LLM Agent Evaluation

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have spurred growing interest in using LLM-integrated agents for social simulation, often under the implicit assumption that realistic population dynamics will emerge once role-specified agents are placed in a networked multi-agent setting. This position paper argues that LLM-based agents alone are not (yet) sufficient for social simulation. We attribute this over-optimism to a systematic mismatch between what current agent pipelines are typically optimized and validated to produce and what simulation-as-science requires. Concretely, role-playing plausibility does not imply faithful human behavioral validity; collective outcomes are frequently mediated by agent-environment co-dynamics rather than agent-agent messaging alone; and results can be dominated by interaction protocols, scheduling, and initial information priors. To make these underlying mechanisms explicit and auditable, we propose a unified formulation of AI agent-based social simulation as an environment-involved Markov game with explicit exposure and scheduling mechanisms, from which we derive concrete actions for design, evaluation, and interpretation.

Large language models have advanced web agents, yet current agents lack personalization capabilities. Since users rarely specify every detail of their intent, practical web agents must be able to interpret ambiguous queries by inferring user preferences and contexts. To address this challenge, we present Persona2Web, the first benchmark for evaluating personalized web agents on the real open web, built upon the clarify-to-personalize principle, which requires agents to resolve ambiguity based on user history rather than relying on explicit instructions. Persona2Web consists of: (1) user histories that reveal preferences implicitly over long time spans, (2) ambiguous queries that require agents to infer implicit user preferences, and (3) a reasoning-aware evaluation framework that enables fine-grained assessment of personalization. We conduct extensive experiments across various agent architectures, backbone models, history access schemes, and queries with varying ambiguity levels, revealing key challenges in personalized web agent behavior. For reproducibility, our codes and datasets are publicly available at https://serin-kimm.github.io/Persona2Web/.

LLM-powered AI assistants acting on behalf of users can produce poor collective outcomes at scale. We introduce a framework for evaluating their emergent behaviour in social dilemmas, applied to three iterated games (Public Goods, Collective Risk, Common Pool Resource). We prompt each model to produce a natural-language strategy, then have the same model translate it into code. This aims to isolate strategic reasoning from input-parsing, enables pre-deployment inspection, and scales to populations of hundreds of agents. We propose three analyses: behavioural fingerprinting via exhaustive evaluation over opponent histories; self-play robustness across mixtures of a model's strategies with either a Selfish or Collective disposition; and cultural evolution under payoff-biased imitation. Applied to three state-of-the-art LLMs, we find substantial cross-model differences in self-play welfare, and that cultural evolution converges to low-welfare, Selfish-dominant equilibria in larger groups.

We introduce a comprehensive validation framework for LLM-based agentic systems that provides systematic diagnosis and improvement of reliability failures. The framework includes fifteen failure-detection tools and two root-cause analysis modules that jointly uncover weaknesses across input handling, prompt design, and output generation. It integrates lightweight rule-based checks with LLM-as-a-judge assessments to support structured incident detection, classification, and repair. We applied the framework to IBM CUGA, evaluating its performance on the AppWorld and WebArena benchmarks. The analysis revealed recurrent planner misalignments, schema violations, brittle prompt dependencies, and more. Based on these insights, we refined both prompting and coding strategies, maintaining CUGA's benchmark results while enabling mid-sized models such as Llama 4 and Mistral Medium to achieve notable accuracy gains, substantially narrowing the gap with frontier models. Beyond quantitative validation, we conducted an exploratory study that fed the framework's diagnostic outputs and agent description into an LLM for self-reflection and prioritization. This interactive analysis produced actionable insights on recurring failure patterns and focus areas for improvement, demonstrating how validation itself can evolve into an agentic, dialogue-driven process. These results show a path toward scalable, quality assurance, and adaptive validation in production agentic systems, offering a foundation for more robust, interpretable, and self-improving agentic architectures.

