AI Agent Benchmarks

Training AI agents to proactively assist humans in daily activities, from routine household tasks to urgent safety situations, requires large-scale visual data. However, capturing such scenarios in the real world is often difficult, costly, or unsafe, and physics-based simulators lack the visual fidelity needed to transfer learned behaviors to real settings. Therefore, we introduce VISTA, a video synthesis system that produces high-fidelity egocentric videos as training and evaluation data for AI agents. VISTA employs a 5-step script generation pipeline with causal reverse reasoning to create diverse, logically grounded intervention modes. These scenarios span two levels of agent autonomy: reactive and proactive. In reactive modes, the user explicitly asks the agent for help. In proactive modes, the agent offers help without receiving a direct request. We further divide proactive modes into explicit and implicit types. In explicit proactive scenarios, the user is aware of needing help but does not directly address the agent. In implicit proactive scenarios, the agent intervenes before the user even realizes that help is needed. VISTA allows users to customize and refine scenarios to generate video benchmarks for daily tasks, offering a scalable and controllable alternative to real-world data collection for training and evaluating AI agents in realistic environments.

Interactive agent benchmarks map an agent run to a binary outcome through outcome checks. When these checks rely on surface level signals or fail to capture the agent's actual action path, they cannot reliably determine whether the run succeeded. For example, a benchmark task may ask whether Alice's shipping address was changed, while the outcome check only verifies that the agent clicked "Save." This does not guarantee that the intended state change occurred, since the agent may have modified the wrong record. Treating such a run as successful therefore makes the reported score misleading. Benchmark quality thus depends not only on task design, but also on the reliability of outcome detection. We address this problem by introducing an outcome evidence reporting layer for existing benchmarks, without modifying their tasks, agents, or evaluators. The layer performs three functions. First, before scoring, it specifies which stored artifacts are required to verify the claimed outcome for each case. Second, it applies a locked checklist to each completed run and assigns one of three evidence labels: Evidence Pass, Evidence Fail, or Unknown. Third, it reports evidence supported score bounds that quantify uncertainty arising from Unknown cases. Rather than silently counting, discarding, or hiding uncertain cases inside a single aggregate success rate, the framework keeps them explicitly visible. We evaluate the outcome evidence layer on five public benchmarks: ANDROIDWORLD, AGENTDOJO, APPWORLD, tau3 bench retail, and MINIWOB. The resulting reports separate several empirically distinct failure modes.

Agentic artificial intelligence (AI) is a natural fit for Internet of Things (IoT) and edge systems, but edge deployments are often constrained to models around 8 billion parameters or smaller. An important question is: How much agentic-task quality is lost when model size is constrained by memory, power, and latency budgets? To address this question, in this paper, we provide an initial empirical study considering edge-focused model scaling, general-purpose versus coder-oriented model effects, and tool-enabled execution under a fixed protocol. We introduce a domain-conditioned evaluation methodology, an implementation-grounded analysis of model-tool interactions, practical guidance for model selection under constraints, and an analysis of failure modes that reveals distinct semantic versus execution failure patterns across model families. Our core finding is that edge-agent quality is not a simple function of parameter count. Robust deployment depends on the joint design of model choice and tool workflow. Domain-conditioned analysis reveals Pareto fronts in the accuracy-latency space that can guide strategy selection based on operational priorities.

Autonomous agents have rapidly matured as task executors and seen widespread deployment via harnesses such as OpenClaw. Safety concerns have rightly drawn growing research attention, and beneath them lie the values silently steering agent behavior. Existing value benchmarks, however, remain confined to LLMs, leaving agent values largely uncharted. From intuitive, empirical, and theoretical vantage points, we show that an agent's values diverge from those of its underlying LLM, and the agentic modality further introduces dataset-, evaluation-, and system-level challenges absent from text-only protocols. We close this gap with Agent-ValueBench, the first benchmark dedicated to agent values. It features 394 executable environments across 16 domains, offering 4,335 value-conflict tasks that cover 28 value systems and 332 dimensions. Every instance is co-synthesized through our purpose-built end-to-end pipeline and curated per-instance by professional psychologists. Each task ships with two pole-aligned golden trajectories whose checkpoints anchor a trajectory-level rubric-based judge. Benchmarking 14 frontier proprietary and open-weights models across 4 mainstream harnesses, we uncover three concerted findings. Agent values first manifest as a Value Tide of cross-model homogeneity beneath interpretable counter-currents. This tide bends non-additively under harness pull, and yet more decisively under deliberate steering via embedded skills. Together these results signal that the agent-alignment lever is shifting from classical model alignment and prompt steering toward harness alignment and skill steering.

