LLM Agent Evaluation

LLM: Large Language Model

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

115 papers in the last four weeks, up 140% on the four weeks before. 1.1% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 793

Apr 21, 2026cs.AI

Do Agents Dream of Root Shells? Partial-Credit Evaluation of LLM Agents in Capture the Flag Challenges

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly proposed for autonomous cybersecurity tasks, but their capabilities in realistic offensive settings remain poorly understood. We present DeepRed, an open-source benchmark for evaluating LLM-based agents on realistic Capture The Flag (CTF) challenges in isolated virtualized environments. DeepRed places an agent in a Kali attacker environment with terminal tools and optional web search, connected over a private network to a target challenge, and records full execution traces for analysis. To move beyond binary solved/unsolved outcomes, we introduce a partial-credit scoring method based on challenge-specific checkpoints derived from public writeups, together with an automated summarise-then-judge labelling pipeline for assigning checkpoint completion from logs. Using DeepRed, we benchmark ten commercially accessible LLMs on ten VM-based CTF challenges spanning different challenge categories. The results indicate that current agents remain limited: the best model achieves only 35% average checkpoint completion, performing strongest on common challenge types and weakest on tasks requiring non-standard discovery and longer-horizon adaptation.

Ali Al-Kaswan, Maksim Plotnikov, Maxim Hájek +3

Delft University of Technology Delft, The Netherlands

LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Security Benchmarks LLMs for Cybersecurity Automated Grading

Apr 21, 2026cs.AI

Forage V2: Knowledge Evolution and Transfer in Autonomous Agent Organizations

Autonomous agents operating in open-world tasks -- where the completion boundary is not given in advance -- face denominator blindness: they systematically underestimate the scope of the target space. Forage V1 addressed this through co-evolving evaluation (an independent Evaluator discovers what "complete" means) and method isolation (Evaluator and Planner cannot see each other's code). V2 extends the architecture from a single expedition to a learning organization: experience accumulates across runs, transfers across model capabilities, and institutional safeguards prevent knowledge degradation. We demonstrate two claims across three task types (web scraping, API queries, mathematical reasoning). Knowledge accumulation: over six runs, knowledge entries grow from 0 to 54, and denominator estimates stabilize as domain understanding deepens. Knowledge transfer: a weaker agent (Sonnet) seeded with a stronger agent's (Opus) knowledge narrows a 6.6pp coverage gap to 1.1pp, halves cost (9.40 to 5.13 USD), converges in half the rounds (mean 4.5 vs. 7.0), and three independent seeded runs arrive at exactly the same denominator estimate (266), suggesting organizational knowledge calibrates evaluation itself. V2's contribution is architectural: it designs institutions -- audit separation, contract protocols, organizational memory -- that make any agent more reliable upon entry. The accumulated experience is organizational, model-agnostic, and transferable, stored as readable documents that any future agent inherits regardless of provider or capability level.

Huaqing Xie

Independent Researcher

LLM Agent Evaluation Memory-Augmented Agents Self-Evolving Agents

Apr 21, 2026cs.AI

AutomationBench

Existing AI benchmarks for software automation rarely combine cross-application coordination, autonomous API discovery, and policy adherence. Real business workflows demand all three: a single task may span a CRM, inbox, calendar, and messaging platform - requiring the agent to find the right endpoints, follow a policy document, and write correct data to each system. To address this gap, we introduce AutomationBench, a benchmark for evaluating AI agents on cross-application workflow orchestration via REST APIs. Drawing on real workflow patterns from Zapier's platform, tasks span Sales, Marketing, Operations, Support, Finance, and HR domains. Agents must discover relevant endpoints themselves, follow layered business rules, and navigate environments with irrelevant and sometimes misleading records. Grading is programmatic and end-state only: whether the correct data ended up in the right systems. Even the best frontier models currently score below 10%. AutomationBench provides a challenging, realistic measure of where current models stand relative to the agentic capabilities businesses actually need.

Daniel Shepard, Robin Salimans

LLM Agent Evaluation Business Process Automation AI Agent Benchmarks Workflow Automation Tool Use

Apr 20, 2026cs.AI

AI scientists produce results without reasoning scientifically

Large language model (LLM)-based systems are increasingly deployed to conduct scientific research autonomously, yet whether their reasoning adheres to the epistemic norms that make scientific inquiry self-correcting is poorly understood. Here, we evaluate LLM-based scientific agents across eight domains, spanning workflow execution to hypothesis-driven inquiry, through more than 25,000 agent runs and two complementary lenses: (i) a systematic performance analysis that decomposes the contributions of the base model and the agent scaffold, and (ii) a behavioral analysis of the epistemological structure of agent reasoning. We observe that the base model is the primary determinant of both performance and behavior, accounting for 41.4% of explained variance versus 1.5% for the scaffold. Across all configurations, evidence is ignored in 68% of traces, refutation-driven belief revision occurs in 26%, and convergent multi-test evidence is rare. The same reasoning pattern appears whether the agent executes a computational workflow or conducts hypothesis-driven inquiry. They persist even when agents receive near-complete successful reasoning trajectories as context, and the resulting unreliability compounds across repeated trials in epistemically demanding domains. Thus, current LLM-based agents execute scientific workflows but do not exhibit the epistemic patterns that characterize scientific reasoning. Outcome-based evaluation cannot detect these failures, and scaffold engineering alone cannot repair them. Until reasoning itself becomes a training target, the scientific knowledge produced by such agents cannot be justified by the process that generated it.