LLM-based agents execute real-world workflows via tools and memory. These affordances enable ill-intended adversaries to also use these agents to carry out complex misuse scenarios. Existing agent misuse benchmarks largely test single-prompt instructions, leaving a gap in measuring how agents end up helping with harmful or illegal tasks over multiple turns. We introduce STING (Sequential Testing of Illicit N-step Goal execution), an automated red-teaming framework that constructs a step-by-step illicit plan grounded in a benign persona and iteratively probes a target agent with adaptive follow-ups, using judge agents to track phase completion. We further introduce an analysis framework that models multi-turn red-teaming as a time-to-first-jailbreak random variable, enabling analysis tools like discovery curves, hazard-ratio attribution by attack language, and a new metric: Restricted Mean Jailbreak Discovery. Across AgentHarm scenarios, STING yields substantially higher illicit-task completion than single-turn prompting and chat-oriented multi-turn baselines adapted to tool-using agents. In multilingual evaluations across six non-English settings, we find that attack success and illicit-task completion do not consistently increase in lower-resource languages, diverging from common chatbot findings. Overall, STING provides a practical way to evaluate and stress-test agent misuse in realistic deployment settings, where interactions are inherently multi-turn and often multilingual.

Interactive large language model (LLM) agents operating via multi-turn dialogue and multi-step tool calling are increasingly used in production. Benchmarks for these agents must both reliably compare models and yield on-policy training data. Prior agentic benchmarks, such as tau-bench, tau^2-bench, and AppWorld, rely on fully deterministic backends, which are costly to build and iterate. We propose Proxy State-Based Evaluation, an LLM-driven simulation framework that preserves final state-based evaluation without a deterministic database. Specifically, a scenario specifies the user goal, user/system facts, expected final state, and expected agent behavior, and an LLM state tracker infers a structured proxy state from the full interaction trace. LLM judges then verify goal completion and detect tool/user hallucinations against scenario constraints. Empirically, our benchmark produces stable, model-differentiating rankings across model families and inference-time reasoning efforts, and its on-/off-policy rollouts provide supervision that transfers to unseen scenarios. Careful scenario specification yields near-zero simulator hallucination rates, as supported by ablation studies. The framework also supports sensitivity analyses over user personas. Human-LLM judge agreement exceeds 90%, indicating reliable automated evaluation. Overall, proxy state-based evaluation offers a practical, scalable alternative to deterministic agentic benchmarks for industrial LLM agents.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as agents to solve complex tasks such as question answering (QA), scientific debate, and software development. A standard evaluation procedure aggregates multiple responses from LLM agents into a single final answer, often via majority voting, and compares it against reference answers. However, this process can obscure the quality and distributional characteristics of the original responses. In this paper, we propose a novel evaluation framework based on the empirical cumulative distribution function (ECDF) of cosine similarities between generated responses and reference answers. This enables a more nuanced assessment of response quality beyond exact match metrics. To analyze the response distributions across different agent configurations, we further introduce a clustering method for ECDFs using their distances and the $k$-medoids algorithm. Our experiments on a QA dataset demonstrate that ECDFs can distinguish between agent settings with similar final accuracies but different quality distributions. The clustering analysis also reveals interpretable group structures in the responses, offering insights into the impact of temperature, persona, and question topics.

Online platforms require robust systems to enforce content safety policies at scale. A critical component of these systems is the ability to evaluate the quality of moderation decisions made by both human agents and Large Language Models (LLMs). However, this evaluation is challenging due to the inherent trade-offs between cost, scale, and trustworthiness, along with the complexity of evolving policies. To address this, we present a comprehensive Decision Quality Evaluation Framework developed and deployed at Pinterest. The framework is centered on a high-trust Golden Set (GDS) curated by subject matter experts (SMEs), which serves as a ground truth benchmark. We introduce an automated intelligent sampling pipeline that uses propensity scores to efficiently expand dataset coverage. We demonstrate the framework's practical application in several key areas: benchmarking the cost-performance trade-offs of various LLM agents, establishing a rigorous methodology for data-driven prompt optimization, managing complex policy evolution, and ensuring the integrity of policy content prevalence metrics via continuous validation. The framework enables a shift from subjective assessments to a data-driven and quantitative practice for managing content safety systems.