Building effective clinical decision support systems requires the synthesis of complex heterogeneous multimodal data. Such modalities include temporal electronic health records data, medical images, radiology reports, and clinical notes. Large language model (LLM)-based agents have shown impressive performance in various healthcare tasks, especially those involving textual modalities. Considering the fragmentation of healthcare data across hospital systems, collaborative agent frameworks present a promising direction to mitigate data sharing challenges. However, the effectiveness of LLM agents for multimodal clinical risk prediction remains largely unexamined. In this work, we conduct a systematic evaluation of LLM-based agents for clinical prediction tasks using large-scale real-world data. We assess performance in unimodal and multimodal settings and quantify performance gaps between single agent and multi-agent systems. Our findings highlight that single agent frameworks outperform naive multi-agent systems, are better at handling multimodal data, and are better calibrated. This underscores a critical need for improving multi-agent collaboration to better handle heterogeneous inputs. By open-sourcing our code and evaluation framework, this work offers a new benchmark to support future developments relating to agentic systems in healthcare.

AI scientist systems are increasingly deployed for autonomous research, yet their academic integrity has never been systematically evaluated. We introduce SCIINTEGRITY-BENCH, the first benchmark designed around a dilemmatic evaluation paradigm: each of its 33 scenarios across 11 trap categories is constructed so that honest acknowledgment of failure is the only correct response, while task completion requires misconduct. Across 231 evaluation runs spanning 7 state-of-the-art LLMs, the overall integrity problem rate reaches 34.2%, and no model achieves zero failures. Most strikingly, across missing-data scenarios, all seven models generate synthetic data rather than acknowledging infeasibility, differing only in whether they disclose the substitution. A further prompt ablation study separates two drivers: removing explicit completion pressure sharply reduces undisclosed fabrication from 20.6% to 3.2%, while the underlying synthesis rate remains unchanged, revealing an intrinsic completion bias that persists independent of prompt-level instructions. These findings point to the absence of honest refusal as a trained disposition as the primary driver of observed failures. We release SCIINTEGRITY-BENCH at https://github.com/liuxingtong/Sci-Integrity-Bench.

The real world unfolds along a single set of physics laws, yet human intelligence demonstrates a remarkable capacity to generalize experiences from this singular physical existence into a multiverse of games, each governed by entirely different rules, aesthetics, physics, and objectives. This omni-reality adaptability is a hallmark of general intelligence. As Artificial Intelligence progresses towards Artificial General Intelligence, the multiverse of games has evolved from mere entertainment into the ultimate ground for training and evaluating AGI. The pursuit of this generality has unfolded across four eras: from environment-specific symbolic and reinforcement learning agents, to current large foundation models acting as generalist players, and toward a future creator stage where agent both creates new game worlds and continually evolves within them. We trace the full lifecycle of a generalist game player along four interdependent pillars: Dataset, Model, Harness, and Benchmark. Every advance across these pillars can be read as an attempt to break one of five fundamental trade-offs that currently bound the whole system. Building on this end-to-end view, we chart a five-level roadmap, progressing from single-game mastery to the ultimate creator stage in which the agent simultaneously creates and evolves within theoretical game multiverse. Taken together, our work offers a unified lens onto a rapidly shifting field,and a principled path toward the omnipotent generalist agent capable of seamlessly mastering any challenge within the multiverse of games, thereby paving the way for AGI.

Theory of Mind (ToM), the ability to track others epistemic state, makes humans efficient collaborators. AI agents need the same capacity in multi agent settings, yet existing benchmarks mostly test literal ToM by asking direct belief questions. The ability act optimally on implicit beliefs in embodied environments, called functional ToM, remains largely untested. We introduce EnactToM, an evolving benchmark of 300 embodied multi-agent tasks set in a 3D household with partial observability, private information, and constrained communication. Each task is formally verified for solvability and required epistemic depth, and new tasks are generated increase difficulty as models improve. On the hard split, all seven evaluated frontier models score 0.0% Pass^3 on functional task completion, while averaging 45.0% on literal belief probes. Manual analysis traces 93% of sampled failures to epistemic coordination breakdowns such as withheld information, ignored partner constraints, and misallocated messages, providing a concrete target for future work.

