AI Agent Benchmarks

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

148 papers in the last four weeks, up 185% on the four weeks before. 1.5% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 1,013

Sep 30, 2026cs.CL

GraphForge: Training Working Agents with Graph-Anchored Workspace Synthesis

Working agents need to read diverse files, coordinate tools, and produce deliverables. Training such agents requires tasks built on many real files with verifiable results, but few pipelines exist to synthesize this kind of data. Existing pipelines either generate files with models, which lack realism and diversity, or build tasks on real files without task-specific verifiers, leaving result quality unchecked. We introduce GraphForge, an evidence-graph based framework that grounds both the task and its verification in real files. Starting from occupation-grounded seeds for controlled diversity, GraphForge assembles a workspace of real files for each seed and builds an evidence graph over their relations. Since the task statement and rubrics are both derived from this graph, task requirements are backed by the workspace files and each criterion is anchored to the files needed to verify it. An initial rollout further tests executability, and a revision agent repairs the task and rubrics against the original files before trajectories are collected. Fine-tuning Qwen3.6-27B on 2,169 GraphForge trajectories brings GDPVal to 1445.7 (+65.7) under OpenHands, and Workspace-Bench-Lite and SpreadsheetBench II to 63.7 (+7.7) and 24.0 (+13.7) under Claude Code. Rejection fine-tuning on the SFT model's own rollouts, with candidates selected by the evidence-anchored rubrics, yields further improvements on all three benchmarks, suggesting that the rubrics provide a useful selection signal.

Qisheng Su, Hanchen Wang, Guanru Zhu +10

University of Science and Technology of China · Shanghai Innovation Institute · Fudan University +1

AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Agent Training LLM Agent Planning

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

AgBench: Agentic AI Benchmarks for Personal AI Devices

Agentic AI systems increasingly rely on cloud-hosted large language models for planning, tool use, and iterative execution, raising concerns about API cost and data exposure. Advances in personal AI devices enable agents to execute locally, but limited resources on device may affect task success and performance. Existing benchmarks are inadequate for systematically characterizing these trade-offs across devices, workloads, and deployment architectures. We present AgBench, a benchmark suite and open artifacts for reproducible evaluation of agentic AI on personal devices. Using AgBench, we evaluate local, hybrid, and cloud execution across agentic workloads, examining task success, latency, cloud API cost, and data exposure. Our results, drawn from over 162.07 million data points, show that personal AI devices can complete many agent tasks locally, but local-only execution generally has lower task success and longer completion times than cloud-only execution, especially as concurrency increases. Local-only execution eliminates cloud model API costs and sensitive-information exposure to cloud agents. Hybrid execution can improve task success, but its cloud cost and data exposure depend on how agents divide work and share information. No single architecture performs best across task success, goodput, cloud cost, and data exposure; deployment choices should reflect the intended workload and device capabilities. AgBench is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/AgBench-2777.

Yizhou Han, Di Wu, Dhananjay Saikumar +1

University of St Andrews, UK · Zhejiang University of Technology, China

AI Agent Reliability AI Agent Evaluation AI Agent Security AI Agent Benchmarks

Sep 29, 2026cs.CL

Beyond Oracle Communication: Benchmarking Interactive Intent Alignment Under Miscommunication and Evolving User Intent

Modern LLM agents increasingly tackle complex tasks through interactive, long-horizon exchanges with users, while existing benchmarks generally assume that users always accurately and sufficiently communicate a fixed intent. However, this oracle communication assumption rarely holds in practice: users may miscommunicate, change their goals, and run out of patience. We define this task setting as Interactive Intent Alignment, where agents must recover and continuously track the user's current intent despite imperfect communication and evolving goals. To study this setting, we introduce Drift-Bench++, a principled benchmark construction pipeline for verified executable tasks with controlled misalignment and intent shifts, along with an interaction protocol featuring finite patience, diverse simulated users, and silent interaction-conditioned shifts. We further develop GRIP, a comprehensive evaluation protocol covering task grounding, user realism, inquiry effectiveness, and adaptation to evolving intent. Across diverse environments, models, and interaction conditions, stronger interaction consistently helps but remains far from oracle performance; Validation on deployed ProdAgent sessions further shows that the modeled failures are prevalent and consequential in deployment. By providing a unified, executable benchmark for interactive intent alignment, Drift-Bench++ offers a foundation for evaluating and advancing agents under realistic communication and evolving intent.

Zheyuan Zhang, Mengyuan Chao, Ke Xiao +5

ByteDance Inc., USA · University of Notre Dame

LLM Alignment LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Long-Horizon LLM Agents

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

VAmoS Part Deux: Harder, More Realistic Voice-Agent Simulation

Voice agents in production must handle several requests, background speech, and customers who lose patience. We introduce VAmoS Energy, a benchmark that combines these challenges in 100 calls about utility billing and payment assistance. Each caller makes two to four requests. The agent has sixteen tools backed by a stateful Stripe billing twin and the Apache Fineract loan engine, with account access blocked until caller verification succeeds. The tasks use public household electricity data and a policy based on Pennsylvania's residential billing rules. An LLM-as-a-verifier checks the agent's actions and spoken figures against explicit requirements. On a calibration run, it agrees with a code verifier on 99.1% of checks. Across fourteen voice stacks and three repeats per task, completion ranges from 17.3% to 44.7%. Grok Voice leads, and Gemini 3.8 Live and GPT-Live follow at about the same cost per call. Background television reduces pooled completion from 38.7% to 8.6%. The simulated caller often accepts an incorrect result because it hears the agent's words but cannot inspect its actions. These findings show why voice agents need evaluation across the whole call, including what they say, what they change, and how they handle competing speech.

