AI Agent Evaluation

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) show promising results as decision-making engines for embodied agents operating in complex, physical environments. However, existing benchmarks often prioritize high-level planning or spatial reasoning, leaving the fine-grained action intelligence required for embodied physical interaction underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce CFG-Bench, a new benchmark designed to systematically evaluate this crucial capability. CFG-Bench consists of 1,368 curated videos paired with 19,562 question-answer pairs spanning three evaluation paradigms targeting four cognitive abilities: 1) Physical Interaction, 2) Temporal-Causal Relation, 3) Intentional Understanding, and 4) Evaluative Judgment. Together, these dimensions provide a systematic framework for assessing a model's ability to translate visual observations into actionable knowledge, moving beyond mere surface-level recognition. Our comprehensive evaluation on CFG-Bench reveals that leading MLLMs struggle to produce detailed instructions for physical interactions and exhibit profound limitations in the higher-order reasoning of intention and evaluation. Moreover, supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on our data demonstrates that teaching an MLLMs to articulate fine-grained actions directly translates to significant performance gains on established embodied benchmarks. Our analysis highlights these limitations and offers insights for developing more capable and grounded embodied agents. Project page: https://cfg-bench.github.io/

In our deployed travel-planning service, most users give minimal inputs or free-form requests rather than the structured constraint checklists assumed by existing benchmarks. We therefore present TripScore, a behavior-grounded benchmark and evaluation framework built from real user logs and calibrated against 1,468 pairwise judgments by 203 travel experts. TripScore couples a hierarchical feasibility gate (format and commonsense) with a unified, point-wise reward that aggregates soft quality and preference fulfillment. Using TripScore as both evaluator and reward signal, we benchmark direct prompting, test-time compute, neuro-symbolic solvers, code agents, and fine-tuning. We find that reinforcement learning fine-tuning (e.g., GRPO) provides consistent gains over other approaches under the same base model and practical latency.

AI for Industrial Asset Lifecycle Management aims to automate complex operational workflows, such as condition monitoring and maintenance scheduling, to minimize system downtime. While traditional AI/ML approaches solve narrow tasks in isolation, Large Language Model (LLM) agents offer a next-generation opportunity for end-to-end automation. In this paper, we introduce AssetOpsBench, a unified framework for orchestrating and evaluating domain-specific agents for Industry 4.0. AssetOpsBench provides a multimodal ecosystem comprising a catalog of four domain-specific agents, a curated dataset of 140+ human-authored natural-language queries grounded in real industrial scenarios, and a simulated, CouchDB-backed IoT environment. We introduce an automated evaluation framework that uses three key metrics to analyze architectural trade-offs between the Tool-As-Agent and Plan-Executor paradigms, along with a systematic procedure for the automated discovery of emerging failure modes. The practical relevance of AssetOpsBench is demonstrated by its broad community adoption, with 250+ users and over 500 agents submitted to our public benchmarking platform, supporting reproducible and scalable research for real-world industrial operations. The code is accesible at https://github.com/IBM/AssetOpsBench .

AI agents have the potential to aid users on a variety of consequential tasks, including conducting scientific research. To spur the development of useful agents, we need benchmarks that are challenging, but more crucially, directly correspond to real-world tasks of interest. This paper introduces such a benchmark, designed to measure the accuracy of AI agents in tackling a crucial yet surprisingly challenging aspect of scientific research: computational reproducibility. This task, fundamental to the scientific process, involves reproducing the results of a study using the provided code and data. We introduce CORE-Bench (Computational Reproducibility Agent Benchmark), a benchmark consisting of 270 tasks based on 90 scientific papers across three disciplines (computer science, social science, and medicine). Tasks in CORE-Bench consist of three difficulty levels and include both language-only and vision-language tasks. We provide an evaluation system to measure the accuracy of agents in a fast and parallelizable way, saving days of evaluation time for each run compared to a sequential implementation. We evaluated two baseline agents: the general-purpose AutoGPT and a task-specific agent called CORE-Agent. We tested both variants using two underlying language models: GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini. The best agent achieved an accuracy of 21% on the hardest task, showing the vast scope for improvement in automating routine scientific tasks. Having agents that can reproduce existing work is a necessary step towards building agents that can conduct novel research and could verify and improve the performance of other research agents. We hope that CORE-Bench can improve the state of reproducibility and spur the development of future research agents.