Personal AI assistants are beginning to act as delegates with access to calendars, inboxes, and user preferences. Calendar scheduling makes the trust problem concrete: an assistant must coordinate with other assistants while deciding what to reveal about the person it represents. We introduce CalBench, a controlled benchmark for multi-agent calendar scheduling under private information. In each task, $N$ agents manage separate private calendars and schedule a stream of $M$ incoming meetings while minimizing disruption costs. Because no agent can inspect another agent's calendar, success requires language-mediated coordination rather than centralized planning. CalBench generates solvable scenarios with CP-SAT oracle solutions and decentralized non-LLM reference protocols, enabling evaluation of task success, excess cost, communication efficiency, burden fairness, and privacy leakage under matched information constraints. Across seven model families, we find that completion alone misses important failures: agents leave avoidable cost on the table, communication volume does not predict lower regret, and privacy-preserving silence can deprive teammates of cost information needed for fair burden allocation. CalBench provides a reproducible testbed for studying whether autonomous assistants can coordinate on behalf of users before deployment at scale.

Closed-loop tool-using agents are increasingly evaluated in executable web, code, and micro-task environments, but benchmark reports often conflate workloads, action-generating drivers, and the evidence admitted for systems-facing claims. We present an executable benchmarking suite that makes these objects explicit under a shared evidence-admission contract. The suite connects WebArena Verified, a SWE-Gym slice with SWE-bench-compatible verification, and MiniWoB++ through common workload adapters, task manifests, event schemas, replay/freeze policy, declared drivers, and reporting pipelines. In the canonical release, the gate separates paper-facing evidence from preflight, fixture, smoke, and diagnostic rows while preserving non-admitted artifacts for audit and onboarding. The admitted evidence records latency, invalid-action behavior, patch-generation cost, verifier metadata, replay bindings, and provenance under one auditable contract. The gate is decision-relevant rather than merely clerical: in a separate WebArena Verified controller study, clean-baseline and medium live-stressed evaluation select different fixed controller variants under the same workload and admission contract. The release is scoped as a benchmarking suite and admitted evidence, not a new agent policy, model leaderboard, backend comparison, or autonomous SWE-bench solver.

Understanding human mental states from natural behavior is crucial for intelligent systems in the real world. However, most current research focuses on predicting isolated mental state labels, lacking structured annotations of complex interpersonal interactions. To support structured analysis, we introduce MOTOR-Bench, a carefully-designed benchmark with a real-world dataset MOTOR-dataset, containing 1,440 multimodal video clips in collaborative learning scenarios, reflecting key real-world data challenges including natural class imbalance, visual noise, and domain-specific language. Each sample is labeled by educational experts based on self-regulated learning theory. We further evaluate several state-of-the-art multimodal large language models and multi-agent systems in a zero-shot setting on our MOTOR-Bench. However, their performance on this task remains limited, suggesting that existing methods still struggle with structured reasoning from observable behavior to deeper mental states. To address this challenge, we propose a reasoning multi-agent framework, named MOTOR-MAS. It coordinates multiple agents through a structured agent coordination mechanism to infer explicit behaviors, internal cognitions, and psychological emotions. Experimental results show that our MOTOR-MAS outperforms the best single-model benchmark by 15.93 points in Macro-F1 scores for the three labels of behavior, cognition, and emotion, and outperforms the general multi-agent benchmark by 10.2 points in internal cognition prediction.

As data-science agents shift from co-pilots to auto-pilots, silent misframing becomes a critical failure mode. Agents quietly commit to plausible but unintended task framings, producing clean, executable artifacts that hide their incorrect assessment of the task. Existing benchmarks score whether the pipeline runs, ignoring whether the agent recognized the task was underspecified. We introduce Ambig-DS, two diagnostic suites: one for prediction-target ambiguity (Ambig-DS-Target, 51 tasks built on DSBench, a tabular modeling benchmark) and one for evaluation-objective ambiguity (Ambig-DS-Objective, 61 tasks built on MLE-bench, a Kaggle-style ML competition benchmark), constructed so that scoring uses each source benchmark's original evaluator. For every task we pair the original, fully specified version with an ambiguous variant produced by controlled edits; a human-and-LLM verification pipeline confirms each variant admits multiple plausible interpretations with decision-relevant consequences. The suites are analyzed independently and ambiguity lowers performance in both. Across five agents spanning efficient to frontier-class models, we find in our controlled diagnostic setting: (i) failures are silent commitments: wrong-target submissions on Target, wrong-metric or non-committal baseline submissions on Objective, rather than execution errors; (ii) allowing the agent to ask one clarifying question recovers much of the loss under idealized conditions, suggesting missing framing information drives a substantial part of the observed degradation; but (iii) agents cannot reliably tell when to use it: permissive prompts induce over-asking on clear tasks, while conservative prompts induce silent defaulting on ambiguous ones. Recognizing target and objective underspecification, not pipeline execution, is the bottleneck missing from standard DS-agent evaluations.

