LLM Agent Evaluation

LLM: Large Language Model

Ask about this topic

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

CardsList

1,217 papers231 papers in the last four weeks, up 62% on the four weeks before. 1.3% of all new papers.

Dec 12, 2025

AGAPI-Agents: An Open-Access Agentic AI Platform for Accelerated Materials Design on AtomGPT.org

Agentic AI systems increasingly connect large language models (LLMs) to external scientific tools, yet whether and when tool access improves prediction accuracy remains uncharacterized. We present AGAPI (AtomGPT.org API), an open access platform integrating eight open-source LLMs with 18 REST endpoints (28 agent tools, 50 web apps) spanning materials databases, force fields, tight-binding band structures, X-ray diffraction, and protein structure. A three-evaluation residual decomposition on JARVIS-Leaderboard electronic-structure test sets separates agent pipeline fidelity from inherited density functional theory (DFT) functional bias. For bulk modulus and bandgap the agent reproduces JARVIS-DFT entries to numerical precision, so the experimental-reference degradation is functional bias, not agentic malfunction. On memorization-resistant test sets (57 defective supercells, 60 hypothetical compositions), tool-augmented mean absolute error (MAE) is below 0.005 eV versus 1.25 to 1.86 eV tool-free, confirming tools are indispensable where parametric knowledge is unavailable. We further demonstrate autonomous multi-step workflows including 10-operation defect-engineering pipelines. AGAPI is available at https://github.com/atomgptlab/agapi.

Jaehyung Lee, Justin Ely, Kent Zhang +3

Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA · Department of Physics and Astronomy, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA

AI Agents for Scientific DiscoveryLLM Agent EvaluationMaterials Property PredictionTool-Using AgentsComputational Materials Science
AskPDF
Dec 2, 2025

PPTArena: A Benchmark for PowerPoint Editing

We introduce PPTArena, a benchmark for PowerPoint editing that evaluates how agents modify real slides from natural-language instructions. Unlike benchmarks that rely on image-PDF renderings or text-to-slide generation, PPTArena features 100 decks with over 1,300 human-curated edits across 2,125 slides, spanning text, charts, animations, and professional master styles. Each edit pairs a ground-truth deck with a target rubric and is scored by two Vision-Language Model (VLM) judges: one rates instruction following from structural diffs, the other visual quality from slide images. On top of this benchmark, we present PPTPilot, a structure-aware agent that plans semantic edit sequences, routes between programmatic tools and deterministic XML operations, and verifies each result in an iterative plan-edit-check loop. PPTPilot outperforms strong VLM-based agents by more than 10 percentage points on compound, layout-sensitive, and cross-slide edits, with large gains in visual fidelity and deck-wide consistency. Despite this, all agents still struggle on long-horizon, document-scale tasks, underscoring how hard reliable PowerPoint editing remains. We publicly release our code at https://github.com/michaelofengend/PPTArena .

Michael Ofengenden, Yunze Man, Ziqi Pang +2

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · University of California, Berkeley

LLM Agent EvaluationAI Agent BenchmarksTool-Using Agents
AskPDF
Nov 19, 2025

Multi-Agent LLM Orchestration Achieves Deterministic, High-Quality Decision Support for Incident Response

Large language models (LLMs) promise to accelerate incident response in production systems, yet single-agent approaches generate vague, unusable recommendations. We present MyAntFarm.ai, a reproducible containerized framework demonstrating that multi-agent orchestration fundamentally transforms LLM-based incident response quality. Through 348 controlled trials comparing single-agent copilot versus multi-agent systems on identical incident scenarios, we find that multi-agent orchestration achieves 100% actionable recommendation rate versus 1.7% for single-agent approaches, an 80 times improvement in action specificity and 140 times improvement in solution correctness. Critically, multi-agent systems exhibit zero quality variance across all trials, enabling production SLA commitments impossible with inconsistent single-agent outputs. Both architectures achieve similar comprehension latency (approx.40s), establishing that the architectural value lies in deterministic quality, not speed. We introduce Decision Quality (DQ), a novel metric capturing validity, specificity, and correctness properties essential for operational deployment that existing LLM metrics do not address. These findings reframe multi-agent orchestration from a performance optimization to a production-readiness requirement for LLM-based incident response. All code, Docker configurations, and trial data are publicly available for reproduction.