Martiño Ríos-García, Nawaf Alampara, Chandan Gupta +5

Laboratory of Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry (IOMC), Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Humboldstr. 10, 07743 Jena, Germany · Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India · School of Interdisciplinary Research, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India +3

AI Agent Reliability Scientific Reasoning LLM Agent Evaluation LLM Reliability Autonomous Scientific Discovery Scientific Reasoning in Language Models+2

Apr 20, 2026cs.AI

AJ-Bench: Benchmarking Agent-as-a-Judge for Environment-Aware Evaluation

As reinforcement learning continues to scale the training of large language model-based agents, reliably verifying agent behaviors in complex environments has become increasingly challenging. Existing approaches rely on rule-based verifiers or LLM-as-a-Judge models, which struggle to generalize beyond narrow domains. Agent-as-a-Judge addresses this limitation by actively interacting with environments and tools to acquire verifiable evidence, yet its capabilities remain underexplored. We introduce a benchmark AJ-Bench to systematically evaluate Agent-as-a-Judge across three domains-search, data systems, and graphical user interfaces-comprising 155 tasks and 516 annotated trajectories. The benchmark comprehensively assesses judge agents' abilities in information acquisition, state verification, and process verification. Experiments demonstrate consistent performance gains over LLM-as-a-Judge baselines, while also revealing substantial open challenges in agent-based verification. Our data and code are available at https://aj-bench.github.io/.

Wentao Shi, Yu Wang, Yuyang Zhao +8

University of Science and Technology of China · National University of Singapore · Meituan

LLM-as-a-Judge LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Evaluation LLM Agent Verification AI Agent Benchmarks

Apr 20, 2026cs.SE

WebCompass: Towards Multimodal Web Coding Evaluation for Code Language Models

Large language models are rapidly evolving into interactive coding agents capable of end-to-end web coding, yet existing benchmarks evaluate only narrow slices of this capability, typically text-conditioned generation with static-correctness metrics, leaving visual fidelity, interaction quality, and codebase-level reasoning largely unmeasured. We introduce WebCompass, a multimodal benchmark that provides unified lifecycle evaluation of web engineering capability. Recognizing that real-world web coding is an iterative cycle of generation, editing, and repair, WebCompass spans three input modalities (text, image, video) and three task types (generation, editing, repair), yielding seven task categories that mirror professional workflows. Through a multi-stage, human-in-the-loop pipeline, we curate instances covering 15 generation domains, 16 editing operation types, and 11 repair defect types, each annotated at Easy/Medium/Hard levels. For evaluation, we adopt a checklist-guided LLM-as-a-Judge protocol for editing and repair, and propose a novel Agent-as-a-Judge paradigm for generation that autonomously executes generated websites in a real browser, explores interactive behaviors via the Model Context Protocol (MCP), and iteratively synthesizes targeted test cases, closely approximating human acceptance testing. We evaluate representative closed-source and open-source models and observe that: (1) closed-source models remain substantially stronger and more balanced; (2) editing and repair exhibit distinct difficulty profiles, with repair preserving interactivity better but remaining execution-challenging; (3) aesthetics is the most persistent bottleneck, especially for open-source models; and (4) framework choice materially affects outcomes, with Vue consistently challenging while React and Vanilla/HTML perform more strongly depending on task type.

Xinping Lei, Xinyu Che, Junqi Xiong +16

Nanjing University · Kuaishou Technology

LLM Agent Evaluation Code Language Models Code Generation Benchmarks

Apr 20, 2026cs.HC

Do LLMs Need to See Everything? A Benchmark and Study of Failures in LLM-driven Smartphone Automation using Screentext vs. Screenshots

With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), mobile agents have emerged as promising tools for phone automation, simulating human interactions on screens to accomplish complex tasks. However, these agents often suffer from low accuracy, misinterpretation of user instructions, and failure on challenging tasks, with limited prior work examining why and where they fail. To address this, we introduce DailyDroid, a benchmark of 75 tasks in five scenarios across 25 Android apps, spanning three difficulty levels to mimic everyday smartphone use. We evaluate it using text-only and multimodal (text + screenshot) inputs on GPT-4o and o4-mini across 300 trials, revealing comparable performance with multimodal inputs yielding marginally higher success rates. Through in-depth failure analysis, we compile a handbook of common failures. Our findings reveal critical issues in UI accessibility, input modalities, and LLM/app design, offering implications for future mobile agents, applications, and UI development.

Shiquan Zhang, Tianyi Zhang, Le Fang +3

School of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia · School of Computer Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Mobile GUI Automation LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Multimodal Agents LLM Agent Reliability

Apr 19, 2026cs.CL

Agents Explore but Agents Ignore: LLMs Lack Environmental Curiosity

LLM-based agents are assumed to integrate environmental observations into their reasoning: discovering highly relevant but unexpected information should naturally lead to a model exploiting its own discoveries. We show that this assumption is false for current LLM-based agents, which struggle to reflect or react to unexpected information. Across three benchmarks (Terminal-Bench, SWE-Bench, AppWorld), we inject complete task solutions into the agent environments to deliberately expose a task's solution to a model. While agents discover these solutions on Terminal-Bench in 79-81% of runs, they interact, or exploit, them in only 37-50% of cases. This gap is starkest in AppWorld: agents see documentation stating that a command "returns the complete solution to this task" in over 90% of attempts but exploit this in fewer than 7% of trials. We show that agents lack what we call environmental curiosity: the capability to recognize and investigate unexpected but relevant observations in response to environmental stimuli. We identify three main factors influencing environmental curiosity: available tools in the agent scaffold, test-time compute, and training data distribution. Our findings identify configurations that maximize curiosity also achieve the best performance on the unmodified benchmarks. Yet even jointly optimized agents still ignore discovered solutions in the majority of trials: current agents use the environment to fetch expected information, but not to revise their strategy or maximally exploit useful stimuli.