Joshua Meyer, Sahar Shayegan, Ritiz Tambi +5

Veris AI

Voice Agent Evaluation LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Tool-Using Agents Conversational Agents LLM Agent Reliability

Sep 29, 2026cs.SE

OpenCollab: A Multi-Agent Coding Framework with Programmable Collaboration and Controllable Runtime

Multi-agent coding systems are designed to tackle complex software engineering tasks through collaboration. However, existing evaluations typically assume configured organizations are followed faithfully, whereas reality differs. This behavioral gap, combined with differences in underlying system components, prevents clear attribution of observed gains. To this end, we introduce OpenCollab, a multi-agent coding framework that provides a unified infrastructure for programmable collaboration and controllable runtime. Specifically, OpenCollab unifies organization design, enforces experimental control on a shared runtime, and tracks execution through fine-grained event streams. On this basis, we define Adherence to quantify whether the declared organization is actually realized. Our experiments reveal that agents collaborate very differently across configurations: changing any single dimension shifts Adherence, from 47.2% to as high as 97.2%. Furthermore, extensive agentic coding benchmarks show that a two-coder workflow built on OpenCollab establishes new SOTA performance compared to the mainstream harnesses such as Mini-SWE-agent, Codex CLI, and Claude Code, showing that a well-designed organization can outperform strong existing harnesses, while OpenCollab's single-agent configuration uses the fewest tokens across all evaluated suites. OpenCollab establishes a unified multi-agent infrastructure for easy programmable collaboration and controlled causal evaluation.

Chun-Wah Hsu, Kai Gong, Yu Wu +12

Shanghai Jiao Tong University · University of Cambridge · Nanyang Technological University +4

Multi-Agent Orchestration Multi-Agent Collaboration AI Agent Benchmarks Multi-Agent Coding

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

UserProxyBench: Evaluating LLM User Simulators for Agent Benchmarks and Training

Interactive agent benchmarks and multi-turn reinforcement learning increasingly place a second language model in the role of the user. This simulated user controls what information the agent receives and when, yet current benchmarks score only the agent and do not directly measure whether the user correctly executed its assigned role. We introduce UserProxyBench, an evaluation layer over the tau-bench family, and the User Fidelity Score (UFS), which measures adherence to the benchmark's private user instructions using task-grounded rubric criteria scored independently of agent success. Holding the agent fixed at GPT-5.5 and varying only the user proxy across 375 enterprise tasks changes mean task reward by 15.2 points, while 24.4% of successful episodes contain a user-specification violation. The dominant failure is premature disclosure: users provide information before it is requested. This behavior has little effect on task reward, yet among successful episodes it causes the agent to make 1.06 fewer tool calls on average, changing the interaction being evaluated while preserving the reward. Finally, across seven proxies we identify an empirical cost-fidelity frontier, enabling practitioners to select the least expensive simulator that satisfies a required fidelity level.

Ashish Jain, Armaan Sandhu

Sarvam AI

AI Agent Benchmarks User Simulation

Sep 29, 2026cs.SE

AgentBug-Smith: Automatically Reproducing Real-World Harness Bugs in Agentic Systems

Agent harness bugs exhibit unique characteristics and remain challenging for state-of-the-art software agents to repair. Progress in this area is further hindered by existing benchmarks, which contain only a small and fixed number of executable harness bugs while requiring hundreds of human hours to construct. This work presents AgentBug-Smith, an automated harness bug reproduction approach that continuously discovers and reproduces real-world harness bugs from open-source agentic systems. Across different backbone LLMs, AgentBug-Smith consistently outperforms existing bug reproduction techniques designed for general software, achieving 10.67% - 27.56% higher success rates of reproducing harness bugs. By applying AgentBug-Smith to open-source agentic systems in the wild, we construct Live-Harness-Bench, a live and extensible benchmark that currently contains 200 reproducible harness bugs. We further demonstrate the utility of Live-Harness-Bench through two downstream applications. First, we use Live-Harness-Bench as the evaluation benchmark to systematically evaluate state-of-the-art software agents, revealing their limited capabilities in repairing real-world harness bugs. Second, we use Live-Harness-Bench as a knowledge base of real-world harness bug fixes, from which reusable repair skills can be distilled to improve existing software agents, increasing their harness-bug repair rates by 6.32%. Together, AgentBug-Smith and Live-Harness-Bench establish a scalable foundation for continuously evaluating and improving software agents on harness bug repair, turning real-world agent failures into executable evaluation instances and reusable knowledge for harness improvement, thus contributing to the ultimate goal of recursively self-improving agents.

Yiming Cheng, Alfin Wijaya Rahardja, Mengshi Zhang +3

The University of Chicago · Fudan University · TensorBlock, Inc +2

Software Engineering Agents AI Agent Benchmarks

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

OmniVCBench: Benchmarking Evidence-Grounded Multimodal Reasoning Towards AI Virtual Cells

Artificial Intelligence Virtual Cells (AIVCs) are envisioned as scientific agents that simulate cellular responses, explain underlying mechanisms, and support hypothesis-driven discovery. Existing AIVC benchmarks, however, operate primarily at the simulation layer, motivating complementary evaluation of how models interpret experimental evidence and formulate biological hypotheses. We introduce OmniVCBench, a figure-centric, source-traceable benchmark for the interpretation component of an AIVC. It contains 6,077 curated single- and multi-subfigure question--answer pairs derived from figures and experimental contexts in the scientific literature. Guided by Bloom's taxonomy, we instantiate interpretation-layer counterparts of the AIVC Predict--Explain--Discover agenda through three scientific reasoning tasks. We further introduce AIVC-Judge, a task-conditioned MLLM-as-a-judge framework with category-specific, reference-aware rubrics for evaluating open-ended responses. A complementary Model-Derived Hard-Negative Mining (MDHNM) strategy converts plausible errors observed during model inference into MCQ distractors for lower-cost evaluation. Within the evaluated heterogeneous model pool, MCQ accuracy correlates positively with AIVC-Judge scores, providing a complementary view of performance alongside open-response evaluation. Code and data demo are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/OmniVCBench.