Medical vision-language models (VLMs) and AI agents have made significant progress in learning to analyze and reason about clinical images. However, existing medical visual question answering (VQA) benchmarks collapse model capabilities into a single accuracy score, obscuring where and why models fail. We propose DeepTumorVQA, a hierarchical benchmark that follows the multi-stage evidence chain in tumor diagnosis and decomposes 3D CT reasoning into four stages: recognition, measurement, visual reasoning, and medical reasoning. Higher-level questions remain independently scorable, while their ground-truth evidence chains are defined over lower-level primitives. The benchmark contains 476K questions across 42 clinical subtypes on 9,262 3D CT volumes. In addition to a direct reasoning mode for VLMs, DeepTumorVQA provides tool-interaction environments for agent evaluation, where a model can call external tools, including segmentation models, measurement programs, and medical knowledge modules, before answering the question. Evaluating over 30 model configurations, we find that reliable quantitative measurement is the primary bottleneck, making later-stage visual and medical reasoning harder for VLMs, while tool augmentation substantially mitigates this issue. When tools are available, leveraging medical knowledge and tools to reason about medical images becomes a new challenge. We further show that ground-truth step-by-step tool-use traces from DeepTumorVQA can supervise agents and reduce tool-use and reasoning failures. This stage-wise progression from recognition to measurement to visual and medical reasoning provides a concrete roadmap for future medical VLM and AI agent studies. All data and code are released at https://github.com/Schuture/DeepTumorVQA.

Agentic memory enables LLMs to persist information beyond a single context window and reuse it in later decisions, but it also introduces a new vulnerability: spurious correlations, where retrieved memory carries miscorrelated evidence and propagates erroneous reasoning into downstream decisions. Despite the widespread use of agentic memory, this risk remains largely underexplored. We address it from two aspects. First, we benchmark several canonical types of spurious patterns identified through causal structure and record them across trajectory-level memory. Diagnosing agentic memory systems on this benchmark reveals that memory improves reasoning on clean inputs but amplifies reliance on spurious patterns when they are present. Second, we propose CAMEL, a plug-and-play calibration method that operates across diverse memory architectures at both write and retrieval time. CAMEL consistently reduces reliance on spurious patterns across all three types while preserving or improving performance on clean inputs and staying robust under adaptive attacks targeting the calibration. Overall, CAMEL offers a principled and lightweight solution toward more reliable agentic memory deployment.

LLM agents are increasingly used to simulate real world interactions, but it remains unclear whether simulated behaviors preserve the content patterns and interaction dynamics of real human behaviors. Existing evaluations remain fragmented, which makes it difficult to compare systems or measure progress. In this paper, we focus on Reddit discussions as a concrete first step toward evaluating real-world social simulation. Reddit threads provide public, topic-grounded, multi-party interactions where people share experiences, debate, seek advice, express emotion, and collectively respond to products, events, and social issues. These discussions offer an observable window into broader social behavior, making them a useful setting for testing whether LLM agents can reproduce not only fluent text, but also the distributional patterns and interaction dynamics of real online communities. We introduce MiroBench, a benchmark for Reddit discussion simulation built from 4,292 real Reddit threads. MiroBench uses statistical tests to compare generated and real discussions across four major aspects: repetition and semantic uniformity, narrative content, toxicity and aggression, and structural complexity. Experiments across five domains and five models show that current simulators remain distributionally mismatched with real Reddit threads, while a lightweight prompt-based improvement procedure provides only limited gains. MiroBench offers a concrete benchmark for measuring, diagnosing, and improving realism in LLM-based social simulation.

