LLM Agent Evaluation

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.

Autonomous language agents increasingly expose traces, memories, plans and constraints, but existing evaluations rarely test whether these state variables are bound to final actions. We introduce causal state binding, an intervention-coupled evaluation framework that measures whether actions change with the event-specific decisive state while remaining invariant to irrelevant cues. The primary readout is a hidden-target finite-action benchmark in which scorer-side intervention targets are assigned before generation and withheld from the model-visible prompt. Across 57,816 scored records in seven corpus-level units, structured-agent conditions exceeded high-randomness controls and targeted component removals on reason, memory, veto and self-continuity responsiveness. Open-weight validation across Qwen2.5 7B, 14B and 32B plus Mistral-7B showed that action priors, no-field prompts and scrambled decisive context did not recover the structured-control signature. In diagnostic finite-action probes, the minimal decisive-field readout recovered the prescribed action pattern whereas surface-only, action-prior-only and scrambled-field controls did not. Across 300 SWE-bench Lite issue records and six API models, adding an oracle-free causal state-binding composite to a full non-CSB baseline increased constraint-clean issue-to-file hit@3 AUC from 0.873 to 0.935. This validation concerns issue-to-file localization, not patch application or SWE-bench issue resolution. These results support a measurement principle for agent evaluation: action control is predicted by event-specific state-action binding, not by output entropy, action-prior matching or rationale format alone.

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.

Most LLM benchmarks score how well a model responds to explicit requests. They leave unmeasured a different conversational ability: noticing and acting on needs the user has implied but not said. We call this \emph{conversational proactivity}. ProactBench decomposes it into three phase-tied types: \textsc{Emergent}, inference from a single disclosed anchor; \textsc{Critical}, synthesis across multiple anchors; and \textsc{Recovery}, grounded forward-looking value after task completion. We operationalise the benchmark with three agents: a Planner, a User Agent, and an Assistant Model. Their information asymmetries defend against style-confounded scoring, rubric leakage, external-context contamination, and information dumps. The released corpus contains 198 curated dialogues with 624 trigger points across 24 communication styles drawn from a psychometric inventory and audited by an independent LLM judge. Across 16 frontier and open-weight models, \textsc{Recovery} is both difficult and weakly predicted by six standard benchmarks, making it a useful new evaluation signal.

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.

Interactive narrative tasks require LLMs to sustain a coherent, evolving story while adapting to a user over multiple turns. However, suitable benchmarks for this setting are limited: existing evaluations often focus on static prompts, isolated story generations, or post-hoc ratings, and therefore miss whether models can jointly manage story generation, long-context state and pacing, character simulation, empathic personalization, and story-grounded artifacts. We introduce NARRA-Gym, an executable evaluation environment that turns a sparse emotional seed into a complete interactive story episode and logs the full model-in-the-loop trajectory, including story construction, memory updates, planning, pacing interventions, and optional artifact synthesis. We evaluate nine frontier LLMs using a controlled LLM-as-judge sweep over eight benchmark personas and a human evaluation in which participants rate customized model outputs. Our results show substantial variation across models, personas, and evaluation dimensions: models that produce fluent stories can still fail on robustness, user experience, or resistance-sensitive personalization. These findings suggest that interactive narrative offers a useful benchmark for evaluating long-horizon, user-adaptive LLM behavior beyond isolated story quality.

