-average gains of +12.8 to +25.3 percentage points across backbones. Ablation studies show that directly prompting agents with raw guides can degrade performance, while both structured skill construction and trajectory-driven revision are necessary for the observed improvements. On success-inferable tasks, analyzer-based early stopping further prevents late-stage performance regressions and saves 25%-53% of attempts when the success signal is properly calibrated.

Autonomous agents are increasingly expected to support end-to-end medical-AI research workflows, moving beyond isolated prediction tasks or short-form clinical question answering. However, existing medical agent benchmarks primarily evaluate final outputs, providing limited visibility into agent behavior within the research process. To address this gap, we present AutoMedBench, a workflow-aware benchmark for autonomous medical-AI research across diverse medical imaging and multimodal inference tasks, organizing agent execution into a unified five-stage workflow (S1-S5): Plan, Setup, Validate, Inference, and Submit. It comprises long-horizon tasks with each run averaging 33 agent turns, spanning five research tracks: segmentation, image enhancement, visual question answering (VQA), report generation, and lesion detection. Each task is evaluated under two difficulty tiers, Lite and Standard, which use the same data and metrics but differ in the amount of task-brief scaffolding, and each run is scored using both final task performance and S1-S5 stage scores, enabling stage-level analysis from the initial task brief to the final submitted artifact. Across thousands of recorded runs, stage-level scoring reveals that Validate is the weakest workflow stage on average, whereas Setup is the strongest, suggesting that current agents are better at making pipelines executable than at verifying their reliability. Post-run error analysis further shows that verification and submission failures dominate tagged errors, accounting for 37.7% and 38.1% of fired codes respectively, whereas task-understanding errors are rare at 0.9%, and runs with one fired error code have a 48% lower overall score than runs with no error code on average.

Smart homes are evolving toward complex state-dependent living environments, requiring Large Language Models (LLMs) to reason over user intent, preferences, and multi-device interactions. However, existing smart-home benchmarks often focus on static instruction-to-API mapping or limited simulations, failing to evaluate whether LLMs can reason, interact, and act reliably in realistic household scenarios. To address these limitations, we introduce SMH-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLMs in smart-home environments. Built upon HomeEnv, an executable and verifiable smart-home simulator, SMH-Bench contains 1,100 high-quality tasks spanning 7 categories and 22 fine-grained subcategories. It further stratifies tasks across simple, medium and complex homes, ranging from small apartments to dense multi-room environments with 135 devices. Experiments show that although frontier LLMs achieve strong performance on explicit control and query tasks, they still exhibit significant weaknesses in automation task scheduling, ambiguity handling and personalized reasoning, especially as home complexity increases. We hope SMH-Bench will facilitate the development of more reliable, context-aware, and practically deployable smart-home agents.

Search-and-rescue (SAR) requires embodied agents to explore unfamiliar environments under multimodal uncertainty, perform multi-stage interactions, and retrieve spatial memory over long horizons. Existing benchmarks typically evaluate these capabilities in isolation, leaving unclear how failures compound when they must be composed in realistic workflows. We introduce RescueBench, a photo-realistic diagnostic benchmark that instantiates SAR as a four-stage pipeline: multimodal exploration, target rescue, memory-guided return, and final handoff. By combining sequential task composition with stage-level evaluation, RescueBench enables analysis of how exploration and memory failures propagate through embodied rescue workflows. It contains five progressive difficulty levels that vary in environmental complexity, clue ambiguity, and spatial hierarchy, along with an automatic episode generation and annotation pipeline for scalable evaluation and training. We evaluate seven baselines, an oracle reference, and human players, showing that no baselines complete the full task at the greatest difficulty. Stage-level diagnosis identifies autonomous exploration as the dominant failure mode and spatial memory as a second, independent bottleneck, suggesting that these limitations are not resolved by current topological visual-language navigation or map-based methods. Code is available in https://github.com/wukui-muc/RescueBench