Tool-augmented LLM agents tend to call tools indiscriminately, even when the model can answer directly. Each unnecessary call wastes API fees and latency, yet no existing benchmark systematically studies when a tool call is actually needed. We propose When2Tool, a benchmark of 18 environments (15 single-hop, 3 multi-hop) spanning three categories of tool necessity -- computational scale, knowledge boundaries, and execution reliability -- each with controlled difficulty levels that create a clear decision boundary between tool-necessary and tool-unnecessary tasks. We evaluate two families of training-free baselines: Prompt-only (varying the prompt to discourage unnecessary calls) and Reason-then-Act (requiring the model to reason about tool necessity before acting). Both provide limited control: Prompt-only suppresses necessary calls alongside unnecessary ones, and Reason-then-Act still incurs a disproportionate accuracy cost on hard tasks. To understand why these baselines fail, we probe the models' hidden states and find that tool necessity is linearly decodable from the pre-generation representation with AUROC 0.89--0.96 across six models, substantially exceeding the model's own verbalized reasoning. This reveals that models already know when tools are needed, but fail to act on this knowledge during generation. Building on this finding, we propose Probe&Prefill, which uses a lightweight linear probe to read the hidden-state signal and prefills the model's response with a steering sentence. Across all models tested, Probe&Prefill reduces tool calls by 48% with only 1.7% accuracy loss, while the best baseline at comparable accuracy only reduces 6% of tool calls, or achieves a similar tool call reduction but incurs a 5$\times$ higher accuracy loss. Our code is available at https://github.com/Trustworthy-ML-Lab/when2tool

The promise of AI-driven scientific discovery hinges on whether AI agents can autonomously design and execute the computational workflows that underpin modern science. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulation presents a natural test bed to stress-test this claim; it requires translating physical intuition into syntactically and semantically correct input scripts, reasoning about initial and boundary conditions, diagnosing numerically unstable trajectories, and interpreting outputs against known physical behavior and laws. We introduce MDGYM, a benchmark of 169 expert-curated MD simulations spanning LAMMPS and GROMACS, two widely used MD packages, across three increasing difficulty levels. We evaluate three agentic frameworks -- Claude Code, Codex, and OpenHands -- with four LLMs, and find that all perform poorly: even the strongest agent solves only 21% of easy-level tasks, with less than 10% at higher difficulties. Trajectory analysis reveals a characteristic pattern of failure -- agents successfully invoke simulation machinery but produce physically unstable configurations, fabricate numerical outputs without executing the underlying computation, or abandon tasks prematurely rather than iterating through simulation-specific errors. These failure modes are qualitatively distinct from those observed in general software engineering benchmarks, indicating that fluent code generation does not transfer to grounded physical reasoning.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in reasoning and tool use. However, the fundamental cognitive faculties essential for problem solving, including perception, reasoning, and memory, remain the stable core of intelligence. Unlike memorizing specific patterns, humans succeed in novel environments by applying these intrinsic faculties to adapt and optimize. Yet, whether LLMs possess this essential capacity, namely the ability to continuously refine solutions in response to dynamic environmental feedback, remains underexplored. To address this challenge, we introduce OPT-BENCH, a benchmark for evaluating self-improvement capabilities in large-scale search spaces. By combining 20 machine learning tasks with 10 classic NP-hard problems, OPT-BENCH provides a rigorous setting to assess whether agents can adapt through intrinsic self-reflection rather than rote tool application. We further propose OPT-Agent, a framework that emulates human-like cognitive adaptation. It operates through a general perception, memory, and reasoning loop, iteratively refining solutions based on environmental feedback. Through extensive experiments on 19 LLMs from 7 model families, including reasoning models, general models, and open-source models ranging from 3B to 235B parameters, we demonstrate that stronger models are more effective at leveraging feedback signals for self-improvement. However, this upper-bound adaptability remains fundamentally constrained by the models' base capacity, and even the most advanced LLMs still fall short of human expert performance.