Long-horizon AI agents execute complex workflows spanning hundreds of sequential actions, yet a single wrong assumption early on can cascade into irreversible errors. When instructions are incomplete, the agent must decide not only whether to ask for clarification but when, and no prior work measures how clarification value changes over the course of execution. We introduce a forced-injection framework that provides ground-truth clarifications at controlled points in the agent's trajectory across four information dimensions (goal, input, constraint, context), three agent benchmarks, and four frontier models (three per benchmark; one on a single benchmark only; 84 task variants; 6,000+ runs). Counter to the common intuition that "earlier is always better," we find that the value of clarification depends sharply on what information is missing: goal clarification loses nearly all value after 10% of execution (pass@3 drops from 0.78 to baseline), while input clarification retains value through roughly 50%. Deferring any clarification type past mid-trajectory degrades performance below never asking at all. Cross-model Kendall tau correlations (0.78-0.87 among models sharing identical task coverage; 0.34-0.67 across the full 4-model panel) confirm these timing profiles are substantially task-intrinsic. A complementary study of 300 unscripted sessions reveals that no current frontier model asks within the empirically optimal window, with strategies ranging from over-asking (52% of sessions) to never asking at all. These empirical demand curves provide the quantitative foundation that existing theoretical frameworks require but have lacked, and establish concrete design targets for timing-aware clarification policies. Code and data will be publicly released.

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in analytical workflows, but their suitability as exploratory data analysis (EDA) agents in business settings remains uncertain. In practice, a deployable EDA agent must provide not only useful average performance but also sufficient repeatability to support trust in its outputs. We evaluate this requirement in a controlled, business-relevant benchmark built on an agent-based supply chain simulation. The task is to identify supplier-product combinations responsible for low quality and downstream sales loss by reasoning from indirect operational traces rather than from explicit labels. Fifteen model-variant configurations from eight model families were evaluated under four experimental conditions that varied data representation, prompt clarity, and signal strength, with five trajectories per condition. Outputs were scored against deterministic ground truth using the Jaccard index and assessed through a framework that combines mean score (ms), coefficient of variation (CV), exploratory cross-condition significance tests, and Business utility, a risk-adjusted metric that we propose to summarise quality and repeatability in a single operational measure. The results show that most configurations are not reliable enough for autonomous EDA use, even when their average scores appear acceptable. GPT-5.4 with extra-high reasoning effort achieved the strongest overall profile, with an experiment-averaged ms of 0.8748 and an experiment-averaged Business utility of 0.6952, while the next-best configurations lost substantially more utility after variability discounting. Our findings suggest that evaluation of EDA agents should treat average quality, repeatability, and condition sensitivity as complementary dimensions of operational trustworthiness.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly capable as tool-using agents, with benchmarks spanning diverse general agentic tasks. Yet rigorous evaluation of scientific tool use remains limited. In chemistry, recent agents can plan syntheses and invoke domain-specific tools, but evaluations often rely on curated demonstrations, expert assessment, or LLM-as-judge scoring rather than exact, judge-free ground truth. We address this gap with chemical procurement cost estimation, a practical task in which an agent must ground chemical identities, retrieve supplier quotes, select valid purchasable packs, normalize quantities, and compute cost from a reaction description. We introduce ChemCost, a benchmark of 1,427 evaluable reactions grounded to a frozen pricing snapshot covering 2,261 chemicals and 230,775 supplier quotes, supporting scalar scoring and stage-level diagnosis of grounding, retrieval, procurement, and arithmetic failures. To evaluate robustness, we further construct controlled noise-injected views that perturb chemical aliases, quantity expressions, missing fields, and input formatting. Experiments with frontier, open-weight, and chemistry-specialized LLM agents show that tool access is necessary but insufficient for solving the task. The strongest agents reach only 50.6% accuracy within 25% relative error on clean inputs and degrade substantially with realistic noise. Stage-level analysis further shows that failures arise from brittle parsing, ineffective evidence integration, invalid pack selection, and non-convergent tool use.

The ecosystem of Lean and Mathlib has become the de facto standard for large language model (LLM) assisted formal reasoning with remarkable successes in recent years. Those successes, however, only consume Mathlib as an essential dependency but do not directly contribute to it. In the meantime, the growth of Mathlib has recently been bottlenecked by the review process, which requires human reviewers to judge whether proposed pull requests (PRs) follow the Mathlib's conventions and are worth integrating as part of a shared mathematical infrastructure. This leads to our central question: can LLMs help review Mathlib PRs? To this end, we introduce MathlibPR, a benchmark built from real Mathlib4 PR histories. We further propose a staged evaluation protocol and use it to evaluate both LLM models (e.g., DeepSeek, Qwen, Goedel, and Kimina) and LLM agents (e.g., Codex and Claude Code). Surprisingly, both LLM models and LLM agents struggle to distinguish merge-ready PRs from build-passing PRs that were revised or never merged. By turning Mathlib PR histories into a supervised signal, MathlibPR provides a step toward reviewer assistants and reward models that could help evaluate PRs and steer LLMs toward producing merge-ready Mathlib contributions.