Can AI Agents simulate real-world trading environments to investigate the impact of external factors on stock trading activities (e.g., macroeconomics, policy changes, company fundamentals, and global events)? These factors, which frequently influence trading behaviors, are critical elements in the quest for maximizing investors' profits. Our work attempts to solve this problem through large language model based agents. We have developed a multi-agent AI system called StockAgent, driven by LLMs, designed to simulate investors' trading behaviors in response to the real stock market. The StockAgent allows users to evaluate the impact of different external factors on investor trading and to analyze trading behavior and profitability effects. Additionally, StockAgent avoids the test set leakage issue present in existing trading simulation systems based on AI Agents. Specifically, it prevents the model from leveraging prior knowledge it may have acquired related to the test data. We evaluate different LLMs under the framework of StockAgent in a stock trading environment that closely resembles real-world conditions. The experimental results demonstrate the impact of key external factors on stock market trading, including trading behavior and stock price fluctuation rules. This research explores the study of agents' free trading gaps in the context of no prior knowledge related to market data. The patterns identified through StockAgent simulations provide valuable insights for LLM-based investment advice and stock recommendation. The code is available at https://github.com/MingyuJ666/Stockagent.

While LLMs have accelerated scientific code generation, comprehensively evaluating generated code remains challenging. Many benchmarks emphasize functional correctness or task completion, which is insufficient for code built on production HPC libraries, where solver selection, API conventions, memory management, parallel awareness, and performance also matter. We introduce PETSCAgent-Bench, a multidimensional benchmark and agent-based framework for assessing whether AI-generated scientific code uses a production HPC library as an expert would. A tool-augmented evaluator compiles, executes, and measures code and combines deterministic checks with LLM-based assessments in a 14-evaluator pipeline spanning five categories: correctness, performance, code quality, algorithmic appropriateness, and library-specific conventions. A2A and MCP enable black-box evaluation of compatible coding agents. Across realistic PETSc problems, frontier models generate readable, well-structured code but struggle with correctness on challenging problems and with library-specific conventions even when code compiles and runs---limitations that conventional pass/fail evaluation does not capture.

Voice agents are increasingly deployed across enterprise applications. However, no existing benchmark jointly addresses realistic conversation simulation and comprehensive voice-specific evaluation. We present EVA-Bench, an end-to-end evaluation framework that addresses both. On the simulation side, EVA-Bench orchestrates dynamic bot-to-bot audio conversations with automatic simulation validation that detects user simulator error and appropriately regenerates conversations before scoring. On the measurement side, EVA-Bench introduces two composite metrics: EVA-A (Accuracy) and EVA-X (Experience). EVA-Bench includes 213 scenarios across three enterprise domains, a controlled perturbation suite for accent and noise robustness, and multi-trial measurements that distinguish peak from reliable capability. Across 12 systems spanning all three architectures, we find: (1) no system simultaneously exceeds 0.5 on both EVA-A pass@1 and EVA-X pass@1; (2) peak and reliable performance diverge substantially (median pass@k--pass^k gap of 0.44 on EVA-A); and (3) accent and noise perturbations expose substantial robustness gaps, with effects varying across architectures, systems, and metrics (mean $\Delta$ up to 0.314). We release EVA-Bench under an open-source license.

Agentic AI evaluation pipelines produce benchmark scores that justify deployment decisions, safety certifications, and regulatory compliance claims. No formal framework has yet characterized how validity degrades across the stages of these pipelines. We present a three-layer compounding validity model, $V_{total} \leq V_1 \times V_2 \times V_3$, that captures multiplicative degradation across task generation ($V_1$), human-simulator calibration ($V_2$), and automated judgment ($V_3$). Under empirically grounded estimates, a pipeline retaining 70% validity at each stage is at most 34% valid against the intended construct (range 0.17-0.54 across the empirical estimate bounds). We examine the model's predictions against a structured survey of 55 published agentic evaluation papers, finding that approximately 82% of papers in this purposive sample apply structurally mismatched, incomplete, or absent inter-rater reliability (IRR) metrics, a pattern consistent with systematic $V_3$ collapse. We further identify empirical evidence of $V_1$ failures (task validity flaws in 7 of 10 popular benchmarks) and $V_2$ miscalibration (up to 9 percentage points inter-simulator variance, with systematic demographic disparities for non-Standard American English speakers). We derive eight prescriptions grounded in psychometric science and domain-stratified reliability thresholds (ICC $\geq$ 0.70; $\alpha \geq$ 0.67/0.70/0.80 by consequence level) that practitioners and benchmark authors can apply immediately. The framework provides a tractable knowledge-based tool for diagnosing and correcting evaluation pipeline validity before deployment decisions are made.