Leon Engländer, Sophia Althammer, Ahmet Üstün +2

Cohere · Poolside

LLM Agent Evaluation Tool-Using Agents LLM Agent Reliability

Apr 19, 2026cs.AI

HalluClear: Diagnosing, Evaluating and Mitigating Hallucinations in GUI Agents

While progress in GUI agents has been largely driven by industrial-scale training, ungrounded hallucinations often trigger cascading failures in real-world deployments.Unlike general VLM domains, the GUI agent field lacks a hallucination-focused suite for fine-grained diagnosis, reliable evaluation, and targeted mitigation.To bridge this gap, we introduce HalluClear, a comprehensive suite for hallucination mitigation in GUI agents as a complement to computation-intensive scaling. HalluClear comprises: (1) a GUI-specific hallucination taxonomy derived from empirical failure analysis; (2) a calibrated three-stage evaluation workflow which enhances VLM-as-a-judge reliability via expert-annotated benchmarking and ensemble credibility estimation; and (3) a mitigation scheme based on closed-loop structured reasoning, enabling lightweight continual post-training with cold-start initialization for both generalist and GUI-specialist agents. Experiments across representative agents and public benchmarks demonstrate that post-training on only 9K samples within our suite can significantly reduce hallucinations, thereby improving grounding and action fidelity, offering a compute-efficient pathway to robust GUI automation.

Chao Jin, Wenkui Yang, Hao Sun +6

MAIS&NLPR, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences

GUI Agents Hallucination in Language Models LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Hallucination Mitigation

Apr 18, 2026cs.CR

Systematic Capability Benchmarking of Frontier Large Language Models for Offensive Cyber Tasks

We present, to our knowledge, the most comprehensive cross-model evaluation of LLM agents on offensive cybersecurity tasks, benchmarking 10 frontier models from 7 providers on all 200 challenges of the NYU CTF Bench. Building on the D-CIPHER multi-agent framework, we extend it with multi-provider backend support, a custom Kali Linux environment with over 100 pre-installed penetration testing tools, and runtime tool-discovery agents. Through a controlled factorial study, we find that the Kali Linux environment yields a +9.5 percentage-point improvement over Ubuntu, while auto-prompting and category-specific tips often degrade performance in well-equipped environments. Among models, Claude 4.5 Opus achieves the highest solve rate (59%), followed by Gemini 3 Pro (52%), with Gemini 3 Flash offering the best cost-efficiency at $0.05 per solve. Asymmetric planner/executor model assignments provide no meaningful benefit while coherent same-model configurations consistently outperform mixed-tier pairings. Our results indicate that environment tooling and model selection emerge as the strongest drivers of performance, whereas prompt engineering interventions show diminishing or negative returns in well-equipped environments. Reported performance reflects both model reasoning ability and compatibility with agent tooling and API integration.

Tyler H. Merves, Michael H. Conaway, Joseph M. Escobar +2

Department of Cybersecurity · Department of Information Sciences and Technology

LLM Agent Evaluation Cybersecurity AI Agent Security Benchmarks LLMs for Cybersecurity

Apr 18, 2026cs.AI

If Only My CGM Could Speak: A Privacy-Preserving Agent for Question Answering over Continuous Glucose Data

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) used in diabetes care collect rich personal health data that could improve day-to-day self-management. However, current patient platforms only offer static summaries which do not support inquisitive user queries. Large language models (LLMs) could enable free-form inquiries about continuous glucose data, but deploying them over sensitive health records raises privacy and accuracy concerns. In this paper, we present CGM-Agent, a privacy-preserving framework for question answering over personal glucose data. In our design, the LLM serves purely as a reasoning engine that selects analytical functions. All computation occurs locally, and personal health data never leaves the user's device. For evaluation, we construct a benchmark of 4,180 questions combining parameterized question templates with real user queries and ground truth derived from deterministic program execution. Evaluating 6 leading LLMs, we find that top models achieve 94% value accuracy on synthetic queries and 88% on ambiguous real-world queries. Errors stem primarily from intent and temporal ambiguity rather than computational failures. Additionally, lightweight models achieve competitive performance in our agent design, suggesting opportunities for low-cost deployment. We release our code and benchmark to support future work on trustworthy health agents.