Agent systems often decompose a task across multiple roles, but these roles are typically specified by prompts rather than enforced by access controls. Without enforcement, a team pass rate can mask whether agents actually coordinated or whether one role effectively did another role's work. We present TeamBench, a benchmark with 851 task templates and 931 seeded instances for evaluating agent coordination under operating system-enforced role separation. TeamBench separates specification access, workspace editing, and final certification across Planner, Executor, and Verifier roles, so that no role can read the full requirements, modify the workspace, and certify the final answer. Prompt-only and sandbox-enforced teams reach statistically indistinguishable pass rates, but prompt-only runs produce 3.6 times more cases where the verifier attempts to edit the executor's code. Verifiers approve 49% of submissions that fail the deterministic grader, and removing the verifier improves mean partial score in the ablation. Team value is also conditional. Teams benefit when single agents struggle, but hurt when single agents already perform well. A 40-session human study under the same role separation shows that our benchmark exposes interaction patterns that pass rate misses. Solo participants work through the task directly, human participants paired with agents often collapse into quick approval, and human teams spend more effort coordinating missing information across roles.

Architectural code smells erode software maintainability and are costly to repair manually, yet unlike localized bugs, they require cross-module reasoning about design intent that challenges both developers and automated tools. While large language model agents excel at bug fixing and code-level refactoring, their ability to repair architectural code smells remains unexplored. We present the first empirical evaluation of LLM agents on architectural code smell repair. We contribute SmellBench, a task orchestration framework that incorporates smell-type-specific optimized prompts and supports iterative multi-step execution, together with a scoring methodology that separately evaluates repair effectiveness, false positive identification, and net codebase impact. We evaluate 11 agent configurations from four model families (GPT, Claude, Gemini, Mistral) on 65 hard-severity architectural smells detected by PyExamine in the Python project scikit-learn, validated against expert judgments. Expert validation reveals that 63.1% of detected smells are false positives, while the best agent achieves a 47.7% resolution rate. Agents identify false positives with up to $κ= 0.94$ expert agreement, but repair aggressiveness and net codebase quality are inversely related: the most aggressive agent introduces 140 new smells. These findings expose a gap between current LLM capabilities in localized code transformations and the architectural understanding needed for cross-module refactoring. SmellBench provides reusable infrastructure for tracking progress on this underexplored dimension of automated software engineering. We release our code and data at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19247588.

This paper introduces tool efficiency, a new quantitative metric to evaluate the rate of useful tool calls in an LLM agent trajectory. To ensure that tool efficiency is well-defined, we also introduce marginal tool utility, a new quantitative metric defined per tool call indicating whether a tool is useful or whether it can be safely removed from the tool suite without affecting accuracy while increasing tool efficiency; in this paper, we determine the sign of marginal tool utility for each tool call in a trajectory using LLM-as-a-Judge. While much prior work has been done to develop techniques that improve tool use by LLMs and design evaluation methods measuring efficiency indirectly using accuracy as a proxy, our work is centered on measuring efficiency directly via the quantitative metric proposed in this paper in post hoc trajectory analyses. It is our intention that this work contributes to the frontier of LLM evaluation research as a springboard for future benchmark designs and agent harness engineering (specifically with regards to creating lean tool suites) that optimize for metrics that complement but are distinct from accuracy.