We present a domain-grounded framework and benchmark for tool-aware plan generation in contact centers, where answering a query for business insights, our target use case, requires decomposing it into executable steps over structured tools (Text2SQL (T2S)/Snowflake) and unstructured tools (RAG/transcripts) with explicit depends_on for parallelism. Our contributions are threefold: (i) a reference-based plan evaluation framework operating in two modes - a metric-wise evaluator spanning seven dimensions (e.g., tool-prompt alignment, query adherence) and a one-shot evaluator; (ii) a data curation methodology that iteratively refines plans via an evaluator->optimizer loop to produce high-quality plan lineages (ordered plan revisions) while reducing manual effort; and (iii) a large-scale study of 14 LLMs across sizes and families for their ability to decompose queries into step-by-step, executable, and tool-assigned plans, evaluated under prompts with and without lineage. Empirically, LLMs struggle on compound queries and on plans exceeding 4 steps (typically 5-15); the best total metric score reaches 84.8% (Claude-3-7-Sonnet), while the strongest one-shot match rate at the "A+" tier (Extremely Good, Very Good) is only 49.75% (o3-mini). Plan lineage yields mixed gains overall but benefits several top models and improves step executability for many. Our results highlight persistent gaps in tool-understanding, especially in tool-prompt alignment and tool-usage completeness, and show that shorter, simpler plans are markedly easier. The framework and findings provide a reproducible path for assessing and improving agentic planning with tools for answering data-analysis queries in contact-center settings.

While Large Language Model (LLM) agents have made remarkable progress on complex reasoning, evaluating them in real-world environments remains an open problem. Existing benchmarks are largely confined to idealized simulations and fail to capture specialized domains such as advertising and marketing analytics, where tasks require multi-round interaction with professional tools and where ground-truth answers quickly become obsolete as data and platform rules evolve. To address this, we propose AD-Bench, a benchmark built from real user marketing-analysis requests on a production advertising platform. AD-Bench introduces two key designs: (i) a dynamic ground-truth pipeline that replays expert tool-call trajectories to regenerate answers consistent with the current environment, mitigating answer obsolescence; and (ii) a trajectory-aware evaluation that jointly measures end-to-end answer correctness (Pass@k) and trajectory coverage. Requests are stratified into three difficulty levels (L1-L3) to probe multi-round, multi-tool collaboration. Experiments show that the best model, Claude-Opus-4.7, attains Pass@1 = 76.9% and Pass@3 = 80.4% with 82.7% trajectory coverage overall, yet drops sharply on L3 to Pass@1 = 61.4% and Pass@3 = 65.1%, revealing that even state-of-the-art agents have substantial gaps in complex advertising analytics.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly capable of carrying out complex, long-horizon tasks, yet effective assistance requires more than faithfully executing user instructions. Users' requests reflect their current understanding of the problem, which may be incomplete, outdated, or incorrect. When this understanding diverges from the actual task state, literal instruction following can fail to accomplish the user's underlying goal. We introduce BASIS (Belief-Aware Solutions in Interactive Settings), a benchmark that evaluates whether agents can infer the mental states underlying user requests, recognize belief-reality mismatches, and use this understanding to develop appropriate solutions. Rather than assessing mental-state inference solely through explicit questions, BASIS evaluates both the utility of such inferences and the quality of downstream solutions in user-agent interactions. Evaluation results show that current models often fail to account for users' mental states when generating solutions, and that solution quality is consistently higher when such information is explicitly elicited and made available during problem solving. We further investigate the practical value of mental-state consideration through comparisons with generic Chain-of-Thought prompting, controlled interventions on mental-state information, targeted training, and multi-agent collaboration experiments under partial observability. Together, these studies highlight the importance of not merely inferring others' mental states, but also using those understandings to provide grounded, goal-directed assistance.