Manyu Li, Xunkai Li, Yongfu Xiong +3

Fudan University, Shanghai, China · Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China · Chongqing Ant Consumer Finance Co,. Ltd

Visual Question Answering Multimodal Reasoning AI Agent Benchmarks Multimodal Model Evaluation

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

EngiWorld: What Can Frontier Agents Deliver in Professional Engineering Environments?

Autonomous agents have made rapid progress in general-purpose computer use, but reliable automation of professional industrial engineering remains out of reach, as engineering workflows demand reasoning over geometric and physical constraints and dependencies preserved across software and design stages. We present EngiWorld, the first benchmark structured around the complete design loop: 1,301 expert-curated tasks spanning 6 engineering domains (CAD, CAE, CAM, BIM, EDA, and 3D visualization) and 26 professional software platforms, with both GUI and CLI interfaces and 6 task types ranging from software-selection to open-ended tasks. We further introduce an artifact-centric evaluation methodology built on a unified domain-verifier suite, which programmatically checks the geometric validity, physical feasibility, and rule compliance of final and intermediate artifacts, and scores quantitative design tasks continuously by specification attainment rather than binary success. Evaluation of seven frontier models reveals a substantial capability gap: the strongest model achieves an EngiScore of only 44.3, and just 3.6% of multi-software attempts succeed. EngiWorld provides the first rigorous foundation for measuring progress toward agents that operate professional engineering software end to end.

Hongcheng Gao, Hailong Qu, Yu Lei +19

Tsinghua University · Zhiman Inc. · Chongqing University +8

Software Engineering Agents AI Agent Benchmarks

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

EnterpriseBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Enterprise-Level Strategic Reasoning and Decision-Making

LLM agents are increasingly expected to support enterprise workflows, where tasks often involve missing information, uncertainty, feedback, and long-term trade-offs. However, existing enterprise and financial benchmarks mainly test static capabilities such as information extraction, numerical calculation, domain knowledge, and financial QA, leaving interactive and long-horizon decision-making underexplored. To bridge this gap, we introduce EnterpriseBench, a benchmark that evaluates LLM agents across this spectrum, from static question answering to dynamic decision-making. Specifically, EnterpriseBench reorganizes existing enterprise and financial QA datasets into a unified foundational suite annotated by capability and difficulty, and introduces three professional interactive settings: Consulting, based on management-consulting-style business cases for client problem diagnosis through multi-turn information seeking; the Beer Game, adapted from a classic supply-chain management simulation for inventory control under delayed feedback; and Enterprise Digital Twin, a project-based business simulator for workforce, risk, and project planning. Experiments with nine agent methods under four backbone models show that current agents have not yet achieved stable, comprehensive, and cross-task reliability in enterprise scenarios. These results show that EnterpriseBench provides a practical benchmark for evaluating LLM agents in realistic enterprise strategic reasoning and decision-making.

Min Yang, Yichen Pan, Jinghua Piao +3

Shandong University · Zhongguancun Academy · Beijing Institute of Technology +1

AI-Assisted Decision Making LLM Agent Evaluation Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Decision-Making

Sep 29, 2026cs.SE

Zero2Repo: Can Coding Agents Build Repositories from Scratch?

Coding agents are increasingly asked to build software rather than patch it, yet benchmarks for from-scratch repository construction are mostly limited to a single language and depend on manually curated tasks. We introduce Zero2Repo, a benchmark in which an agent receives a product requirements document, an interface contract, and an empty workspace, and must deliver a complete repository in the project's native ecosystem. Tasks are produced by a language-agnostic authoring pipeline that converts real, version-pinned open-source projects into behavioral specifications, reproducible environments, and hidden acceptance tests. Each task is validated by execution: a reference implementation derived from the upstream project must pass, and adversarial validation must show that the tests reject incorrect implementations. Evaluation runs production coding agents in isolated containers, withholds the acceptance tests until an explicit submission, and assigns a binary reward only when every test passes, with no LLM judge. The pipeline and harness make no language-specific assumptions and apply to mainstream programming ecosystems; the current release contains Python, TypeScript, Go, and C++ tasks. Even on 11 tasks drawn from repositories that frontier models have very likely seen during training, the strongest agent solves only 10, and every failing submission passes 90-99% of the hidden tests; for the two strongest agents, 67-100% of failed tests trace to a single omission or a low-frequency rule stated in the specification rather than to a missing subsystem, so each failure is a concrete target for improvement.

Pei Yang, Tianyu Shi, Yuhang Yao +23

Gradient Data · McGill University · Carnegie Mellon University +6

Coding Agents AI Agent Benchmarks Repository-Level Code Generation Code Generation Benchmarks

Sep 29, 2026cs.SE

Do Agent Benchmarks Do What They Say? An Executable-Contract Audit of Tool-Using Agent Environments

Tool-using agents are entering settings where a wrong action carries real cost, and the benchmarks certifying them grade what each simulated tool call reports having done, assuming the tool did what its interface advertises. The audit taxonomies we survey publish no category for that assumption, and a defect beneath a score is present on every rerun. We treat a tool's advertised surfaces as an executable contract, check the implementation against it, and trace each score's provenance through the task files and evaluator code to the verdicts that derive from state a defective tool should have written. Across 34 audited mutating tools in four benchmarks we confirm seven tool defects and one evaluator property at pinned commits. On injected defects the checker raised no false positive in 25 flags, flagged 2 of 5 negative controls, and missed most: in 29 of 33 scored misses a clause covered the defect but no probe revealed it. The checker's own static half, run alone, flags 14 of 17 confirmed sites, so on these findings the dynamic half confirms and traces rather than discovers. Twelve further AgentDojo tools, with six held-out tools and the seven audited first, complete its 25-tool mutating surface, on which at least 5 tools diverge from their advertised surface as our contracts read it, a rate for AgentDojo alone. No gold trajectory reaches either tau2-bench defect; on 1,120 paths built to isolate the telecom defect, a number fixed by construction, the evaluator rewards a refuel of a suspended line and fails the repaired tool. The clearest case is a clinical benchmark whose tool tells the agent each write executed under a documented no-write design its interface does not disclose; its grader takes that message as evidence, so its action success rate records whether a request carried the expected payload, not whether any record changed.