LLM-based agents are increasingly applied to the "last mile" of Electronic Design Automation (EDA): repairing residual sign-off Design Rule Check (DRC) violations and converging Power-Performance-Area (PPA) targets after tool runs. Existing EDA-LLM benchmarks, however, omit DRC fixing entirely and rely on flat hierarchies tied to a single toolchain. We introduce PostEDA-Bench, a hierarchical benchmark with 145 tasks across DRC-Essential, DRC-Reasoning, PPA-Mono, and PPA-Multi, supported by EDA toolchains with machine-checkable evaluation. Across eight commercial and open-source LLMs under multiple agent scaffolds, we find that agents handle synthetic DRC-Essential and single-objective PPA-Mono reasonably well but degrade sharply on the more practical DRC-Reasoning, where the best success rate is 36.66%, and PPA-Multi, where the best success rate is 20.00%; vision augmentation consistently enhances DRC-Bench; and trade-off reasoning, rather than knob knowledge, is the dominant PPA-Multi bottleneck.

Large language models (LLMs) power deep research agents that synthesize information from hundreds of web sources into cited reports, yet these citations cannot be reliably verified. Current approaches either trust models to self-cite accurately, risking bias, or employ retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) that does not validate source accessibility, relevance, or factual consistency. We introduce the first source attribution evaluation framework that uses a reproducible AST parser to extract and evaluate inline citations from LLM-generated Markdown reports at scale. Unlike methods that verify claims in isolation, our framework closes the loop by retrieving the actual cited content, enabling human or model evaluators to judge each citation against its source. Citations are evaluated along three dimensions. (1) Link Works verifies URL accessibility, (2) Relevant Content measures topical alignment, and (3) Fact Check validates factual accuracy against source content. We benchmark 14 closed-source and open-source LLMs across three evaluation dimensions using rubric-based LLM-as-a-judge evaluators calibrated through human review. Our results reveal that even the strongest frontier models maintain link validity above 94% and relevance above 80%, yet achieve only 39-77% factual accuracy, while fewer than half of open-source models successfully generate cited reports in a one-shot setting. Ablation studies on research depth show that Fact Check accuracy drops by approximately 42% on average across two frontier models as tool calls scale from 2 to 150, demonstrating that more retrieval does not produce more accurate citations. These findings reveal a critical disconnect between surface-level citation quality and factual reliability, and our framework provides the evaluation infrastructure to assess the disconnect.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly expected to maintain coherent, long-term personalized memory, yet current benchmarks primarily measure static fact retrieval, overlooking the ability to revise stored beliefs when new evidence emerges. We identify a critical and underexplored failure mode, Implicit Conflict: a later observation invalidates an earlier memory without explicit negation, requiring contextual inference and commonsense reasoning to detect. To rigorously evaluate this capability, we introduce STALE, a benchmark of 400 expert-validated conflict scenarios (1,200 evaluation queries across three probing dimensions) spanning over 100 everyday topics with contexts up to 150K tokens. We propose a three-dimensional probing framework that tests State Resolution (detecting that a prior belief is outdated), Premise Resistance (rejecting queries that falsely presuppose a stale state), and Implicit Policy Adaptation (proactively applying updated states in downstream behavior). A systematic evaluation of frontier LLMs and specialized memory frameworks reveals a pervasive gap between retrieving updated evidence and acting on it, with even the best evaluated model achieving only 55.2% overall accuracy. Models often accept outdated assumptions embedded in a user's query, and they struggle to recognize when a change in one aspect of the user's state should invalidate related memories. To establish an initial baseline for state-aware memory, we further present CUPMem, a prototype that strengthens write-time revision through structured state consolidation and propagation-aware search, suggesting that explicit state adjudication is a promising direction for robust agentic memory.