A widespread practice in software development is to tailor coding agents to repositories using context files, such as AGENTS.md. Although this practice is strongly encouraged by agent developers, there is currently no rigorous investigation into whether such context files are actually effective for real-world tasks. In this work, we study this question and evaluate coding agents' task completion performance in two complementary settings: established SWE-bench tasks from popular repositories, with LLM-generated context files, and a novel collection of issues from repositories containing developer-committed context files. Surprisingly, we find that providing context files does not generally improve task success rates, while increasing inference cost by over 20% on average. This observation holds across different LLMs, coding agents, and for both LLM-generated and developer-committed context files. Specifically, we find that while instructions in the context files are well followed by coding agents, repository overviews, although popular and recommended by model providers, are not helpful. We conclude that while context files are useful for specifying non-standard coding practices, any attempts to improve performance should be rigorously evaluated before deployment.

Running the same LLM agent on identical inputs yields 2.3-4.2 distinct action sequences per 10 runs; this behavioral variance constitutes a training-free, black-box uncertainty signal that instantiates selective classification and distribution-free calibration for agentic systems. Across 8,000 runs of four models on 200 HotpotQA questions, consistent tasks (at most 2 unique paths) achieve 82-87% accuracy while inconsistent tasks (4 or more paths) achieve 41-65%, a gap that survives controls for task difficulty. Divergence concentrates at step 2 (50.5% of Llama tasks), and consistency metrics detect failures with AUROC 0.62-0.78. Exploiting this signal, selective prediction (answering only when k=3 runs agree) achieves 87-88% accuracy at 54-62% coverage, a 6-14pp gain over single-run baselines, and matches a split-conformal baseline without a held-out calibration set. A cross-benchmark validation on SWE-bench (50 tasks, 1,000 runs) preserves the consistency hierarchy while revealing an ~8x spread in mean trajectory length across models, and bootstrap analysis shows single-run evaluations misrank models 29.3% of the time.

The literature has witnessed an emerging interest in AI agents for automated assessment of scientific papers. Existing benchmarks focus primarily on the computational aspect of this task, testing agents' ability to reproduce or replicate research outcomes when having access to the code and data. This setting, while foundational, (1) fails to capture the inconsistent availability of new data for replication as opposed to reproduction, and (2) lacks ground-truth diversity by focusing only on reproducible papers, thereby failing to evaluate an agent's ability to identify non-replicable research. Furthermore, most benchmarks only evaluate outcomes rather than the replication process. In response, we introduce ReplicatorBench, an end-to-end benchmark, including human-verified replicable and non-replicable research claims in social and behavioral sciences for evaluating AI agents in research replication across three stages: (1) extraction and retrieval of replication data; (2) design and execution of computational experiments; and (3) interpretation of results, allowing a test of AI agents' capability to mimic the activities of human replicators in real world. To set a baseline of AI agents' capability, we develop ReplicatorAgent, an agentic framework equipped with necessary tools, like web search and iterative interaction with sandboxed environments, to accomplish tasks in ReplicatorBench. We evaluate ReplicatorAgent across four underlying large language models (LLMs), as well as different design choices of programming language and levels of code access. Our findings reveal that while current LLM agents are capable of effectively designing and executing computational experiments, they struggle with retrieving resources, such as new data, necessary to replicate a claim. All code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/CenterForOpenScience/llm-benchmarking.

Modern LLM-based agents and chat assistants rely on long-term memory frameworks to store reusable knowledge, recall user preferences, and augment reasoning. As researchers create more complex memory architectures, it becomes increasingly difficult to analyze their capabilities and guide future memory designs. Most long-term memory benchmarks focus on simple fact retention, multi-hop recall, and time-based changes. While undoubtedly important, these capabilities can often be achieved with simple retrieval-augmented LLMs and do not test complex memory hierarchies. To bridge this gap, we propose StructMemEval - a benchmark that tests the agent's ability to organize its long-term memory, not just factual recall. We gather a suite of tasks that humans solve by organizing their knowledge in a specific structure: transaction ledgers, to-do lists, trees and others. Our initial experiments show that simple retrieval-augmented LLMs struggle with these tasks, whereas memory agents can reliably solve them if prompted how to organize their memory. However, we also find that modern LLMs do not always recognize the memory structure when not prompted to do so. This highlights an important direction for future improvements in both LLM training and memory frameworks.