Yanjun Cui, Ali Emami, Temiloluwa Prioleau +1

Dartmouth College · Emory University

Privacy-Preserving Language Models Healthcare LLM Agent Evaluation Biomedical QA Wearable Health Monitoring

Apr 17, 2026cs.AI

Don't Start What You Can't Finish: A Counterfactual Audit of Support-State Triage in LLM Agents

Current agent evaluations largely reward execution on fully specified tasks, while recent work studies clarification [11, 22, 2], capability awareness [9, 1], abstention [8, 14], and search termination [20, 5] mostly in isolation. This leaves open whether agents can diagnose why a task is blocked before acting. We introduce the Support-State Triage Audit (SSTA-32), a matched-item diagnostic framework in which minimal counterfactual edits flip the same base request across four support states: Complete (ANSWER), Clarifiable (CLARIFY), Support-Blocked (REQUEST SUPPORT), and Unsupported-Now (ABSTAIN). We evaluate a frontier model under four prompting conditions - Direct, Action-Only, Confidence-Only, and a typed Preflight Support Check (PSC) - using Dual-Persona Auto-Auditing (DPAA) with deterministic heuristic scoring. Default execution overcommits heavily on non-complete tasks (41.7% overcommitment rate). Scalar confidence mapping avoids overcommitment but collapses the three-way deferral space (58.3% typed deferral accuracy). Conversely, both Action-Only and PSC achieve 91.7% typed deferral accuracy by surfacing the categorical ontology in the prompt. Targeted ablations confirm that removing the support-sufficiency dimension selectively degrades REQUEST SUPPORT accuracy, while removing the evidence-sufficiency dimension triggers systematic overcommitment on unsupported items. Because DPAA operates within a single context window, these results represent upper-bound capability estimates; nonetheless, the structural findings indicate that frontier models possess strong latent triage capabilities that require explicit categorical decision paths to activate safely.

Eren Unlu

Globeholder Paris, France

LLM Agent Evaluation LLM Refusal Behavior LLM Decision-Making LLM Agent Reliability

Apr 17, 2026cs.AI

Evaluating Tool-Using Language Agents: Judge Reliability, Propagation Cascades, and Runtime Mitigation in AgentProp-Bench

Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, but this assumption has rarely been validated against human annotation. We introduce AgentProp-Bench, a 2,000-task benchmark with 2,300 traces across four domains, nine production LLMs, and a 100-label human-validated subset. We quantify judge reliability, characterize error propagation, and evaluate a runtime mitigation. Substring-based judging agrees with human annotation at kappa=0.049 (chance-level); a three-LLM ensemble reaches kappa=0.432 (moderate) with a conservative bias. Under validated evaluation, a parameter-level injection propagates to a wrong final answer with human-calibrated probability approximately 0.62 (range 0.46-0.73 across models). Rejection (catching bad parameters) and recovery (correcting after acceptance) are independent model capabilities (Spearman rho=0.126, p=0.747). A tuned runtime interceptor reduces hallucination on GPT-4o-mini by 23.0 percentage points under a concurrent n=600 control, but shows no significant effect on Gemini-2.0-Flash, whose aggressive parameter rejection eliminates the target failure mode. All code, data, traces, and human labels are released at https://github.com/bhaskargurram-ai/agenthallu-bench.

Bhaskar Gurram

Zasti Inc., Ashburn, VA, USA

AI Agent Reliability Tool-Augmented Language Model Agents LLM-as-a-Judge LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Reliability+2

Apr 17, 2026cs.AI

SocialGrid: A Benchmark for Planning and Social Reasoning in Embodied Multi-Agent Systems

As Large Language Models (LLMs) transition from text processors to autonomous agents, evaluating their social reasoning in embodied multi-agent settings becomes critical. We introduce SocialGrid, an embodied multi-agent environment inspired by Among Us that evaluates LLM agents on planning, task execution, and social reasoning. Our evaluations reveal that even the strongest open model (GPT-OSS-120B) achieves below 60% accuracy in task completion and planning, with agents getting stuck in repetitive behaviors or failing to navigate basic obstacles. Since poor navigation confounds evaluation of social intelligence, SocialGrid offers an optional Planning Oracle to isolate social reasoning from planning deficits. While planning assistance improves task completion, social reasoning remains a bottleneck: agents fail to detect deception at near-random chance regardless of scale, relying on shallow heuristics rather than accumulating behavioral evidence. SocialGrid provides automatic failure analysis and fine-grained metrics, enabling developers to diagnose and improve their agents. We also establish a competitive leaderboard using Elo ratings from adversarial league play.

Hikaru Shindo, Hanzhao Lin, Lukas Helff +2

Technical University of Darmstadt · German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence · CERTAIN +2

LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Multi-Agent Systems Multi-Agent Reasoning LLM Agent Planning

Apr 16, 2026cs.SE

Understanding Tool-Augmented Agents for Lean Formalization: A Factorial Analysis

Automatic translation of natural language mathematics into faithful Lean 4 code is hindered by the fundamental dissonance between informal set-theoretic intuition and strict formal type theory. This gap often causes LLMs to hallucinate non-existent library definitions, resulting in code that fails to compile or lacks semantic fidelity. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of tool-augmented agents for this task through a systematic factorial analysis of three distinct tool categories: Fine-tuned Model Querying (accessing expert drafts), Knowledge Search (retrieving symbol definitions), and Compiler Feedback (verifying code via a Lean REPL). We first benchmark the agent against one-shot baselines, demonstrating large gains in both compilation success and semantic equivalence. We then use the factorial decomposition to quantify the impact of each category, isolating the marginal contribution of each tool type to overall performance.

Ke Zhang, Patricio Gallardo, Maziar Raissi +1

University of California, Riverside.