Large language model agents increasingly operate through environment-facing scaffolds that expose files, web pages, APIs, and logs. These observations influence tool use, state tracking, and action sequencing, yet their reliability and authority are often uncertain. Environmental grounding is therefore a systems-level problem involving context admission, evidence provenance, freshness checking, verification policy, action gating, and model reasoning. Existing agent benchmarks mainly evaluate task capability or specific attacks such as prompt injection and memory poisoning, but they under-specify a fundamental reliability question: whether agents remain grounded in the true environment state when observations are stale, incorrect, or malicious. We introduce EnvTrustBench, an agentic framework for benchmarking this failure mode. We define an evidence-grounding defect (EGD) as a behavioral failure in which an agent treats an environment-facing claim as sufficient evidence for action without resolving it against available current evidence, leading to a task-incorrect false path under the true environment state. Given a task scenario, EnvTrustBench generates the workspace, environment, agent-facing objective, and validation oracle, executes the evaluated agent, records its action-observation trajectory and final state, and applies the oracle to produce a verdict. Using 6 LLM backbones and 5 widely used scaffolds, we evaluate 55 generated cases across 11 task scenarios, with each scenario expanded through five feedback-guided generation iterations. Results show that EGDs consistently emerge across operational workflows, highlighting environmental grounding as a core agent reliability problem with important security implications.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly expected to operate in enterprise environments, where work is distributed across specialized roles, permission-controlled systems, and cross-departmental procedures. However, existing enterprise benchmarks largely evaluate single agents with broad tool access, while existing multi-agent benchmarks rarely capture realistic enterprise constraints such as role specialization, access control, stateful business systems, and policy-based approvals. We introduce \textsc{EntCollabBench}, a benchmark for evaluating enterprise multi-agent collaboration. \textsc{EntCollabBench} simulates a permission-isolated organization with 11 role-specialized agents across six departments and contains two evaluation subsets: a Workflow subset, where agents collaboratively modify enterprise system states, and an Approval subset, where agents make policy-grounded decisions. Evaluation is based on execution traces, database state verification, and deterministic policy adjudication rather than natural-language response judging. Experiments with representative LLM agents show that current models still struggle with end-to-end enterprise collaboration, especially in delegation, context transfer, parameter grounding, workflow closure, and decision commitment. \textsc{EntCollabBench} provides a reproducible testbed for measuring and improving agent systems intended for realistic organizational environments.

Standard embodied evaluations do not independently score whether an agent correctly commits to task completion at episode closure, a capacity we call terminal commitment. Behaviorally distinct failures--never completing the task, completing it but failing to stop, and reporting success without sufficient evidence--collapse into the same benchmark failure. We introduce VIGIL, an evaluation framework that makes terminal commitment independently measurable. Under VIGIL's default protocol, agents observe only egocentric RGB, receive no action-success signals, and must end each episode with a semantic report checked deterministically against hidden world state. This yields two separate scores: world-state completion (W) and benchmark success (B), where B additionally requires a correct terminal report. This decoupling makes four outcome categories distinguishable: missed execution, post-attainment drift, unsupported commitment, and verified success. Across 20 models on 1,000 frozen episodes, systems with comparable W differ by up to 19.7 pp in B: one model converts achieved states into correct reports, while another with near-identical execution drifts past the goal without closing. An action-feedback intervention further tests the separation: execution-oriented signals improve W broadly, yet commitment failures persist in models that do not already ground terminal reports in the achieved state. VIGIL provides a protocol that makes terminal commitment independently visible and scorable.

Modern AI progress has been driven by ML methods that are generalizable across settings and scalable to larger regimes. As large language models demonstrate advanced capabilities in reasoning, coding, and engineering tasks, it is increasingly important to understand whether they can discover such methods rather than only apply existing ones. We introduce MLS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating whether AI systems can invent generalizable and scalable ML methods. MLS-Bench contains 140 tasks across 12 domains, each requiring an agent to improve one targeted component of an ML system or algorithm and demonstrate that the improvement generalizes across controlled settings and scales. We find that current agents remain far from reliably surpassing human-designed methods, and that engineering-style tuning is easier for them than genuine method invention. We further study the effects of test-time scaling, adaptive compute allocation, and context provision on agents' discovery performance, together with case studies of their behavior. Our analyses suggest that the bottleneck is not only in proposing new methods, but also in the scientific insight needed to plan, validate, and scale claims about them. More search, compute, or context alone does not remove this bottleneck. We build and maintain a community platform for cumulative and comparable iteration, and release the data and code at https://mls-bench.com.