Autonomous web agents are increasingly deployed in moderation and policy enforcement, where correct decisions often depend on evidence that is not immediately visible and must be actively investigated. Yet existing benchmarks largely assume task critical information is immediately accessible. They do not measure investigative competence: recognizing when visible context is insufficient, retrieving hidden evidence, and integrating it into a final decision. We introduce MIRAGE, a benchmark of 750 multi step decision tasks across three domains: Wikipedia Forensics, Shopping Admin adjudication, and Reddit Moderation. Each task has two layers: a visible surface context that often points to the wrong action, and a hidden context, reachable only by active investigation, that contains the decisive evidence. We decompose agent performance into Investigation, Reasoning, and Decision Accuracy, complemented by an Investigative Hallucination Rate. We evaluate eight LLM agents across two model generations. Three patterns emerge. First, agents reach relevant pages but rarely extract the decisive evidence on them. Second, procedural hints improve investigation but do not consistently improve decisions on Wikipedia tasks, where decisive evidence often contradicts surface impressions. Third, 12.6% of trajectories cite fabricated facts. We call these the Navigation Discovery Gap, Collapse under Contradiction, and Investigative Hallucination. These patterns persist across model scale, generation, and reasoning architecture.

Multi-agent LLM frameworks are data-intensive systems that govern how agents orchestrate tasks, manage state, and coordinate decisions. These architectural choices control execution overhead, memory behavior, planning effectiveness, and coordination scalability. Their impact on system performance remains poorly understood. Existing benchmarks evaluate individual agent capabilities in isolation and lack standardized framework-level comparison. We make four contributions. We introduce an architectural taxonomy that decomposes multi-agent LLM frameworks along five dimensions: orchestration, memory, planning interfaces, specialization, and communication topology. We develop MAFBench, a unified evaluation suite that integrates existing benchmarks within a standardized execution pipeline. We conduct a controlled empirical study across nine frameworks, fixing the underlying LLM and varying only architectural design choices. We distill the results into six evidence-based design principles. Architectural design, not only model intelligence, governs performance. Orchestration alone increases latency by over 60x, and a minimal implementation of the same paradigm isolates that cost as implementation rather than paradigm. Schema-constrained planning interfaces reduce accuracy by up to 32 points through formatting failures, not reasoning errors. Communication topology drops coordination success from above 90% to below 30% under mismatched structure. Memory architecture controls recall and scalability independent of context window size, and no evaluated framework natively supports controlled knowledge revision.

Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) built on Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit high variance in their reasoning trajectories. Process verification, which evaluates intermediate steps in trajectories, has shown promise in general reasoning settings, and has been suggested as a potential tool for guiding coordination of MAS; however, its actual effectiveness in MAS remains unclear. To fill this gap, we present MAS-ProVe, a systematic empirical study of process verification for multi-agent systems (MAS). Our study spans three verification paradigms (LLM-as-a-Judge, reward models, and process reward models), evaluated across two levels of verification granularity (agent-level and iteration-level). We further examine five representative verifiers and four context management strategies, and conduct experiments over six diverse MAS frameworks on multiple reasoning benchmarks. We find that process-level verification does not consistently improve performance and frequently exhibits high variance, highlighting the difficulty of reliably evaluating partial multi-agent trajectories. Among the methods studied, LLM-as-a-Judge generally outperforms reward-based approaches, with trained judges surpassing general-purpose LLMs. We further observe a small performance gap between LLMs acting as judges and as single agents, and identify a context-length-performance trade-off in verification. Overall, our results suggest that effective and robust process verification for MAS remains an open challenge, requiring further advances beyond current paradigms. Code is available at https://github.com/Wang-ML-Lab/MAS-ProVe.