Code Translation LLM Agent Evaluation Lean Theorem Proving Autoformalization Tool-Using Language Agents

Apr 16, 2026cs.GT

CoopEval: Benchmarking Cooperation-Sustaining Mechanisms and LLM Agents in Social Dilemmas

It is increasingly important that LLM agents interact effectively and safely with other goal-pursuing agents, yet, recent works report the opposite trend: LLMs with stronger reasoning capabilities behave less cooperatively in mixed-motive games such as the prisoner's dilemma and public goods settings. Indeed, our experiments show that recent models -- with or without reasoning enabled -- consistently defect in single-shot social dilemmas. To tackle this safety concern, we present the first comparative study of game-theoretic mechanisms designed to enable cooperative outcomes between rational agents in equilibrium. Across four social dilemmas testing distinct components of robust cooperation, we evaluate four families of mechanisms: (1) repeating the game for many rounds, (2) reputation systems, (3) third-party mediators to delegate decision making to, and (4) contract agreements for outcome-conditional payments between players. Among our findings, we establish that contracting and mediation are most effective in achieving cooperative outcomes between capable LLM models, and that repetition-induced cooperation deteriorates drastically when co-players vary. Moreover, we demonstrate that the mechanisms become more effective under evolutionary pressures to maximize individual payoffs.

Emanuel Tewolde, Xiao Zhang, David Guzman Piedrahita +2

Carnegie Mellon University · Foundations of Cooperative AI Lab (FOCAL) · Jinesis Lab, University of Toronto & Vector Institute +3

Social Dilemmas Cooperative Game Theory Multi-Agent Coordination Mechanism Design Game Theory LLM Agent Evaluation+1

Apr 16, 2026cs.AI

From Reactive to Proactive: Assessing the Proactivity of Voice Agents via ProVoice-Bench

Recent advancements in LLM agents are gradually shifting from reactive, text-based paradigms toward proactive, multimodal interaction. However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on reactive responses, overlooking the complexities of proactive intervention and monitoring. To bridge this gap, we introduce ProVoice-Bench, the first evaluation framework specifically designed for proactive voice agents, featuring four novel tasks. By leveraging a multi-stage data synthesis pipeline, we curate 1,182 high-quality samples for rigorous testing. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art Multimodal LLMs reveals a significant performance gap, particularly regarding over-triggering and reasoning capabilities. These findings highlight the limitations of current models and offer a roadmap for developing more natural, context-aware proactive agents.

Ke Xu, Yuhao Wang, Yu Wang

Shanghai Jiao Tong University

LLM Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Multimodal Model Evaluation

Apr 16, 2026cs.CY

Task-Level AI Readiness Assessment for Business Process Management:The T-IPO Model and LARA Matrix in Financial-Services IT Operations

Which tasks inside an enterprise workflow can a large-language-model agent reliably handle, and under what conditions? Most business process modeling frameworks still answer this at the activity level, even though a single activity can bundle work of radically different difficulty. This paper takes the analysis a step smaller. We describe two design artifacts developed in a financial-services IT setting: T-IPO, which represents each task as an eight-element tuple, and LARA (LLM Agent Readiness Assessment), a five-dimension rubric that scores a task's readiness for agent substitution. Compliance Sensitivity carries

1.5\times

weight, a value we fixed through a three-round Delphi study and cross-checked with AHP. The rubric produces four levels, L1 to L4, and applies a floor rule so that a task with maximum compliance load cannot be classified below L3 no matter what the other scores say. Both artifacts sit inside a larger methodology (PARTIS) that we map onto BWW ontology in Section 3. We evaluate the instruments across 127 tasks. Inter-rater agreement reaches Fleiss'

κ= 0.80

; a replication at three further institutions returns

κ= 0.73

. A controlled comparison against activity-level assessment suggests, though does not prove, an improvement in predictive utility at the task level. Pilot deployment of 120 task instances confirms that auto-completion decays monotonically from

95\%

at L1 through about

70\%

at L2 to about

40\%

at L3. Exploratory factor analysis points to a two-factor structure: task readiness seems to be determined jointly by cognitive-execution complexity and governance-compliance intensity. We close with a recalibration procedure (LARA-TCA) so the rubric can keep pace with evolving LLM capabilities.

Mingjun Li, Xiaojun Ye

Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

LLM Agent Evaluation Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Apr 16, 2026cs.AI

HWE-Bench: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Real-World Hardware Bug Repair Tasks

Existing benchmarks for hardware design primarily evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) on isolated, component-level tasks such as generating HDL modules from specifications, leaving repository-scale evaluation unaddressed. We introduce HWE-Bench, the first large-scale, repository-level benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on real-world hardware bug repair tasks. HWE-Bench comprises 417 task instances derived from real historical bug-fix pull requests across six major open-source projects spanning both Verilog/SystemVerilog and Chisel, covering RISC-V cores, SoCs, and security roots-of-trust. Each task is grounded in a fully containerized environment where the agent must resolve a real bug report, with correctness validated through the project's native simulation and regression flows. The benchmark is built through a largely automated pipeline that enables efficient expansion to new repositories. We evaluate seven LLMs with four agent frameworks and find that the best agent resolves 70.7% of tasks overall, with performance exceeding 90% on smaller cores but dropping below 65% on complex SoC-level projects. We observe larger performance gaps across models than commonly reported on software benchmarks, and difficulty is driven by project scope and bug-type distribution rather than code size alone. Our failure analysis traces agent failures to three stages of the debugging process: fault localization, hardware-semantic reasoning, and cross-artifact coordination across RTL, configuration, and verification components, providing concrete directions for developing more capable hardware-aware agents.