LLM-based multi-agent systems are increasingly deployed for payment workflows, yet prevailing metrics, Task Success Rate (TSR) and Agent Handoff F1-Score (HF1), capture only final outcomes or unordered routing decisions. We introduce the Agentic Success Rate (ASR), a trajectory-fidelity metric that compares observed and expected agent execution sequences at the transition level, decomposing performance into Transition Recall and Transition Precision. Applied to the Hierarchical Multi-Agent System for Payments (HMASP) across 18 LLMs and 90,000 task instances, ASR reveals that 10 of 18 models systematically skip a confirmation checkpoint during payment checkout, a deviation invisible to both TSR and HF1, while 8 models enforce the checkpoint perfectly. Notably, GPT-4.1 exhibits hidden workflow shortcuts despite achieving perfect TSR and HF1, while GPT-5.2 achieves perfect ASR. Prompt refinements and deterministic routing guards guided by ASR diagnostics yield substantial TSR improvements, with gains up to +93.8 percentage points for previously struggling models, demonstrating that trajectory-level evaluation is essential in regulated domains.

This position paper argues that, for long-horizon tasks evaluated across models with comparable frontier capability, the agent execution harness, namely the infrastructure layer that governs context construction, tool interaction, orchestration, and verification around a language model, is often a stronger determinant of agent performance than the model it wraps. We formalize and defend the Binding Constraint Thesis: in this regime, performance variance is governed more by harness configuration than by model choice, and current evaluation protocols therefore systematically misattribute harness-level gains to model improvements. We support this thesis along three lines. First, a control-theoretic formalization treats the harness as the controller of a closed-loop dynamical system and the LLM as the stochastic policy it governs, which explains why small harness changes can produce performance shifts that exceed those obtained by substituting one model for another. Second, published benchmarks, industry deployments, and a controlled variance decomposition show that harness-induced variance can substantially exceed model-induced variance, including cases of model ranking reversal. Third, we propose a harness-aware evaluation framework with a disclosure standard and a variance decomposition protocol. Until harness specifications are disclosed, leaderboard comparisons for long-horizon agents should be treated as incomplete and potentially misleading.

Most coding-agent benchmarks ask whether generated code behaves correctly. That remains essential, but repository-level engineering is increasingly agent-managed: one agent writes a repository, and later agents inspect, audit, or extend it as working context. In that setting, a generated repository is not only an answer to a task but also a communication artifact for future work. Even when strong agents nearly satisfy the visible behavioral objective, repositories can differ in how clearly they expose the intended behavior and design choices behind that behavior. We introduce BUILD-AND-FIND, a protocol for evaluating whether downstream agents can recover those intended choices from generated repositories, and how much inspection that recovery requires. For each task, a builder sees a hidden repository specification and creates a codebase; a finder sees only the codebase and a specification-traced multiple-choice question bank. The protocol separates behavioral correctness from artifact-side recovery and reports recovery accuracy, repeatability, implementation coverage, and inspection effort. Accuracy and stability act as gates: effort is interpreted only when recovery succeeds reliably. Among artifacts from which the same intent can be recovered, lower effort by the same finder suggests that the artifact makes that intent easier to locate. Question-only and spec-only controls quantify generic priors and specification access, while audits separate omitted claims from finder failures and check whether correct answers cite artifact evidence. In the released high-prior task pack, recovery accuracy is near saturation, so inspection effort and finder-specific effects provide the main panel-local comparison.