AI agents often fail in ways that are difficult to localize because executions are probabilistic, long-horizon, multi-agent, and mediated by noisy tool outputs. We address this gap by manually annotating failed agent runs and release a novel benchmark of 170 trajectories across 11 diverse task settings, including structured API workflows, incident management, and open-ended web/file tasks. Each trajectory is annotated with a critical failure step and a category from a grounded-theory derived, cross-domain failure taxonomy. To mitigate the human cost of failure attribution, we present AgentRx, an $\textit{automated diagnostic framework}$ that pinpoints the critical failure step in a failed agent trajectory. It synthesizes constraints, evaluates them step-by-step, and produces an auditable validation log of constraint violations with associated evidence; an LLM-based judge uses this log to localize the critical step and category. AgentRx improves step localization by 75% on average over prior work, while providing failure category attribution.

Diagnosing failure patterns in Deep Research Agents (DRAs) remains a critical challenge. Existing benchmarks predominantly rely on end-to-end evaluation, obscuring intermediate hallucinations that accumulate throughout the research trajectory. To bridge this gap, we propose a shift from outcome-based to process-aware evaluation by auditing hallucinations in the full plan-search-summarize trajectory. We introduce the PING Taxonomy, which categorizes DRA hallucinations into four complementary types: Propagation, Intent, Noise-induced, and Grounding. We further instantiate this taxonomy into a fine-grained evaluation framework that decomposes trajectories into atomic actions, claims, and sub-queries for rigorous verification, and we validate its reliability on standard fact-checking benchmarks and human-reviewed trajectories. Leveraging this framework to isolate 100 hallucination-prone tasks, including adversarial scenarios, we curate DeepHalluBench. Experiments on six representative DRAs show that, on our hallucination-prone stress-test set, all evaluated systems still exhibit non-negligible reliability gaps. Furthermore, our diagnostic analysis traces these failures to systemic deficits, especially hallucination propagation and cognitive biases, providing actionable insights for future architectural optimization. Code and data are available at https://github.com/yuhao-zhan/DeepHalluBench.

LLM-based agents are rapidly being adopted across diverse domains. Since they interact with users without supervision, they must be tested extensively. Current testing approaches focus on acceptance-level evaluation from the user's perspective. While intuitive, these tests require manual evaluation, are difficult to automate, do not facilitate root cause analysis, and incur expensive test environments. In this paper, we present methods to enable structural testing of LLM-based agents. Our approach utilizes traces (based on OpenTelemetry) to capture agent trajectories, employs mocking to enforce reproducible LLM behavior, and adds assertions to automate test verification. This enables testing agent components and interactions at a deeper technical level within automated workflows. We demonstrate how structural testing enables the adaptation of software engineering best practices to agents, including the test automation pyramid, regression testing, test-driven development, and multi-language testing. In representative case studies, we demonstrate automated execution and faster root-cause analysis. Collectively, these methods reduce testing costs and improve agent quality through higher coverage, reusability, and earlier defect detection. We provide an open source reference implementation on GitHub.

Recent LLM-based data agents aim to automate data science tasks ranging from data analysis to deep learning. However, the open-ended nature of real-world data science problems, which often span multiple taxonomies and lack standard answers, poses a significant challenge for evaluation. To address this, we introduce DSAEval, a benchmark comprising 641 real-world data science problems grounded in 285 diverse datasets, covering both structured and unstructured data (e.g., image and text). DSAEval incorporates three distinctive features: (1) Multimodal Environment Perception, which enables agents to interpret observations from multiple modalities, including text and vision; (2) Multi-Query Interactions, which mirror the iterative and cumulative nature of real-world data science projects; and (3) Multi-Dimensional Evaluation, which provides a holistic assessment across reasoning, code, and results. We systematically evaluate 13 recent advanced agentic LLMs using DSAEval. Our results show that Claude-Sonnet-4.5 achieves the strongest overall performance, MiMo-V2-Pro and GPT-5.2 lead in duration and step efficiency, respectively, and MiMo-V2-Flash is the most cost-effective. We further demonstrate that multimodal perception consistently improves performance on vision-related tasks, with gains ranging from 2.04% to 11.30%. Overall, while current data science agents perform well on structured data and routine data analysis workflows, substantial challenges remain in unstructured domains. Finally, we offer critical insights and outline future research directions.