Rohith Reddy Bellibatlu, Zichong Wang, Wenbin Zhang

Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

Tool-Use Evaluation Automated Software Testing Benchmark Auditing AI Agent Benchmarks

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

When Tools Silently Lie: Evaluating and Mitigating Blind Compliance in Tool-Augmented Data Agents

Tool-augmented data agents rely on tool outputs for analytical decisions. Yet successful execution can return plausible but incorrect evidence, requiring agents to decide whether to trust or verify it. Understanding this failure requires examining both the evidence obtained through checking and the answer ultimately adopted. We introduce ToxicBench to measure checking and adoption under numerical, label, schema, and retrieval errors, pairing clean and poisoned observations over fixed source data. In the 118-task GPT evaluation across three adapters, poisoning lowers task success by 26 to 39 percentage points. Ordinary retries help under one-shot poisoning, whereas repeated poisoning reveals wrong-answer adoption after checking. Controls on three public tables isolate how supplied evidence affects recovery. After freezing the scorer, we compare its judgments with human annotations on 200 trajectories, finding 96% task-success agreement. Human judgments support retry gains over Base and confirm adoption after checking on audited tasks. We release trajectories, versioned scoring, and reference and delivery audits. These findings highlight evidence availability and answer selection as complementary dimensions of agent reliability.

Zifu Tao, Changqing Yin

Tongji University

AI Agent Reliability Tool-Use Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Tool-Using Agents LLM Agent Reliability

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

MatToolBench: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents in Real-World Materials Science Workflows

Multimodal GUI agents have achieved impressive results on general software benchmarks, yet their ability to operate professional scientific software remains largely unexplored. In materials science, sparse domain-specific web data, specialized interfaces, and tacit workflow conventions create blind spots that general-purpose pretraining cannot readily bridge. We present MatToolBench, the first real-environment benchmark for evaluating multimodal GUI agents on professional materials science software, comprising 204 tasks across 10 tools in three modalities: GUI operation, OriginPro scripting, and code-based database queries, all executed inside a Windows 11 VM. Each task is decomposed into fine-grained sub-criteria by domain experts, enabling interpretable partial-credit scoring; the GUI component of our multi-level evaluation pipeline achieves an average F1 of 0.98. For OriginPro figure-generation tasks, we further conduct a human-LLM agreement study to validate the use of a multimodal judge for secondary aesthetic assessment. Our experiments show that strong performance on general benchmarks does not transfer to professional scientific workflows, and that this gap is not a visual-grounding problem alone: failures arise from domain-specific operational knowledge, sparse pretraining coverage of scientific software, weak cross-tool artifact handoff, and critical states exposed only visually. Even the best model reaches only 25% success rate on GUI tasks and 45% on code tasks. MatToolBench therefore serves as a challenging diagnostic benchmark and real-environment testbed for data-scarce, knowledge-intensive scientific workflows.

Mei Wu, Rui Xie, Runyu Zhang +6

X-LANCE Lab, School of Computer Science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China · Suzhou Laboratory, Suzhou, China · State Key Laboratory for General Artificial Intelligence, BIGAI, Beijing, China +3

GUI Agents AI Agent Benchmarks Materials Science Multimodal Agents

Sep 29, 2026cs.CL

CypherTurn: A Multi-Turn Benchmark for Conversational Text-to-Cypher Evaluation and the Autonomy Divergence

Graph databases are increasingly queried through natural language, yet every existing benchmark evaluates isolated single-turn queries rather than the multi-turn sessions through which analysts actually work. We introduce CypherTurn, the first benchmark for conversational Text-to-Cypher evaluation, comprising 721 sessions and 5,927 turns across 7 knowledge graphs and 13 conversational phenomena. We evaluate 15 models under a guided oracle protocol and a fully autonomous agentic protocol, yielding four findings. First, the best model reaches only 64.7% execution accuracy, and session-level correctness remains below 5%. Second, despite strong overall rank correlation, frontier models exhibit a consequential reordering of the top of the leaderboard under autonomous operation, a phenomenon we term the Autonomy Divergence, which reveals error-management as a partially independent capability from raw generation skill. Third, scaling action budgets from x3 to x10 fails to close the autonomy gap, as the strongest frontier models self-limit to approximately two actions per turn regardless of available budget. Fourth, single-turn Cypher fine-tuning degrades multi-turn instruction following, while architecture-appropriate specialization outperforms several frontier models. These results establish CypherTurn as an open challenge for conversational graph database reasoning. Code and data are available at https://github.com/BarryQ/CypherTurn.

Yuzhe Zhang, Weijie Zhu, Haolin Yang +5

Peking University · National Key Lab of Data Space Technology and System · Baidu Inc.

