LLM Agent Evaluation
LLM: Large Language Model
Overview
The field studies whether language-model agents can use tools, manage state, follow instructions, and achieve users’ goals across multi-step interactions. Benchmarks place agents in executable settings such as coding repositories, websites, terminals, business workflows, and medical or scientific tasks, while methods use hidden tests, state checks, trajectory analysis, and simulated users to assess performance. Evaluation increasingly includes cost, latency, privacy, safety, consistency, and process quality—not just whether the final answer is correct. Results remain difficult to compare because harnesses and scoring choices can change rankings, and strong performance on short or isolated tasks often fails to transfer to long-horizon real-world work.
Latest papers
1,221 papers231 papers in the last four weeks, up 62% on the four weeks before. 1.3% of all new papers.
DynaSchedBench: Calibrated Dynamic Scheduling Benchmarks and Observability Paradox in LLM-based Scheduling Agents
Benchmarks are Not Enough: RAMP for Runtime Assessing of Agentic Models in Production Systems
QUACK: Questioning, Understanding, and Auditing Communicated Knowledge in Multimodal Social Deduction Agents
It's Not the Capability: Harness Sensitivity Is Non-Monotone Across LLM Agent Tiers
Towards Feedback-to-Plan Decisions for Self-Evolving LLM Agents in CUDA Kernel Generation
CUDAnalyst, a unified analysis layer for controlled, generation-level attribution of planning decisions to feedback components via trajectory freezing and selective feedback injection. CUDAnalyst enables stable generation-level evaluation and principled coalitional-style attribution of feedback effects and interactions. Our results show that explicit planning is beneficial only when feedback is aligned, that effective planning emerges from structured multi-feedback interactions, and that high-level plans from stronger reasoning models can partially transfer to weaker ones. These trends hold across reference backbones, representative workloads, and reference induction regimes, indicating that the identified feedback-to-plan structure is robust within the controlled axes studied.