Evaluating agents on the growing number of agentic benchmarks is challenging because they often require complex environments and agent integrations. We introduce Harbor Adapters, a unified evaluation infrastructure for agentic benchmarks. Our work makes three contributions. First, we develop benchmark adapters that port more than 80 benchmarks to evaluate arbitrary agents, and validate them through rigorous code review and parity experiments. Second, we conduct a large-scale evaluation of 8 models spanning capability tiers across 54 benchmarks; every model is run with Terminus-2 and with one of 3 native harnesses. This enables a broader analysis of agent capabilities and failure modes than was previously possible. Third, we introduce Harbor-Index, a curated set of 82 difficult, diverse, and high-quality tasks spanning 29 benchmarks, refined from the adapted suite through difficulty filtering, AI and human audit, and an audit-and-fix loop. Harbor-Index preserves the challenge and breadth of large-scale agentic evaluations while being affordable to run; no evaluated model-harness configuration exceeds 30% pass rate, and the strongest (GPT-5.5 with Codex) reaches 28.0%. We release the adapters, evaluation results, in-depth analysis, and Harbor-Index as open-source artifacts to support more reliable and comprehensive evaluation of language-model agents.

While research on recursive self-improvement (RSI) has predominantly automated model training pipelines, reliable autonomous development demands a missing pillar: post-hoc monitoring and auditing to understand what models learn and ensure safe alignment. Mechanistic interpretability tools are essential to bridge this gap, among which Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) serve as a cornerstone by isolating interpretable features for model inspection and steering. In this paper, we introduce SAEScientist-Bench to evaluate whether AI agents can act as scientists utilizing SAE tools for autonomous mechanistic discovery. Given a target concept, an agent designs contrastive probes and navigates a Gemma Scope dictionary of 131K+ features in Gemma-2-9B-IT to discover the optimal feature, evaluated against curated expert reference features anchored on Neuronpedia across activation rank, concept selectivity on contrastive texts, and causal steering. Across 10 agent configurations and 20 tasks, frontier agents demonstrate genuine discovery capabilities and lead different evaluation dimensions, but remain well behind the expert baseline, approaching expert levels on separating target concepts from contrastive controls while lagging substantially in causal generation steering. Further analysis reveals that although agents can design contrasts to rule out spurious candidates, they frequently misinterpret experimental measurements. These results establish experimental model understanding as a measurable capability for closed-loop autonomous AI R&D. Our code is available at https://github.com/Trae1ounG/SAEScientist.

AI agents increasingly act through tools and delegated authority, but general incident repositories rarely capture the mechanisms needed to compare public failures with agent-security evaluations. We present the Agent Incident Registry (AIR) (Project page: https://enkryptai.com/air), a source-linked catalog containing 487 records of agent-related events disclosed from 2022 through 2026. Each record includes supporting evidence, a stable identifier, and missingness-aware labels for causal role, disclosure class, mechanism, and outcome. Among the 336 generative-system records in which the agent acted, 81 involved realized harm (24%). Realized outcomes concentrate in in-the-wild and safety-failure records, while responsible disclosures and research demonstrations are overwhelmingly demonstrated; the aggregate share therefore characterizes collection composition rather than deployment risk. After initial curation, a second human reviewer checked all 487 records and their existing labels for completeness and correctness. In a deployment-analogue audit, InjecAgent's 1,054 cases occupy three of AIR's twelve surfaces and are all attacker-triggered, whereas AIR contains 92 no-adversary safety failures. AIR supports source-grounded case retrieval and evaluation-scope auditing, not failure-rate or control-efficacy estimation.