LLM Evaluation Text-to-Cypher AI Agent Benchmarks Multi-Turn Dialogue Evaluation

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

Code4Scene: Benchmarking Coding Agents for Constructing and Editing 3D Scenes

Frontier coding agents can now write and execute code that authors 3D environments, but whether they reliably understand 3D structure and precisely control scene state remains unclear. The generated 3D scene is a persistent, executable artifact: a convincing render can hide incorrect spatial relations, intersecting objects, or unintended modifications. We introduce Code4Scene, a benchmark of 190 Unreal Engine cases built from human-assembled scenes that evaluates coding agents on two complementary settings under a shared execution interface. Construction tests scene-level spatial reasoning from open-ended language specifications, where many realizations are valid; editing tests precise control of scene state, where the agent must recover the target scene from reference images while preserving everything else. Rather than scoring code or rendered views, Code4Scene evaluates the generated engine-native scene for task fulfillment, artifact integrity, and static physical validity, with edits additionally compared against withheld ground truth. Across 14 coding-agent configurations on the 95-case public set, construction and editing performance are strongly correlated but not interchangeable (Spearman

ρ= 0.78

): Claude Fable 5.1 leads construction, Gemini 3.8 Flash leads editing, and GPT-6 Astra narrowly leads overall. Spatial Composition is the weakest construction category for every agent, while editing remains imprecise: the best Repair F1 is only 0.527, and 35.8% of edits that fully recover the target still introduce unintended changes elsewhere in the scene. These results expose a gap between plausible 3D generation and reliable spatial reasoning and state control.

Xiaokang Ye, Siddhant Hitesh Mantri, Zimeng Chen +6

UC San Diego · UC Berkeley

AI Coding Agents 3D Scene Editing 3D Spatial Reasoning AI Agent Benchmarks 3D Scene Generation

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

Can Agents Design Libraries for Agents?

Agents increasingly build on code written by other agents, and they reimplement rather than reuse, growing the codebases later agents must work in. To measure how well agents design libraries for other agents, we introduce LibraryDesignBench, a two-phase benchmark in which an agent implements a full-featured library from a specification that defines required capabilities and potential use cases without prescribing the design. We evaluate the library through the correctness and simplicity of programs written by three user agents from different model families. The benchmark spans 242 expert-validated programming problems across 15 library-design tasks in four languages. On eleven of the fifteen tasks, agent designers reproduce the abstractions of the human-written production library. Downstream agents adopt agent- and human-written libraries alike but underuse them, reimplementing capabilities the library already provides. Our failure analysis finds that downstream agents write extra code mainly because agent-written libraries are rigid or hard to use, not because capabilities are missing. We also experiment with giving designers more prescriptive, agent-first guidance and having them test their library with subagents; this improves downstream scores and yields simpler programs. LibraryDesignBench provides both a testbed for evaluating library-design practices for agent users and an initial design baseline that improves downstream reuse.

Gabriel Orlanski, Alex L. Zhang, Avi Trost +4

University of Wisconsin–Madison · Massachusetts Institute of Technology · Snorkel AI +1

Software Engineering Agents AI Coding Agents AI Agent Benchmarks

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

MLToolBench: Learning Tool-Augmented Agents for Machine Learning Development

Machine learning engineering (MLE) agents have made substantial progress, but learning through ML experimentation remains costly in time and computation. Synthetic environments reduce these costs while introducing variations in data and experimental settings that require task-specific diagnosis. Access to diagnostic tools alone does not ensure that agents learn when to use them or how to act on their findings. We introduce ToolMLBench, a suite of executable tools for data inspection, code verification, and experiment diagnosis, together with an SFT and RL pipeline for learning their use. Diagnostic calls acquire evidence whose value depends on subsequent decisions, so final outcomes provide limited guidance on which calls to reinforce. We address this challenge with SPICE, which measures how privileged context changes the likelihood of a sampled tool action and uses this difference as a turn-level reward alongside the final outcome. We train on 80 synthetic tasks and evaluate on 25 in-domain and 10 out-of-domain tasks. Providing tool interfaces and descriptions alone yields inconsistent gains across unadapted models. With the same diagnostic interface, our training pipeline raises in-domain success from 24.8% to 52.4% for Qwen3-8B and from 35.6% to 69.2% for Qwen3.5-35B-A3B. The latter also improves from 31% to 48% out-of-domain, supporting learned diagnostic tool use on held-out sources and targets.

Xin Yu, Lizhu Zhang, Jiamu Bai +7

LLM Agent Skill Learning AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Agent Training RL for Tool Use

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

MAADBench: The Refreshable Paradigm for Anomaly Detection in Multi-Agent Systems

Recent studies report that LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) fail at rates of 41%-87%, yet to our knowledge, no benchmark to date supports systematic anomaly detection (AD) for them. Building MAS AD benchmarks is hard because they must remain fresh as LLM systems evolve: tasks may leak into training data and thus be memorized by LLMs, traces and anomaly patterns expire as backbones evolve, and labels must be provided reliably for each refresh. To address these challenges, we present MAADBench (MA: multi-agent; AD: anomaly detection), the first refreshable MAS AD benchmark designed for diverse, evolving LLM backbones underlying the agents. MAADBench combines (1) sampled-and-coupled generative tasks over an approximately 10^37-task space to mitigate task leakage, (2) refreshable trace generation under configurable LLM backbones, and (3) automated provision of cost-free, deterministic step-level labels for fine-grained AD evaluation. Beyond offering the paradigm itself, we run MAADBench with five state-of-the-art LLM backbones and release the MAADBench-Full dataset with 5,200 step-labeled traces. Benchmarking 25 AD methods on the MAADBench dataset reveals substantial limitations in current approaches: they rely heavily on supervision, struggle with subtle MAS-specific anomalies, and lack robustness across LLM backbones. These gaps point to a rich research agenda for MAS-specific anomaly detection, with MAADBench providing a systematic and refreshable testbed for method development and evaluation. We open-source MAADBench-Full at https://huggingface.co/datasets/hww123/MAADBench-full.