Fan Cui, Hongyuan Hou, Zizhang Luo +2

Peking University · Beijing, China

Automated Program Repair Electronic Design Automation LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks

Apr 16, 2026cs.AI

DR $^{3}$ -Eval: Towards Realistic and Reproducible Deep Research Evaluation

Deep Research Agents (DRAs) aim to solve complex, long-horizon research tasks involving planning, retrieval, multimodal understanding, and report generation, yet their evaluation remains challenging due to dynamic web environments and ambiguous task definitions. We propose DR

^{3}

-Eval, a realistic and reproducible benchmark for evaluating deep research agents on multimodal, multi-file report generation. DR

^{3}

-Eval is constructed from authentic user-provided materials and paired with a per-task static research sandbox corpus that simulates open-web complexity while remaining fully verifiable, containing supportive documents, distractors, and noise. Moreover, we introduce a multi-dimensional evaluation framework measuring Information Recall, Factual Accuracy, Citation Coverage, Instruction Following, and Depth Quality, and validate its alignment with human judgments. Experiments with our developed multi-agent system DR

^{3}

-Agent based on multiple state-of-the-art language models demonstrate that DR

^{3}

-Eval is highly challenging and reveals critical failure modes in retrieval robustness and hallucination control. Our code and data are publicly available.

Qianqian Xie, Qingheng Xiong, He Zhu +16

Nanjing University · M-A-P · Nanjing University of Science and Technology +2

LLM Agent Evaluation Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks

Apr 14, 2026physics.comp-ph

Grounded autonomous scrutiny at scale: emergent critique from reproduction of published computational physics papers

Autonomous LLM agents now produce complete research artifacts in machine-learning sandboxes, but real computational physics is harder: experiments are first-principles calculations against re-runnable physical ground truth, and meaningful new work almost always builds on a key existing paper. We ask whether such an agent can perform grounded scrutiny of published computational physics - reading a paper, reproducing it from scratch, and surfacing methodological concerns from execution. We deploy a single Claude Opus 4.6 configuration at two complementary scopes. At scale, across 111 open-access Quantum ESPRESSO papers, an autonomous agent runs the read-plan-compute-compare loop and, although never asked to critique, raises substantive methodological concerns on ~42% of papers; 85 of 88 of these critiques (96.6%) surface only after the agent has actually run a calculation, with a reading-only ceiling of 1.8%. Critique emerges from reproduction, not from reading. In depth, on one Nature Communications paper on multiscale device simulation of a 2D-material MOSFET, a fresh agent inheriting a verified reproduction pipeline autonomously produces a 14-concern physics inventory and a complete, submission-form six-page Comment that revises the paper's L_G = 5 nm headline. Two of its L_G = 5 nm headline-challenging attacks - a source-degeneration contact-resistance bound and a Sb-doping degradation ratio - are absent from the published 21-reviewer peer review.

Haonan Huang

Department of Physics, Princeton University

LLM Agent Evaluation Scientific Reproducibility Automated Peer Review Autonomous Research Agents

Apr 13, 2026cs.AI

UniToolCall: Unifying Tool-Use Representation, Data, and Evaluation for LLM Agents

Tool-use capability is a fundamental component of LLM agents, enabling them to interact with external systems through structured function calls. However, existing research exhibits inconsistent interaction representations, largely overlooks the structural distribution of tool-use trajectories, and relies on incompatible evaluation benchmarks. We present UniToolCall, a unified framework for tool learning that standardizes the entire pipeline from toolset construction and dataset generation to evaluation. The framework curates a large tool pool of 22k+ tools and constructs a hybrid training corpus of 390k+ instances by combining 10 standardized public datasets with structurally controlled synthetic trajectories. It explicitly models diverse interaction patterns, including single-hop vs. multi-hop and single-turn vs. multi-turn, while capturing both serial and parallel execution structures. To support coherent multi-turn reasoning, we further introduce an Anchor Linkage mechanism that enforces cross-turn dependencies. Furthermore, we convert 7 public benchmarks into a unified Query--Action--Observation--Answer (QAOA) representation with fine-grained evaluation at the function-call, turn, and conversation levels. Experiments show that fine-tuning Qwen3-8B on our dataset substantially improves tool-use performance. Under the distractor-heavy Hybrid-20 setting, achieves 93.0% single-turn Strict Precision, outperforming commercial models including GPT, Gemini, and Claude.

Yijuan Liang, Xinghao Chen, Yifan Ge +5

University of Science and Technology of China · Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Industrial Intelligence and Digital Twin, Eastern Institute of Technology, Ningbo · Department of Computing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Tool Use LLM Agent Training Tool Use

Apr 12, 2026cs.LG

Diversity Without Fidelity: A Solver-Sampler Mismatch in Multi-Agent LLM Negotiation Simulation

Language models are increasingly used to simulate people: survey respondents, negotiators, stakeholders in policy exercises. In that role a model should reproduce how people plausibly behave, hesitating, conceding late, and settling for imperfect deals, rather than playing the best move. We call this the sampler role, in contrast to the solver role of finding the best move, and we test how the reasoning modes providers ship to strengthen models as solvers affect it. Our testbed is multi-party negotiation: five agents bargain over a regulation for fifteen turns, and unresolved issues are decided by an authority. Agents without a structured memory of the negotiation almost never reach agreement, whether reasoning is on or off: 314 of 315 such runs end with the authority deciding. What reasoning changes is how the failure looks. With reasoning enabled, one model family negotiates visibly, with varied moves, concessions in most runs, and a different path every time, yet still ends without agreement in fifteen runs of fifteen. Diversity checks would pass a model whose endings never change. Two further results show the task permits agreement: when agents write their own short running notes on the negotiation, agreement becomes the norm, while the same notes supplied ready-made change nothing; and hand-coded agents following textbook concession strategies agree in most runs under identical rules. Simulation pipelines should therefore vet models as samplers, on the distributions of outcomes they produce. Fidelity as a sampler must be tested on its own: solver strength is no guide to it, and switching on reasoning leaves it where it was.