Multi-agent systems achieve state-of-the-art outcomes through peer collaboration. However, when an agent in the pipeline silently drops a constraint, the system's final output may look correct even though the reasoning chain was quietly corrupted, and existing outcome-based evaluations are blind to such multi-hop process failures. To make these vulnerabilities measurable before deployment, we introduce AgentCollabBench, a diagnostic benchmark of 900 human-validated tasks spanning software engineering, DevOps, and data engineering. Each task isolates one of four behavioral risks: instruction decay (does a constraint survive peer pressure?), false-belief contagion (does a falsehood spread through consensus?), context leakage (does information bleed between tasks?), and tracer durability (does marked data reach the final agent?). Evaluating four modern LLMs (GPT 4.1 mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite, Qwen-3.5-35B-A3B, and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct), we expose model-specific vulnerability profiles invisible to outcome-only evaluation; Qwen-3.5-35B-A3B, for example, leads on tracer durability and instruction stability, while GPT 4.1 mini leads on leakage containment and false-belief resistance. Beyond per-model differences, communication topology emerges as a primary risk factor that explains 7-40% of the variance in multi-hop information survival. The effect traces to a synthesis bottleneck specific to converging-DAG nodes: an agent weighing competing parent inputs discards constraints carried by a minority branch, a bottleneck structurally absent from linear chains. AgentCollabBench demonstrates that suboptimal topology can silently erase the safeguards of highly capable models, arguing that multi-agent reliability is fundamentally a structural problem and that scaling model intelligence alone is no substitute for architecture.

Agent benchmarks typically report only final outcomes: pass or fail. This threatens evaluation credibility in three ways. First, scores may be inflated or deflated by shortcuts and benchmark artifacts, misrepresenting capability. Second, benchmark performance may fail to predict real-world utility due to scaffold limitations and recurring failure modes. Finally, capability scores may conceal dangerous or catastrophic actions taken by the agent. We argue that log analysis -- the systematic tracking and analysis of the inputs, execution, and outputs of an AI agent -- is necessary to overcome these validity threats and promote credible agent evaluation. In this paper, we (1) present a taxonomy of threats to credible evaluation documented through log analysis, and (2) develop a set of guiding principles for log analysis. We illustrate these principles on tau-Bench Airline, revealing that pass^5 performance was under-elicited by nearly 50% and surfacing deployment failure modes invisible to outcome metrics. We conclude with pragmatic recommendations to increase uptake of log analysis, directed at diverse stakeholders including benchmark creators, model developers, independent evaluators, and deployers.

Competition retrospectives are useful when they explain what a leaderboard measured, how hidden evaluation changed conclusions, and which design patterns were rewarded. We revisit the CODS 2025 \assetopslive{} challenge, a privacy-aware Codabench competition on industrial multi-agent orchestration built on \assetops{}. We combine final rank sheets, a 300-submission server log, 149-team registrations, best-submission exports, the organizer winners report, the companion \assetopslive{} system paper, and verified planning-track source trees. Five results stand out. First, the public planning leaderboard saturates at 72.73%, and richer prompts do not improve that peak. Second, hidden evaluation changes the story: public and private scores correlate moderately in planning ($r{=}0.69$) but negatively in execution ($r{=}{-}0.13$), with several 45.45% public execution systems reaching 63.64% on the hidden set. Third, the \tmatch{} term is numerically almost inert in the official composite -- combined on a 0--1 scale with 0--100 percentage scores, it contributes at most 0.05 points per track, and rescaling would swap the top two teams. Fourth, the competition is operationally account-based but substantively team-based: 149 registered teams reduce to 24 with non-zero public scores and 11 fully ranked, while 52.3% of deduplicated registrations list multiple usernames. Fifth, successful execution methods mostly improve guardrails -- response selection, contamination cleanup, fallback, and context control -- rather than novel agent architectures. These findings identify which behaviors the evaluation rewarded, and motivate scale-aware composites, skill-level diagnostics, and versioned artifact release.

Command line interface (CLI) agents are emerging as a practical paradigm for agent-computer interaction over evolving filesystems, executable command line programs, and online execution feedback. Recent work has used reinforcement learning (RL) to learn these interaction abilities from verifiable task feedback, yet few methods exploit the native structured attributes of CLI actions as learning signals. Beyond this underused action structure, CLI learning also couples two bottlenecks for coding agents. First, the agent must identify task-relevant evidence in a large codebase from partial observations. Second, sparse terminal rewards must be assigned to the actions that shape a long multi-turn trajectory. We study these bottlenecks through shell-driven information extraction and file editing tasks. For selective observation, we introduce $σ$-Reveal, an inference-time mechanism that selects token-budgeted context for the same CLI. For credit assignment, we propose Action Advantage Assignment ($\mathrm{A}^3$), a native agentic RL method that preserves the algorithmic complexity of standard agentic RL. $\mathrm{A}^3$ constructs turn-level advantages from episode-level relative feedback, abstract syntax tree (AST) based action sub-chain residuals, and tree-level trajectory margins. To further evaluate this problem setting, we construct ShellOps, a verifiable dataset suite covering CLI tasks in repository environments.