Philip Drammeh

Independent Researcher

Multi-Agent LLM SystemsLLM Agent OrchestrationLLM Agent EvaluationCybersecurityLLM Agent Reliability
AskPDF
Nov 4, 2025

CostBench: Evaluating Multi-Turn Cost-Optimal Planning and Adaptation in Dynamic Environments for LLM Tool-Use Agents

Current evaluations of Large Language Model (LLM) agents primarily emphasize task completion, often overlooking resource efficiency and adaptability. This neglects a crucial capability: agents' ability to devise and adjust cost-optimal plans in response to changing environments. To bridge this gap, we introduce CostBench, a scalable, cost-centric benchmark designed to evaluate agents' economic reasoning and replanning abilities. Situated in the travel-planning domain, CostBench comprises tasks solvable via multiple sequences of atomic and composite tools with diverse, customizable costs. It also supports four types of dynamic blocking events, such as tool failures and cost changes, to simulate real-world unpredictability and necessitate agents to adapt in real time. Evaluating leading open-sourced and proprietary models on CostBench reveals a substantial gap in cost-aware planning: agents frequently fail to identify cost-optimal solutions in static settings, with even GPT-5 achieving less than 75% exact match rate on the hardest tasks, and performance further dropping by around 40% under dynamic conditions. By diagnosing these weaknesses, CostBench lays the groundwork for developing future agents that are both economically rational and robust.

Jiayu Liu, Cheng Qian, Zhaochen Su +4

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Tsinghua University

LLM PlanningLLM Agent EvaluationAI Agent BenchmarksModel-Based PlanningTravel PlanningDynamic Replanning+1
AskPDF
Oct 22, 2025

Beyond Reactivity: Measuring Proactive Problem Solving in LLM Agents

LLM-based agents are increasingly moving towards proactivity: rather than awaiting instruction, they exercise agency to anticipate user needs and solve them autonomously. However, evaluating proactivity is challenging; current benchmarks are constrained to localized context, limiting their ability to test reasoning across sources and longer time horizons. To address this gap, we present PROBE (Proactive Resolution Of BottlEnecks). PROBE decomposes proactivity as a pipeline of three core capabilities: (1) searching for unspecified issues, (2) identifying specific bottlenecks, and (3) executing appropriate resolutions. We apply PROBE to evaluate leading LLMs and popular agentic frameworks, showing that even state-of-the-art models struggle to solve this benchmark. Computing our consistent measurements across frontier LLMs and agents, we find that the best end-to-end performance of 40% is achieved by both GPT-5 and Claude Opus-4.1. Additionally, we demonstrate the relative capabilities of each model and analyze mutual failure modes. Our results highlight the current limitations of autonomous action in agentic systems, and expose promising future research directions.

Gil Pasternak, Dheeraj Rajagopal, Julia White +4

LLM Agent EvaluationAI Agent BenchmarksProactive AssistanceProactive Agents
AskPDF
Oct 18, 2025

Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself: Selectively Quitting Improves LLM Agent Safety

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents increasingly operate in complex environments with real-world consequences, their safety becomes critical. While uncertainty quantification is well-studied for single-turn tasks, multi-turn agentic scenarios with real-world tool access present unique challenges where uncertainties and ambiguities compound, leading to severe or catastrophic risks beyond traditional text generation failures. We propose using "quitting" as a simple yet effective behavioral mechanism for LLM agents to recognize and withdraw from situations where they lack confidence. Leveraging the ToolEmu framework, we conduct a systematic evaluation of quitting behavior across 12 state-of-the-art LLMs. Our results demonstrate a highly favorable safety-helpfulness trade-off: agents prompted to quit with explicit instructions improve safety by an average of +0.39 on a 0-3 scale across all models (+0.64 for proprietary models), while maintaining a negligible average decrease of -0.03 in helpfulness. Our analysis demonstrates that simply adding explicit quit instructions proves to be a highly effective safety mechanism that can immediately be deployed in existing agent systems, and establishes quitting as an effective first-line defense mechanism for autonomous agents in high-stakes applications.

Vamshi Krishna Bonagiri, Ponnurangam Kumaragurum, Khanh Nguyen +1

University of California, Berkeley · Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence (MBZUAI) · International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad (IIIT Hyderabad)

LLM Agent EvaluationTool-Using AgentsLLM Agent SafetyLLM Abstention
AskPDF
Sep 27, 2025

BuildBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Compiling Real-World Open-Source Software

Automatically compiling open-source software (OSS) projects is a vital, labor-intensive, and complex task, which makes it a good challenge for LLM Agents. Existing methods rely on manually curated rules and workflows, which cannot adapt to OSS that requires customized configuration or environment setup. Recent attempts using Large Language Models (LLMs) used selective evaluation on a subset of highly rated OSS, a practice that underestimates the realistic challenges of OSS compilation. In practice, compilation instructions are often absent, dependencies are undocumented, and successful builds may even require patching source files or modifying build scripts. We propose a more challenging and realistic benchmark, BUILD-BENCH, comprising OSS that are more diverse in quality, scale, and characteristics. Furthermore, we propose a strong baseline LLM-based agent, OSS-BUILD-AGENT, an effective system with enhanced build instruction retrieval module that achieves state-of-the-art performance on BUILD-BENCH and is adaptable to heterogeneous OSS characteristics. We also provide detailed analysis regarding different compilation method design choices and their influence to the whole task, offering insights to guide future advances. We believe performance on BUILD-BENCH can faithfully reflect an agent's ability to tackle compilation as a complex software engineering tasks, and, as such, our benchmark will spur innovation with a significant impact on downstream applications in the fields of software development and software security.