Lei Ma, Dennis Hofmann, Haowen Xu +4

Worcester Polytechnic Institute · University of Arizona

AI Agent Benchmarks Multi-Agent LLMs Anomaly Detection

Sep 28, 2026cs.AI

CheatBench: Measuring Reward Gaming in AI Agents

Reinforcement learning has helped AI agents solve increasingly difficult tasks, but high rewards do not always reflect the work users intended. In recent incidents and controlled evaluations across the AI industry, agents trained to maximize reward have accessed unauthorized information, attempted to evade monitoring systems, and even breached sandbox protections to attack external systems. As agents become more capable, this behavior could pose increasingly serious risks. To measure this problem, we introduce CheatBench, a benchmark of cheating in AI agents across mathematical research, knowledge work, coding, visual tasks, and other domains. Its environments combine challenging assignments with opportunities to cheat, allowing researchers to study how agents pursue a goal when honest work is difficult. CheatBench supports comparisons across models and task categories, providing a testbed for measuring and reducing cheating as agents take on more consequential responsibilities. We publicly release CheatBench at https://cheatbench.ai

Long Phan, Stephen K. Yang, Jason J. Lim +10

Center for AI Safety · Work done while at the Center for AI Safety.

Reward Hacking AI Agent Benchmarks AI Agent Safety Benchmarks

Sep 28, 2026cs.AI

Failure-Transparent Agents: Benchmarking Post-Failure Reporting in Tool-Using Language Models

Tool-using agents can fail twice: a required tool can fail, and the agent can then report success without the evidence needed to justify it. Existing benchmarks often entangle this reporting failure with tool selection, recovery, and environment dynamics. We introduce Failure-Transparent Agents (FTA), a controlled benchmark that fixes the failed observation and required evidence state before generation, making post-failure claims directly auditable. FTA contains 100 tasks with deterministic failure traces spanning five failure families, a neutral control, and four user-pressure conditions, and evaluates unsupported claims alongside useful recovery. Across six models, three response policies, and 3,600 human-annotated responses, false-success rates are 22.8% under the baseline policy, 9.3% with a transparency instruction, and 0.8% with a structured evidence contract. Fabricated-detail rates decrease from 28.3% to 14.3% and 0.8%, while useful responses increase from 74.9% to 89.2% and 98.8%, respectively. The tested evidence-contract policy is associated with substantially lower post-failure reporting errors while useful-response rates remain high within this blocked-task benchmark.

Junru Zhu, Shiming Xie, Aime Lu Fan Chen +4

Independent Researcher · Ant Group · Tsinghua University +2

Agent Failure Analysis AI Agent Benchmarks Tool-Using Agents LLM Agent Reliability

Sep 28, 2026cs.DC

GPUPhysBench: Benchmarking Coding Agents for Correct and Efficient GPU Physics Simulation

Writing fast GPU code for physical simulation is difficult: implementations must preserve numerical accuracy while handling irregular data access, synchronization, and iterative solvers. We introduce GPUPhysBench, a benchmark of 50 tasks testing whether coding agents can meet these demands. Tasks cover fluids, deformable solids, and granular materials, from individual simulation operators to complete simulators. Agents write, compile, test, and optimize GPU code with access to a NVIDIA GPU under fixed time budgets. We report pass rates and runtime performance relative to expert-optimized reference implementations. In a single-attempt evaluation of six frontier model-harness pairs, the two strongest pass all 50 tasks, but even the fastest reaches at least 0.9 the reference speed on only 22% of them, and no submission is more than 5% faster than the reference. The largest gaps arise in collision detection, constraint solving, and iterative solvers. GPUPhysBench brings physical simulation workloads to coding-agent evaluation, testing both the ability to implement numerical methods correctly and the ability to make them run efficiently.

Yuchen Sun, Jinjin He, Sinan Wang +1

Georgia Institute of Technology

GPU Kernel Optimization Benchmark Design AI Agent Benchmarks GPU Kernel Generation Physics-Based Simulation Code Generation Benchmarks

Sep 28, 2026cs.AI

TCSAlgBench: Benchmarking Automated Proving for Research-Level Theoretical Computer Science

Large language models perform strongly on competition mathematics, but their research-level reasoning remains difficult to evaluate systematically. Theoretical computer science (TCS) connects algorithm design to explicit guarantees and fundamental limits, providing a setting for evaluating whether models can justify computational improvements with arguments humans can inspect. We introduce TCSAlgBench, a benchmark and reusable pipeline for natural-language proof discovery, comprising 398 theorem-level challenges from 138 STOC and COLT 2026 papers. Expert-designed rules complete paper-specific context, preserve computational assumptions and quantitative guarantees, and withhold constructions when discovering an algorithm is part of the task. For each task, prover systems receive theorem statements and access to cited prior work. The pipeline supports fresh, versioned challenge batches from newly released papers. We evaluate ten model configurations from four families under direct inference and prover-verifier discussion, and compare four agent workflows under matched model-call opportunities. All evaluations use the full benchmark. In the model comparison, GPT-5.6 Sol max achieves the highest five-run verifier-accepted coverage at 23.6% after 10-round discussion. Discussion and repeated sampling improve coverage. In the separate agent comparison using GPT-5.5 xhigh, decomposition improves coverage over discussion, and agentic planning achieves the highest five-run verifier-accepted coverage at 25.4%. TCSAlgBench provides a refreshable testbed for measuring progress in model reasoning and studying how agent workflows support research-level proof discovery.

Chutong Yang, Xiyuan Zhang, Yu Huang +7

Department of Computer Science, The University of Texas at Austin · Amazon · Department of Statistics and Data Science, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

Mathematical Reasoning Benchmarks Automated Theorem Proving AI Agent Benchmarks Algorithmic Reasoning

Sep 28, 2026cs.AI

MechBench: Can AI Scientific Agents Discover Mechanisms Beyond Phenomenal Laws?