Sandro Andric

Multi-Agent LLM Systems Multi-Agent Negotiation Automated Negotiation LLM Agent Evaluation Large Language Model-Based Social Simulation

Apr 1, 2026cs.CL

Agentic Tool Use in Large Language Models

Large language models are increasingly being deployed as autonomous agents yet their real world effectiveness depends on reliable tools for information retrieval, computation and external action. Existing studies remain fragmented across tasks, tool types, and training settings, lacking a unified view of how tool-use methods differ and evolve. This paper organizes the literature into three paradigms: prompting as plug-and-play, supervised tool learning and reward-driven tool policy learning, analyzes their methods, strengths and failure modes, reviews the evaluation landscape and highlights key challenges, aiming to address this fragmentation and provide a more structured evolutionary view of agentic tool use.

Jinchao Hu, Meizhi Zhong, Kehai Chen +2

School of Computer Science and Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen, China · Independent Researcher, China

LLM Agent Evaluation Tool-Using Agents LLM Tool Use LLM Agent Training RL for Tool Use

Mar 31, 2026cs.HC

Helping Customers in Distress: An LLM-powered Agent that Converses, Probes, and Routes

Banks receive millions of reports of fraud, scams, and disputed transactions every year, making it challenging to accurately direct customers to the appropriate specialist teams for assistance. The existing manual process driven by humans is slow and stressful for both customers and staff. To address this, we develop a customer-facing AI powered triaging agent that leverages large language models (LLMs) to conduct multi-turn conversations, ask relevant questions, and classify cases for accurate, policy-guided routing, making it embedded in the customer journey. To evaluate and continuously improve the agent, synthetic digital twins of real customers were simulated, generating realistic, labelled dialogues based on historical data to test a wide range of real-world scenarios. This work details the triage agent's modelling approach, integration with policy, safety guardrails and reasoning frameworks, the use of the synthetic agent for scalable evaluation, and findings on the AI system's accuracy, robustness, and compliance. Results show that the agent successfully improves triaging of historical cases, achieving a 30.6% increase in classification accuracy, with high satisfaction levels reported by our subject-matter experts, highlighting how targeted probing can lead to more effective triage in banking operations at scale.

Alankar Atreya, Stefan Sylvius Wagner, Devesh Batra +7

NatWest AI Research

Financial Services Customer Support Automation LLM Agent Evaluation LLM Agent Routing

Mar 31, 2026cs.AI

SciVisAgentBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Scientific Data Analysis and Visualization Agents

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled agentic systems to translate natural-language intent into executable scientific visualization (SciVis) tasks. Despite rapid progress, the community lacks a principled and reproducible benchmark for evaluating these emerging SciVis agents in realistic, multi-step analysis settings. We present SciVisAgentBench, a comprehensive and extensible benchmark for evaluating scientific data analysis and visualization agents. Our benchmark is grounded in a structured taxonomy spanning four dimensions: application domain, data type, complexity level, and visualization operation. It currently comprises 108 expert-crafted cases covering diverse SciVis scenarios. To enable reliable assessment, we introduce a multimodal outcome-centric evaluation pipeline that combines LLM-based judging with deterministic evaluators, including image-based metrics, code checkers, rule-based verifiers, and case-specific evaluators. We also conduct a validity study with 12 SciVis experts to examine the agreement between human and LLM judges. Using this framework, we evaluate representative SciVis agents and general-purpose coding agents to establish initial baselines and reveal capability gaps. SciVisAgentBench is designed as a living benchmark to support systematic comparison, diagnose failure modes, and drive progress in agentic SciVis. The benchmark is available at https://scivisagentbench.github.io/.

Kuangshi Ai, Haichao Miao, Kaiyuan Tang +13

University of Notre Dame · Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory · University of Utah +4

Scientific Visualization Data Visualization LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks

Mar 26, 2026cs.SE

Confident and Wrong: Silent Semantic Failures in Coding Agents

As coding agents move into production workflows, teams need to know not only whether an agent completes a task, but whether its action can be trusted. We show that completion and trustworthiness diverge sharply and systematically. Across 1,750 trajectories on 50 SWE-bench Verified tasks, we compare four frontier models over repeated runs and separate submit rate from test-verified resolve rate. GPT-5 submits a patch on 100% of runs but resolves only 44%; Llama 4 submits on 99% but resolves 18%; and Gemini, despite submitting least often at 70%, resolves more tasks than GPT-5 (50% versus 44%). These gaps are not random: they concentrate in one dangerous failure mode we call silent semantic failure. Qualitatively, on a buggy task the agent submits a plausible-looking patch on all five runs, yet none pass, the same misinterpretation repeated rather than random error. Quantitatively, it dominates failure, covering 80% of Llama 4's failing runs and 68% of GPT-5's, and it is invisible: the outcomes are confidently and consistently wrong, so completion-based and consistency-based monitoring both look healthy exactly when the agent should not be trusted. Lightweight pre-edit prompts do not close the gap. A second probe isolates the instinct to act: given an already-fixed bug, where the right move is to abstain, most models still edit the correct code. This action bias, acting when no action is warranted, is exactly what completion metrics reward. The throughline is measurement: submit rate captures action, but trust requires validity. So evaluation must catch up: score agents by test-verified correctness over repeated runs, report its uncertainty, and reward those that know when not to act.