LLM agent systems are built by stacking scaffolding components (planning, tools, memory, self-reflection, retrieval) assuming more is better. We study cross-component interference (CCI): degradation when components interact destructively. We run a full factorial experiment over all 2^5=32 subsets of five components on HotpotQA and GSM8K with Llama-3.1-8B/70B (96 conditions, up to 10 seeds). The All-In system is consistently suboptimal: on HotpotQA, a single-tool agent surpasses All-In by 32% (F1 0.233 vs 0.177, p=0.023); on GSM8K, a 3-component subset beats All-In by 79% (0.43 vs 0.24, p=0.010). Optimal component count is task-dependent (k*=1-4) and scale-sensitive: at 70B, combinations that hurt at 8B provide gains, though All-In still trails the best subset. We fit a main-effects regression (R^2=0.916, adj-R^2=0.899, LOOCV=0.872), compute exact Shapley values, and find 183/325 submodularity violations (56.3%), showing greedy selection is unreliable. A three-body synergy among Tool Use, Self-Reflection, and Retrieval (INT_3=+0.175, 95% CI [+0.003,+0.351]) is reported as exploratory. CCI replicates across model families (Qwen2.5) and is robust to prompt paraphrasing. Our findings suggest maximally-equipped agent defaults should be replaced by task-specific subset selection via interaction-aware analysis.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) evolve into interactive agents, understanding their behavioral alignment within human social dynamics becomes essential. While behavioral game theory offers a framework to study these interactions, previous work has predominantly relied on outcome-based metrics such as average scores. This focus overlooks the mechanisms that facilitate sustainable cooperation, as identical scores can be derived from vastly different strategies. To bridge this gap, we introduce SODE (Social Dynamics Evaluation), a framework that evaluates LLM agents across three evolutionary dimensions: Direct Reciprocity for strategy adaptation, Indirect Reciprocity for reputation sensitivity, and Group Dynamics for cooperative resilience. Applying SODE reveals systematic divergences: instruction-tuned models often exhibit "passive compliance" that renders them vulnerable to exploitation, while reasoning models prioritize short-horizon optimization, destabilizing long-term cooperation. Notably, we demonstrate that a "long-horizon framing" can unlock reciprocal capabilities in reasoning models. Thus, SODE offers a systematic, mechanism-grounded benchmark for aligning AI agents with complex human social dynamics.

Static capabilities benchmarks suffer from saturation and contamination, making it difficult to track capabilities progress over time. We introduce Agent Island, a multiplayer simulation environment in which language-model agents compete in a game of interagent cooperation, conflict, and persuasion. The environment yields a dynamic benchmark designed to mitigate both saturation and contamination; new models can always outperform the current leading player in this winner-take-all game, and agents compete against other adaptive agents rather than face a fixed task set. We rank players with a Bayesian Plackett-Luce model, allowing us to quantify uncertainty in player skill. In 999 games involving 49 unique models, openai/gpt-5.5 dominates its peers with a posterior mean skill of 5.64, compared with 3.10 for the second-ranked model, openai/gpt-5.2, and 2.86 for the third-ranked model, openai/gpt-5.3-codex. We release the game logs as a dataset for analyses of model behavior. As an example, we investigate same-provider preference in final-round votes and find that models are 8.3 p.p. more likely to support a same-provider finalist than finalists from other providers. This preference is not uniform across providers: among separately estimated providers, the effect is strongest for OpenAI models and weakest for Anthropic models.

Language models excel at diagnostic assessments on curated medical case-studies and vignettes, performing on par with, or better than, clinical professionals. However, existing studies focus on complex scenarios with rich context making it difficult to draw conclusions about how these systems perform for patients reporting symptoms in everyday life. We deployed SymptomAI, a set of conversational AI agents for end-to-end patient interviewing and differential diagnosis (DDx), via the Fitbit app in a study that randomized participants (N=13,917) to interact with five AI agents. This corpus captures diverse communication and a realistic distribution of illnesses from a real world population. A subset of 1,228 participants reported a clinician-provided diagnosis, and 517 of these were further evaluated by a panel of clinicians during over 250 hours of annotation. SymptomAI DDx were significantly more accurate (OR = 2.56, p < 0.001) than those from independent clinicians given the same dialogue in a blinded randomized comparison. Moreover, agentic strategies which conduct a dedicated symptom interview that elicit additional symptom information before providing a diagnosis, perform substantially better than baseline, user-guided conversations (p < 0.001). An auxiliary analysis on 1,509 conversations from a general US population panel validated that these results generalize beyond wearable device users. We used SymptomAI diagnoses as labels for all 13,917 participants to analyze over 500,000 days of wearable metrics across nearly 400 unique conditions. We identified strong associations between acute infections and physiological shifts (e.g., OR > 7 for influenza). While limited by self-reported ground truth, these results demonstrate the benefits of a dedicated and complete symptom interview compared to a user-guided symptom discussion, which is the default of most consumer LLMs.