Scientific discovery requires not only recovering mathematical laws that describe observable behavior, but also identifying the mechanisms that generate them. Existing benchmarks for symbolic regression and scientific agents primarily evaluate phenomenal-law recovery, leaving mechanism discovery largely untested. We introduce MechBench, a benchmark that explicitly separates these two capabilities. Each task is defined by a mechanistic model, a structured set of scientifically meaningful relations whose joint consequences entail an observable phenomenal law, while agents receive only observational data and scientific context. We evaluate mechanism recovery through mechanism probes, which query internal scientific consequences that cannot be inferred from the phenomenal law alone. To reduce reliance on memorized textbook mechanisms, we construct unfamiliar variants through controlled, scientifically interpretable mutations of canonical mechanisms, and screen for mechanistic indistinguishability to exclude ambiguous instances admitting comparable competing mechanisms. Experiments across representative scientific agents reveal a substantial phenomenal--mechanism recovery gap: for Codex with GPT-5.6-sol, phenomenal-law accuracy reaches 35.00% on the Core-set while mechanism accuracy is only 13.75%, with mechanism recovery failing in 64.29% of cases where the phenomenal law is correctly recovered. The gap widens as mechanisms become increasingly mutated, and even providing the correct phenomenal law leaves mechanism recovery below 50%. These results reveal a substantial generalization gap in mechanistic reasoning and establish mechanism discovery as a distinct challenge beyond recovering observable scientific laws.

Zihan Yu, Jiadong Zhang, Jialin Cheng +2

Department of Electronic Engineering, BNRist, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · Beijing Zhongguancun Academy, Beijing, China +2

Scientific Discovery AI Agent Benchmarks Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Sep 28, 2026cs.CV

Timeline-Bench: Evaluating Agents on Realistic Video-Editing Tasks, from Raw Footage to Final Cut

AI agents increasingly carry out long-horizon professional work, but their evaluations rarely require a finished creative deliverable. To this end, we introduce Timeline-Bench, a benchmark of 56 real video-editing tasks, each asking an agent to turn raw production material into a finished video. Tasks range from selecting dialog takes and shaping interview footage into a story to cutting commercials from product shots, voiceovers and graphics. Every task provides a brief, source assets, a container and a set of tests. A task is resolved when the output passes every test. The tests check the delivery format, the content and the brief's explicit requirements, and include a quality test calibrated on 2,582 blind judgments by 43 video editors. We evaluate 16 agents that pair frontier models with coding-agent harnesses such as Codex, Claude Code and OpenCode. The best, GPT-6 Astra in Codex with curated editorial guidance, resolves only 15 of the 56 tasks (26.8%), and the average agent resolves 14.0%. Human editors prefer the reference edit in 83.5% of judgments. Most unresolved runs (562 of 771) fail only the quality test: agents perceive footage through stills and transcripts and check their renders for defects, not craft. We release the tasks, verifier and per-run results at https://timelinebench.tensortest.com.

Gunin Gupta, Nirmit Arora, Pavan Kalyan Tankala

TensorTest (Ritivel Labs Inc.)

Video Editing Benchmarks Video Editing AI Agent Benchmarks

Sep 28, 2026cs.AI

JRDB-AVR: An Active Visual Reasoning Benchmark for Embodied Agents in Real-World Environments

In complex embodied visual reasoning scenarios, an agent often has only a limited field of view, and the evidence needed to answer a question may be distributed across time, viewpoint, and interacting objects. A model may therefore give a plausible answer without ever observing the relevant object, time, or view that supports it. Current visual reasoning benchmarks largely evaluate passive observations and final answers, overlooking settings that require active reasoning and evidence acquisition. We introduce JRDB-AVR, a benchmark derived from existing real-world JRDB robotics data through a structured question-generation engine that turns this gap into an explicit evaluation: an embodied agentic system receives a visual reasoning question, requests bounded observations by timestamp and viewing angle, and is evaluated on both the final answer and the grounded visual evidence supporting it. The benchmark contains diverse questions over multiple real-world environments involving temporal search, viewpoint selection, and human-oriented compositional reasoning. We also introduce JRDB-AVR-Agent, a reference active reasoning agentic method that maintains an explicit observation-grounded graph-based world model and answers through solving. Experiments reveal a substantial gap between answer accuracy and evidence accuracy in current baselines, showing that current VLMs can produce unsupported correct answers and that active evidence-aware evaluation is necessary for embodied visual reasoning. Code and benchmark are available at https://github.com/ControlNet/JRDB-AVR.

Zhixi Cai, Fucai Ke, Sukai Huang +4

Monash University

AI Agent Benchmarks Visually Grounded Reasoning Embodied Reasoning

Sep 28, 2026cs.AI

AutoDataBench: Can Agents Write the Data That Feeds the Self-Improvement Loop?

Recent gains in language model capability have come more from data than from architecture. Frontier labs and data companies produce verifiable agentic tasks, which supervised finetuning and reinforcement learning then turn into capability.This production line still rests on human labour and on human-in-the-loop collaboration. Automating task creation would let data production scale with compute rather than with expert headcount, would extend to more domains, and would enable a key step in recursive self-improvement (RSI). Current evaluations of an agent's ability to write such tasks measure how a model performs after training on what the agent produced. That does not match common practice in the data industry, where data is delivered sample by sample and each sample is accepted against a set of criteria rather than put straight into training. No existing evaluation asks whether an individual task meets the acceptance criteria of a data pipeline. We therefore introduce AutoDataBench. Given an original benchmark task and a record of the target model attempting it, an agent must write a new task for the same suite that meets practical acceptance standards on validity, novelty, difficulty and behavioural coverage. Across three benchmarks of executable agent tasks, no agent we evaluate scores above 20 out of 100 at the default time budget of 45 minutes. Giving the strongest agent four times as long improves its score substantially, while the cost of one usable task stays almost unchanged. Current agents can write training tasks of the required quality, but not efficiently. AutoDataBench provides a direct measure of an agent's capacity for autonomous data synthesis: one artifact at a time, judged against the criteria a production pipeline would apply, and without a training run. Code and data are available at https://github.com/StarDewXXX/AutoDataBench.