As LLM-based agents increasingly rely on external tools, it is important to evaluate their ability to sustain tool-grounded reasoning beyond familiar workflows and short-range interactions. We introduce AgentEscapeBench, an escape-room-style benchmark that tests whether agents can infer, execute, and revise novel tool-use procedures under explicit long-range dependency constraints. Each task defines a directed acyclic dependency graph over tools and items, requiring agents to invoke real external functions, track hidden state revealed incrementally, propagate intermediate results, and submit a deterministically verifiable final answer. AgentEscapeBench includes 270 instances across five difficulty tiers and supports fully automated evaluation. Experiments with sixteen LLM agents and human participants show that performance drops sharply as dependency depth increases: humans decline from 98.3% success at difficulty-5 to 80.0% at difficulty-25, while the best model drops from 90.0% to 60.0%. Trajectory analysis attributes model failures mainly to breakdowns in long-range state tracking, clue adherence, and intermediate-result propagation. These findings suggest that current agents can often handle local tool use but still struggle with deep contextual dependencies. We hope AgentEscapeBench can serve as a diagnostic testbed for measuring current agent capabilities and informing future training efforts toward more robust general-purpose reasoning, action, and adaptation.

Online group chats are social spaces with implicit behavior patterns that, when broken, are often met with social sanctioning from the group. The ability and willingness of LLM-based agents to recognize and adapt to these norms remains mostly unexplored. We introduce SCENE, a social-interaction benchmark focused on implicit norms and social sanctioning in multi-party chat. SCENE generates plausible non-roleplay scenarios with scripted personas that follow a hidden norm, create opportunities for the subject agent to violate it, and sanction breaches when they occur. We further propose behavioral evaluation metrics for two functional adaptation abilities: responsiveness to negative sanctioning, and adapting norm from peers behavior. We evaluate six frontier and open-weight models on SCENE. Our results show that Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro adapt to implicit norms significantly more than the evaluated open-weight models. SCENE contributes one benchmark in the direction of recent calls for dynamic, interactional evaluation of LLM social capabilities.

LLM-based agents are increasingly deployed for routine but consequential tasks in real-world domains, where their behavior is governed by inherently ambiguous domain policies that admit multiple valid interpretations. Despite the prevalence of such ambiguities in practice, existing agent benchmarks largely assume unambiguous, well-specified policies, leaving a critical evaluation gap. We introduce DRIP-R, a benchmark that systematically exploits real-world retail policy ambiguities to construct scenarios in which no single correct resolution exists. DRIP-R comprises a curated set of policy-ambiguous return scenarios paired with a realistic customer personas, a full-duplex conversational simulation with tool-calling capabilities and a multi-judge evaluation framework covering policy adherence, dialogue quality, behavioral alignment, and resolution quality. Our experiments show that frontier models fundamentally disagree on identical policy-ambiguous scenarios, confirming that ambiguity poses a genuine and systematic challenge to LLM decision-making.

Terminals provide a powerful interface for AI agents by exposing diverse tools for automating complex workflows, yet existing terminal-agent benchmarks largely focus on tasks grounded in text, code, and structured files. However, many real-world workflows require practitioners to work directly with audio and video files. Working with such multimedia files calls for terminal agents not only to understand multimedia content, but also to convert auditory and visual evidence across related files into appropriate actions. To evaluate terminal agents on multimedia-file tasks, we introduce MultiMedia-TerminalBench (MMTB), a benchmark of 105 tasks across 5 meta-categories where terminal agents directly operate with audio and video files. Alongside MMTB, we propose Terminus-MM, a multimedia harness that extends Terminus-KIRA with audio and video perception for terminal agents. Together, MMTB and Terminus-MM support a controlled study of multimedia terminal agents, revealing how different forms of multimedia access shape task outcomes and determine which evidence agents rely on to construct executable terminal workflows. MMTB media and metadata are released at https://huggingface.co/datasets/mm-tbench/mmtb-media