Human-AI collaboration requires AI agents to understand human behavior for effective coordination. While advances in foundation models show promising capabilities in understanding and showing human-like behavior, their application in embodied collaborative settings needs further investigation. This work examines whether embodied foundation model agents exhibit emergent collaborative behaviors indicating underlying mental models of their collaborators, which is an important aspect of effective coordination. This paper develops a 2D collaborative game environment where large language model agents and humans complete color-matching tasks requiring coordination. We define five collaborative behaviors as indicators of emergent mental model representation: perspective-taking, collaborator-aware planning, introspection, theory of mind, and clarification. An automated behavior detection system using LLM-based judges identifies these behaviors, achieving fair to substantial agreement with human annotations. Results from the automated behavior detection system show that foundation models consistently exhibit emergent collaborative behaviors without being explicitly trained to do so. These behaviors occur at varying frequencies during collaboration stages, with distinct patterns across different LLMs. A user study was also conducted to evaluate human satisfaction and perceived collaboration effectiveness, with the results indicating positive collaboration experiences. Participants appreciated the agents' task focus, plan verbalization, and initiative, while suggesting improvements in response times and human-like interactions. This work provides an experimental framework for human-AI collaboration, empirical evidence of collaborative behaviors in embodied LLM agents, a validated behavioral analysis methodology, and an assessment of collaboration effectiveness.

As LLM-based agents are increasingly interacting in multi-party settings, they need to properly handle information asymmetry, i.e., knowing when and to whom to disclose information is appropriate. Yet, existing benchmarks fail to measure this ability in realistic multi-party settings. Thus, we introduce SOTOPIA-TOM, a multi-dimensional benchmarking framework to evaluate LLM agents' ability to successfully navigate information asymmetric and privacy sensitive multi-party interactions. We create an interaction environment which enables both public (broadcast) and private (direct message) communication, and craft 160 human-reviewed scenarios across eight industry sectors, each involving 3 to 5 agents with partitioned private knowledge and channel-dependent sharing policies. To measure interaction abilities, we create a multi-dimensional evaluation framework to assess how well agents share useful information, seek missing details, coordinate efficiently, and protect privacy, which we also combine into a composite INFOMGMT metric. Results show that, across 6 LLM backbones and prompting strategies (vanilla, CoT-privacy, and ToM-based interventions), even the largest high-reasoning model (GPT-5) reaches only a 62% INFOMGMT score, which indicates persistent deficiencies in information seeking and privacy-aware decision-making. Additionally, ToM-based interventions more consistently improve the overall coordination-privacy balance (for example, relative to the vanilla baseline, ToM-Coach reduces critical privacy violations on GPT-4o from 9.9% to 2.2% while increasing the composite InfoMgmt score more than 2.5x from 15% to 40%). Overall, SOTOPIA-TOM exposes persistent limitations of current LLM agents in complex, information-asymmetric coordination and provides an extensible testbed for developing more privacy-aware, theory-of-mind capable multi-agent systems.

Long-term LLM agents must compress streams of past interactions into persistent memory before future queries are known. Existing evaluations usually measure final question-answering accuracy, which entangles memory writing with retrieval, prompting, and reader reasoning. We introduce MEMAUDIT, an exact packageoracle evaluation protocol for budgeted long-term memory writing. A MEMAUDIT package fixes an experience stream, candidate memory representations, storage costs, semantic evidence units, future-query requirements, and a budget, turning write-time memory selection into a finite auditable optimization problem with a certified denominator. We instantiate this protocol with a concave-over-modular semantic coverage objective under storage and one-representation-per-experience constraints, and compute exact package optima using branch-and-bound with MILP certification. Across controlled exact packages, validity-heavy stress tests, human-audited natural support slices, and exported Mem0, A-Mem, and Letta stores, MEMAUDIT separates representation quality, validity-state preservation, and budget-aware selection effects that end-to-end QA cannot localize. The resulting artifact provides reusable package generators, certified solvers, natural package exports, external-system scorers, and cached reproducibility metadata for evaluating what memory writers actually preserve under fixed storage budgets.