Haotian Luo, Haoyu Wang, Zeyu Qin +5

HKUST · SLAI · NTU

AI Agent Benchmarks Synthetic Benchmark Generation Synthetic Data Evaluation

Sep 28, 2026cs.AI

PDEU-Bench: Benchmarking the Personalized Planning Lifecycle of Tool-Calling LLM Agents

Large language model (LLM) agents are evolving from tool-calling systems that execute isolated instructions into task-oriented agents that pursue user goals through sustained, multi-step interactions. However, existing benchmarks for personalized tool use largely assess isolated calls or reactive execution, leaving unclear whether agents can formulate, execute, and revise an explicit plan while preserving user preferences throughout long-term interaction. To address this gap, we introduce \textbf{PDEU-Bench} (\textbf{P}ersonalized plan \textbf{D}efinition, plan \textbf{E}xecution, and plan \textbf{U}pdate \textbf{Bench}mark), a benchmark for evaluating the complete planning lifecycle of personalized tool-using agents. PDEU-Bench comprises 214 long-horizon interaction tasks spanning 12 everyday domains and 94 tools, with stage-specific assessments of preference adherence and plan quality. Extensive evaluations of 15 representative open-source and closed-source LLMs reveal a pronounced gap between local tool execution and dynamic planning: LLMs can often instantiate preferences in individual calls, yet struggle to construct coherent plan definition and plan update. We further evaluate mainstream personalization and memory-augmentation methods. Although these methods improve particular stages, none of the evaluated methods reliably propagates user preferences throughout the complete lifecycle, and their gains frequently fail to transfer to subsequent execution. Fine-grained error analysis further reveals that preference omissions and conflicts persist throughout the planning lifecycle, highlighting the need for future research to parameterize LLMs with preference-aware information retrieval and memory capabilities. We provide the relevant code and data in the appendix to support future research.

Huayi Lai, Shichao Song, Qingchen Yu +4

Renmin University of China · Beihang University

Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Tool Use Memory-Augmented Language Model Agents

Sep 28, 2026cs.MA

CEO Arena: Evaluating Long-Horizon Multi-Agent Decision-Making in Competitive Markets

Long-horizon competition tests agents' ability to coordinate business decisions under uncertainty and adapt to changing rival strategies. We introduce CEO Arena, a benchmark that uses matched replacement evaluation to assess operating returns alongside an agent's effects on rivals and the market. Each CEO agent is compared with a reference policy in the same company under the same economic seed, holding other agents' identities and assignments fixed while all agents adapt. In a shared eight-company market spanning 500 simulated days, CEOs make sequential decisions on pricing, procurement, marketing, research and development, and service using private company information and noisy market signals, under resource constraints and delayed feedback. We evaluate eight LLM-based CEO agents in 27 main runs and 26 robustness runs. In the main evaluation, most agents have negative mean returns, and private gains can accompany market losses. Robustness analyses suggest that aggregate patterns extend beyond the original rule-based baseline; four of the 56 directed pairs show relatively stable effects. Memory, action, and accounting traces suggest demand capture and rivals' pricing and spending responses as possible explanations. CEO Arena provides a controlled testbed for studying long-horizon agent competition, strategic interaction, and market externalities.

An Yan, Yu Huo, Zhiwei Shang +2

DeepWisdom · Fudan University · The Chinese University of Hong Kong +2

Game Theory LLM Agent Evaluation Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Multi-Agent Systems

Sep 28, 2026cs.AI

BEHAVE: Functional Behavior Modeling Enables Self-Improving Agents for Hardware Design and Verification

Developing agents for hardware design and verification requires reliable correctness feedback. As a hardware specification may permit correct implementations with different latencies, matching design and reference outputs cycle by cycle can reject valid designs. To address this, we introduce BEHAVE, an agentic framework for multi-turn joint hardware design and verification through functional behavior modeling. We define Behavior IR to express task functionality as executable behavior models without prescribing implementation timing beyond the specification. The agent iteratively develops a register-transfer-level (RTL) design and a behavior model as the design's verification reference. Our evaluator, BEHAVE-Sim, checks both artifacts separately against a hidden golden behavior model using input stimuli generated by random sampling and solver-guided search. BEHAVE thus supports power, performance, and area (PPA) exploration across task-permitted latencies and microarchitectures. During training, the same evaluator provides verifiable reinforcement learning (RL) rewards from specification-behavior pairs without reference RTL. For self-improvement, the agent continually searches for high-level implementations relevant to its capability gaps, constructs and checks specification-behavior pairs, and trains on the expanded task pool. We release BEHAVE-Train and BEHAVE-Eval with 600 human-reviewed specification-behavior pairs for realistic hardware workloads. Starting from 60 seed tasks and acquiring 100 new tasks, self-improvement raises Qwen3.8-27B's RTL pass@1 on BEHAVE-Eval from 55.0% to 75.0%, reaching performance comparable to RL using a 540-task pool.

Yuheng Wu, Berk Gokmen, Sujeeth Jinesh +5

Stanford University · Workato, Inc.

Formal Hardware Verification Electronic Design Automation AI Agent Benchmarks Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards Self-Improving Agents