Aman Mehta

Snowflake AI Research

AI Agent Reliability AI Coding Agents LLM Agent Evaluation LLM Agent Reliability

Mar 20, 2026cs.CL

LiveClawBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Complex, Real-World Assistant Tasks

OpenClaw-style personal assistants extend LLM agents from isolated tool use to open-ended, stateful, and personalized software environments. Evaluating these assistants is fundamentally a fidelity problem: benchmarks must be faithful both to the distribution of real assistant tasks and to the execution semantics of the environments in which those tasks unfold. Existing benchmarks often lose fidelity in one dimension or the other. Their task distributions are shaped by what is easy to isolate, mock, and verify, underrepresenting real-world difficulties such as cross-service dependency, contaminated state, implicit intent, and runtime change. Their environments are either live but hard to reproduce, or reproducible but reduced to endpoint-level stubs that remove sessions, artifacts, state transitions, and downstream side effects. We introduce LiveClawBench, a benchmark designed around this dual-fidelity requirement. LiveClawBench combines a Triple-Axis Complexity Framework for difficulty-driven task construction with reproducible full-stack mock applications that preserve stateful execution semantics. With 134 executable cases across 10 domains with 22 mocked services, LiveClawBench supports controlled, extensible, and factor-level diagnostic evaluation of realistic agentic tasks. We release the benchmark resources: (1) Benchmark: https://github.com/Mosi-AI/LiveClawBench; (2) Leaderboard: https://mosi-ai.github.io/LiveClawBench/leaderboard/; (3) Trajectories: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Mosi-AI/LiveClawbench-trajectories

Xiang Long, Li Du, Yilong Xu +11

Samsung Research, Beijing, China · HKUST (Guangzhou) · City University of Hong Kong +1

Computer-Use Agent Benchmarks Tool-Augmented Language Model Agents LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Tool-Using Agents Benchmark Validity+1

Mar 9, 2026cs.LG

$OneMillion-Bench: How Far are Language Agents from Human Experts?

As language models (LMs) evolve from chat assistants to long-horizon agents capable of multi-step reasoning and tool use, existing benchmarks remain largely confined to structured or exam-style tasks that fall short of real-world professional demands. To this end, we introduce $OneMillion-Bench ($OMB), a benchmark of 400 expert-curated tasks spanning Law, Finance, Industry, Healthcare, and Natural Science, built to evaluate agents across economically consequential scenarios. Unlike prior work, the benchmark requires retrieving authoritative sources, resolving conflicting evidence, applying domain-specific rules, and making constraint decisions, where correctness depends as much on the reasoning process as the final answer. We adopt a rubric-based evaluation protocol scoring factual accuracy, logical coherence, practical feasibility, and professional compliance, focusing on expert-level problems to ensure meaningful differentiation across agents. Together, $OMB provides a unified testbed for assessing agentic reliability, professional depth, and an indicator of practical readiness in domain-intensive scenarios.

Yang Liu, Jiaqi Li, Jun Bai +20

BIGAI · Humanlaya · xbench +1

LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks AI Agent Reliability

Mar 8, 2026cs.AI

Safety Under Scaffolding: How Evaluation Conditions Shape Measured Safety

Safety benchmarks usually test "bare" models that receive prompts and output responses, but real-world deployments "wrap" those models in complex scaffolds. How much do these scaffolds affect model safety as measured by benchmarks? We test six leading models on four pre-registered safety benchmarks with a direct API and three scaffolds: ReAct, multi-agent, and map-reduce. We conducted 60,112 scored evaluations. On average, how safety is measured matters more than scaffolding does: we find that using a multiple choice vs. open-ended format for otherwise-identical benchmark items changes measured safety by about 5-20 percentage points (pp). The two formats are scored with different methods (answer extraction and an LLM judge), so the gap is due to measurement rather than differences in latent safety. Using a heuristic to classify model refusals would have led to different findings in four of five cases. Benchmark choice explains 15.1% of the variation in outcomes; scaffold architecture explains 0.5%, about 33x less. We find that map-reduce scaffolds, a form of structure-destroying delegation that strips answer options by decomposing prompts, reduce pooled measured safety by 7.3 pp (95% CI: 6.4 to 8.1). The pooled effects for ReAct and multi-agent scaffolds are within our pre-registered +/-2 pp margin of equivalence. However, there are large differences across models for specific benchmarks and scaffolds that are hidden by pooled estimates: for example, on the same sycophancy benchmark items, Opus 4.6 has 16.8 pp lower measured safety with a map-reduce scaffold, while Llama 4 has 18.8 pp higher measured safety. Composite reliability is G = 0.251 (95% CI: [0.000, 0.879]). This wide confidence interval, which spans "of little use" to "very good", does not support using a single composite measure of model safety as the basis for go/no-go decisions about model deployment.

David Gringras

Harvard University

LLM Safety Benchmarks LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Safety LLM Safety Evaluation Benchmark Validity AI Agent Safety Benchmarks