Evaluating LLM agents in realistic service scenarios requires complex task dependencies, imperfect user behavior, and an evaluation that accommodates multiple valid solutions. We introduce CRAB-Bench (Constraint-based Realistic Agent Benchmark) and RUSE (Realistic User Simulation Engine) to address this gap. CRAB-Bench generates tasks via a constraint graph over multiple interdependent entities with structured distractors, requiring agents to reason carefully over thousands of misleading candidates where only a tiny fraction of solutions are valid. RUSE replaces cooperative, template-like simulators with realistic users grounded in human behavioral studies, instantiated across diverse personas and four behavioral dimensions. Experiments on four frontier LLM agents show that the best model achieves only 61% pass@1 on CRAB-Bench, and switching to RUSE causes further drops of up to 57%, concentrated in task-solving ability rather than conversational quality. Information Disclosure is the most damaging behavioral dimension, and agents interacting with RUSE are less likely to admit mistakes, instead masking errors through implicit corrections.

Current benchmarks for embodied vision-language planning inadvertently favor linguistic next-token prediction over physically grounded next-state reasoning. This rewards models that mimic statistical language priors rather than track true causal dependencies, reducing complex physical planning to shallow sequence modeling. Hence, achieving genuine physical autonomy requires a fundamental shift from linguistically grounded token prediction toward physically grounded causal reasoning. To this end, we introduce Causal-Plan-Bench, a high-fidelity diagnostic suite spanning four causal dimensions, curated via multi-stage verification. To endow models with this capability, a four-stage annotation pipeline extracts structured interaction records from egocentric videos to construct Causal-Plan-1M, a dense million-scale corpus of explicit causal reasoning traces. Extensive evaluation reveals a striking gap: leading models struggle to demonstrate genuine physical agency -- even GPT-6-astra scores only 43.04. In contrast, our tailored training recipe enables Causal Planner to internalize the complex physical logic required for accurate next-state estimation. Built upon Qwen3-VL-8B, Causal Planner raises its backbone's score from 33.23 to 45.28, a 36.3% relative gain, and improves on three external benchmarks without benchmark-specific adaptation. We further observe an empirical Causal-Supervision Scaling Trend. Paired no-vision controls also reveal substantial visual dependence, while cross-judge comparisons and human scoring assess the reliability of automated evaluation. More importantly, we initiate the first effort to turn agents from superficial token predictors into physically grounded causal reasoners, bridging language modeling and world modeling.

Agentic AI completes tasks through iterative planning, tool use, and reasoning based on observed outcomes. Despite its popularity, its system-level behavior remains poorly understood, particularly for complex datasets and agent architectures-owing to highly non-deterministic execution, prohibitive evaluation costs, and limited visibility into proprietary models. This paper presents GAIATrace, the first token-level trace dataset of two state-of-the-art agentic systems (MiroThinker and OWL) running GAIA, a benchmark composed of a heterogeneous mix of general-purpose tasks. Unlike prior trace datasets, GAIATrace captures full reasoning tokens, task-level structures, and activities of every major participating LLMs, enabling in-depth systems research. Complementing the dataset, we present Vidur-Agent, a trace-driven simulator that can replay GAIATrace to perform reproducible, low-cost system evaluation across diverse simulated environments. Using both artifacts, we characterize how modern agentic systems handle general tasks and how various system design choices shape their behavior, yielding several unique findings.

Role-playing agents(RPAs) are widely used to steer large language models(LLMs) toward role-consistent behavior, yet existing benchmarks mainly evaluate surface-level fidelity and offer limited insight into decision making under role-alignment value conflicts. To address this gap, we introduce RoleCDE, the first benchmark designed to evaluate RPAs under structured conflicts between role-specific values and alignment-oriented constraints. RoleCDE formulates role-aware decision making as cognitive dilemma scenarios, jointly evaluating role-scenario grounding, value conflict resolution, and decision tendencies. The benchmark is constructed at scale, covering approximately 8k diverse role profiles and scenarios and nearly 24k dilemma instances across three difficulty levels and eight role categories. Evaluation of several mainstream LLMs reveals a "Role Value Decoupling" phenomenon, where agents systematically default to alignment-and morality-consistent decisions rather than role-specific values when the two conflict, even under explicit role conditioning. This behavior is largely invariant to dilemma difficulty but varies substantially across role categories. We further show that RoleCDE-based fine-tuning effectively mitigates this decoupling by improving value trade-off reasoning, while preserving general role-playing fidelity and general reasoning performance. Code is available at: https://github.com/rabbitrose/RoleCDE.