Zehua Zhang, Ati Priya Bajaj, Divij Handa +14

School of Computing and Augmented Intelligence, Arizona State University

Software Engineering AgentsSoftware Engineering BenchmarksLLM Agent EvaluationOpen-Source Software Development
AskPDF
Sep 10, 2025

HumanAgencyBench: Scalable Evaluation of Human Agency Support in AI Assistants

As humans delegate more tasks and decisions to artificial intelligence (AI), we risk losing control of our individual and collective futures. Relatively simple algorithmic systems already steer human decision-making, such as social media feed algorithms that lead people to unintentionally and absent-mindedly scroll through engagement-optimized content. In this paper, we develop the idea of human agency by integrating philosophical and scientific theories of agency with AI-assisted evaluation methods: using large language models (LLMs) to simulate and validate user queries and to evaluate AI responses. We develop HumanAgencyBench (HAB), a scalable and adaptive diagnostic tool for six behaviors related to human agency. HAB measures the tendency of an AI assistant to Ask Clarifying Questions, Avoid Value Manipulation, Correct Misinformation, Defer Important Decisions, Encourage Learning, and Maintain Social Boundaries. We find low-to-moderate agency support in contemporary LLM-based assistants, with substantial variation across system developers and behaviors. For example, while Anthropic LLMs most support human agency overall, they are the least supportive LLMs in terms of Avoid Value Manipulation. These behaviors do not appear to consistently result from increasing LLM capabilities or instruction-following (e.g., RLHF); we encourage further study of these behaviors so that developers and users can better understand the complexities of modern human-AI interaction.

Benjamin Sturgeon, Daniel Samuelson, Jacob Haimes +1

Apart Research · AI Safety Cape Town · University of Chicago +2

LLM Agent EvaluationHuman-AI InteractionAI Agent BenchmarksAI Ethics
AskPDF
Sep 3, 2025

Are LLM Agents Behaviorally Coherent? A Latent Profiling Approach for Social Simulation

LLM agents are increasingly proposed as substitutes for human participants in social research, usually on the strength of survey responses that match those of the humans they represent. We argue that such output-level alignment is not enough. Drawing on the behavioral sciences, we propose Latent Profiling, a framework for testing behavioral coherence: whether an agent's conversational behavior follows, as human behavioral models predict, from its own latent profile elicited by short surveys. As a case study, we test six hypotheses about preference, openness and agreement across nine open models. Agents reproduce surface-level trends but systematically fail in-depth tests: they are not behaviorally coherent, even when their individual responses look human. Latent Profiling thus offers a theory-grounded instrument for a behavioral science of LLMs.

James Mooney, Josef Woldense, Zheng Robert Jia +4

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota · Department of African American & African Studies, University of Minnesota · Department of Sociology, University of Chicago +1

Behavioral Consistency of LLM AgentsLLM Agent EvaluationLLM AgentsLarge Language Model-Based Social SimulationHuman Behavior Simulation
AskPDF
Aug 6, 2025

Beyond Pixels: Exploring DOM Downsampling for LLM-Based Web Agents

The advent of large language models (LLMs) has sparked an evolution of autonomous web browsing agents: given a web browsing task and serialised user interface (UI) state, an LLM is expected to suggest input actions that incrementally solve the given task. The central challenge lies in serialising UI state for LLMs. Web agents have increasingly relied on grounded graphical UI (GUI) snapshots - screenshots augmented with visual cues - favoured for their modest input token footprint. Document object model (DOM) snapshots, serialised as HTML, represent a compelling alternative that leverages previously demonstrated HTML interpretation capabilities of LLMs. Their excessive token footprint, however, has precluded reliable deployment with web agents to date. We propose D2Snap, an algorithm to downsample the DOM, premised on preserving actionability and actionability-discriminating features. We evaluate D2Snap-downsampled DOM snapshots using a snapshot-variant web agent (GPT-4o) on a dataset sampled from Online-Mind2Web. Whilst 42% of raw DOM snapshots exceed the model context window (128 x 10^3 tokens), all D2Snap-downsampled DOM snapshots of our reference configuration fit, at a mean context utilisation of 16.5%. Against the 67% success rate of a grounded GUI snapshot baseline, our configuration attains 73% (+5.8%pt; 95% CI -13.6 to +26.0%pt; McNemar, p = 0.47), excluding a deficit (one-sided 95%) beyond 11%pt. Image input moreover appears to add little to snapshot utility; grounding text alone attains 62% (-5.8%pt; McNemar, p = 0.37).