Large Language Models (LLMs) generate text token-by-token in discrete time, yet real-world communication, from therapy sessions to business negotiations, critically depends on continuous time constraints. We use simulated negotiations between paired agents under strict deadlines to study adaptation to real-time pressure. Agents either receive only the initial deadline or explicit remaining-time updates at each turn. Remaining-time feedback raises deal closure from 4% to 32% for GPT-5.1-chat-latest and increases offer acceptance more than sixfold. The same model achieves near-perfect closure under turn-based limits, showing that poor wall-clock performance is not simply due to insufficient negotiation competence. Across additional interface conditions, qualitative urgency cues can outperform numeric countdowns, repeated deadline reminders do not consistently reproduce their benefits, and directed time tracking can help or hurt depending on the model. Across additional negotiation scenarios and model configurations, we find real-time temporal adaptation is fragile, model-dependent, and sensitive to how temporal constraints are presented. Code available at https://github.com/sehgal-neil/llm-temporal-awareness

Replaying a financial agent requires specifying the conditions of a rerun, preserving its execution record, and deciding which parts of its behavior to compare. We introduce the Determinism-Faithfulness Assurance Harness (DFAH), a framework and practical protocol for organizing these choices. The framework distinguishes comparisons of final decisions, tool-name sets, and ordered tool names, while treating support from available evidence as a separate evaluation target. We illustrate the framework using 2,957 recorded executions in synthetic compliance-triage and data-operations tasks. One data-operations configuration repeated its recorded decision across all trials on 84% of cases, while its ordered tool-name sequence repeated on 26%. Conversely, some compliance cases retained the same tool sequence while recorded decisions changed. A case-level example shows how repeated labels accompanied different lookups and escalation calls. These observations demonstrate how the comparison level changes the description of repeated behavior. The resulting protocol connects configuration control, preservation of each attempt, comparison of records, and inspection of changed cases. DFAH provides a practical foundation for designing replay experiments and locating execution differences during the development and evaluation of financial agents.

Recent LLM-for-Space systems address mission planning, scheduling, operations support, simulator control, and autonomy, but their evaluations use different task contracts, control settings, simulators, and success criteria. We introduce AstroAgentBench, a seven-family benchmark for executable space mission planning in the domains of scheduling, observation planning, constellation design, and relay support. For each case, an agent submits a planning artifact that is checked by an external verifier for schema, timing, geometry, resources, and mission value. Results report validity and normalized scores, with comparisons to task-specific solver references. Across five LLM agent systems and 35 held-out cases, the strongest systems approach or exceed solver-reference scores on several families, while weaker systems often fail to produce high-value valid plans and even strong systems lose quality on geometric, product-level, or design-heavy tasks. Trace analyses separate two failure points: task-contract misformulation and weak solution construction. Successful runs instead calibrate agent-written implementations against verifier feedback and adapt search to case-specific structure. Ablations show that procedure injection and memory accumulation help selectively, when they supply the missing formulation, calibration, or search support.

Deep Research Agents (DRA) aim to help users search the web, synthesize information, and deliver comprehensive investigative reports. Prior benchmarks often either under-evaluate a system's ability to produce meaningful insights and high-quality writing, or adopt coarse or LLM-defined criteria that are hard to verify and can diverge from human expert judgment. To address these issues, we introduce Deep Research Bench II, a new benchmark for evaluating DRAs. It contains 132 grounded research tasks across 22 domains; for each task, an agent must produce a research report that is evaluated by a set of 9,430 fine-grained binary rubrics in total, covering three dimensions: information recall, analysis, and presentation. All rubrics are derived from carefully selected expert-written investigative articles and are constructed through a four-stage LLM+human pipeline that combines automatic extraction with over 400 human-hours of expert review, ensuring that the criteria are verifiable and aligned with human expert judgment. We evaluate several state-of-the-art deep-research agents on Deep Research Bench II and find that even the strongest models satisfy fewer than 50% of the rubrics, revealing a substantial gap between current DRAs and human experts. We release the benchmark, evaluation scripts, and all rubrics at https://github.com/imlrz/DeepResearch-Bench-II to facilitate future research on deep-rearch agents.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based deep research agents perform multi-step reasoning, web exploration, and long-form report generation. In these long-horizon workflows, early deviations from user intent can misdirect research and propagate through planning, search, and synthesis, making timely interaction essential. However, existing benchmarks primarily treat deep research as a static input-output task, overlooking agents' ability to elicit and use user feedback. We introduce IDRBench, a benchmark for evaluating interactive deep research with controlled opportunities for clarification. Within a common workflow and stage-wise interaction budget, IDRBench compares autonomous and interactive trajectories, measuring interaction benefit through changes in task-specific report alignment and interaction cost through turns and tokens. Comprehensive experiments on 100 tasks with seven proprietary and open-weight LLMs show that interaction improves all five alignment measures for every model, yielding an average gain of 6.39 points, while revealing distinct trade-offs among autonomous performance, alignment gain, and communication cost. At the task level, interaction improves performance in 74.4% of cases but degrades it in 19.9%, demonstrating that access to clarification alone does not guarantee better outcomes: success depends on what agents ask and how effectively they incorporate the resulting feedback.

While Large Language Model (LLM) role-playing agents have advanced rapidly, it remains unclear which profile elements genuinely drive role-playing quality. To bridge this gap, we introduce a systematic diagnostic framework that disentangles the impact of character profiles along three axes: Familiarity (Known vs. Unknown), Structure (Structured vs. Unstructured), and Disposition (Moral vs. Immoral). Utilizing a unified hierarchical schema (5 dimensions, 28 fields), we construct a controlled dataset of 211 personas and evaluate five LLMs on both single- and multi-turn interactions. Our results reveal a striking asymmetry: Familiarity and Structure show negligible impact, while Disposition produces large, consistent performance degradation for immoral characters across all conditions. Further analyses suggest that the Moral--Immoral gap is amplified by post-SFT alignment, and that this degradation varies substantially across profile attributes. To mitigate this bottleneck, we propose Field-Aware Contrastive Decoding (FACD), a training-free strategy that amplifies suppressed disposition-sensitive signals, significantly closing the performance gap without sacrificing moral-character performance.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly serving as autonomous agents, and their utilization of external tools via the Model Context Protocol (MCP) is considered a future trend. Current MCP evaluation sets suffer from issues such as reliance on external MCP services and a lack of difficulty awareness. To address these limitations, we propose MCPAgentBench, a benchmark based on real-world MCP definitions designed to evaluate the tool-use capabilities of agents. We construct a dataset containing authentic tasks and simulated MCP tools. The evaluation employs a dynamic sandbox environment that presents agents with candidate tool lists containing distractors, thereby testing their tool selection and discrimination abilities. Furthermore, we introduce comprehensive metrics to measure both task completion rates and execution efficiency. Experiments conducted on state-of-the-art LLMs reveal significant performance differences in handling complex, multi-step tool invocations. All code is open-source at https://github.com/Brunestuder/MCPAgentBench.

Recent advances in large language models have enabled deep research systems that generate expert-level reports through multi-step reasoning and evidence-based synthesis. However, evaluating such reports remains challenging: report quality is multifaceted, making it difficult to determine what to assess and which criteria to use; LLM-based judges may miss errors that require domain expertise to identify; and because deep research relies on retrieved evidence, report-wide claim verification is also necessary. To address these issues, we propose DEER, a benchmark for evaluating expert-level deep research reports. DEER systematizes evaluation criteria with an expert-developed taxonomy (7 dimensions, 25 subdimensions) operationalized as 101 fine-grained rubric items. We also provide task-specific Expert Evaluation Guidance to support LLM-based judging. In addition to rubric-based assessment, we propose a claim verification architecture that verifies both cited and uncited claims and quantifies evidence quality. Experiments show that current systems produce structurally plausible, evidence-citing reports, but still struggle to fully satisfy expert-level user requests and achieve logical completeness. Beyond performance comparisons, DEER makes system strengths and limitations interpretable and provides diagnostic signals for improvement.