Thassilo M. Schiepanski, Nicholas Piël

Surfly BV

LLM Agent EvaluationWeb Agents
AskPDF
Jul 7, 2025

Evaluating Memory in LLM Agents via Incremental Multi-Turn Interactions

Recent benchmarks for Large Language Model (LLM) agents primarily focus on evaluating reasoning, planning, and execution capabilities, while another critical component-memory, encompassing how agents memorize, update, and retrieve long-term information-is under-evaluated due to the lack of benchmarks. We term agents with memory mechanisms as memory agents. In this paper, based on classic theories from memory science and cognitive science, we identify four core competencies essential for memory agents: accurate retrieval, test-time learning, long-range understanding, and selective forgetting. Existing benchmarks either rely on limited context lengths or are tailored for static, long-context settings like book-based QA, which do not reflect the interactive, multi-turn nature of memory agents that incrementally accumulate information. Moreover, no existing benchmarks cover all four competencies. We introduce MemoryAgentBench, a new benchmark specifically designed for memory agents. Our benchmark transforms existing long-context datasets and incorporates newly constructed datasets into a multi-turn format, effectively simulating the incremental information processing characteristic of memory agents. By carefully selecting and curating datasets, our benchmark provides comprehensive coverage of the four core memory competencies outlined above, thereby offering a systematic and challenging testbed for assessing memory quality. We evaluate a diverse set of memory agents, ranging from simple context-based and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems to advanced agents with external memory modules and tool integration. Empirical results reveal that current methods fall short of mastering all four competencies, underscoring the need for further research into comprehensive memory mechanisms for LLM agents.

Yuanzhe Hu, Yu Wang, Julian McAuley

University of California, San Diego

LLM Agent MemoryLLM Agent EvaluationAI Agent BenchmarksMemory Agent BenchmarksAgent Memory Management
AskPDF
Jun 14, 2025

SheetMind: Actions Set Accuracy, Agents Set the Failure Mode

Spreadsheet agents are converging on elaborate multi-agent designs, yet it is unclear how much of their performance comes from the agents rather than from the action interface they share. We answer this with SheetMind, a Manager-Action-Reflection framework, in a controlled study over all 221 tasks of the SheetCopilot Benchmark: five architectural variants, four backbones, exact McNemar tests on paired outcomes, and a checker reproducing the official chart and pivot comparisons. Replacing the high-level action API with primitive cell operations costs 47.1 points (p < 0.0001) and leaves the agent below a do-nothing baseline, whereas both extra agents together are worth 3.2 points: the Reflection Agent adds +4.5 (p = 0.013), the Manager +1.4 (p = 0.68). Decomposition instead changes how the system fails, cutting silently wrong outputs from 33% to 25% of tasks (p = 0.010). Capability saturates: GPT-5 and the five-times-cheaper GPT-5-mini are not significantly different (61.1% vs. 58.4%, p = 0.15), while GPT-3.5 loses 16.3 points and fails differently. A reflector must judge the step it just took, not the subtask. SheetMind reaches 61.1% Pass@1 with GPT-5 on the full SCB-221, against a do-nothing baseline of 9.0%. Accuracy comes from the operations an agent can name; the agents decide how it fails.

Lyuhao Chen, Xi Cheng, Yanming Kang +11

Carnegie Mellon University · Cornell University · University of California, Berkeley +2

Multi-Agent LLM SystemsLLM Agent EvaluationSpreadsheet AutomationLLM Agent Reliability
AskPDF
Jun 4, 2025

AgentMisalignment: Measuring the Propensity for Misaligned Behaviour in LLM-Based Agents

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents become more widespread, associated misalignment risks increase. While prior research has studied agents' ability to produce harmful outputs or follow malicious instructions, it remains unclear how likely agents are to spontaneously pursue unintended goals in realistic deployments. In this work, we approach misalignment as a conflict between the internal goals pursued by the model and the goals intended by its deployer. We introduce a misalignment propensity benchmark, AgentMisalignment, a benchmark suite designed to evaluate the propensity of LLM agents to misalign in realistic scenarios. Evaluations cover behaviours such as avoiding oversight, resisting shutdown, sandbagging, and power-seeking. Testing frontier models, we find that more capable agents tend to exhibit higher misalignment on average. We also systematically vary agent personalities through different system prompts and observe that persona characteristics can strongly and unpredictably influence misalignment, sometimes more than the choice of model itself. Our results reveal the limitations of current alignment methods for autonomous LLM agents and underscore the need to rethink misalignment in realistic deployment settings.

Akshat Naik, Emma Gouné, Patrick Quinn +4

Independent Researcher · Department of Engineering University of Cambridge

AI AlignmentLLM Agent EvaluationAI Agent BenchmarksLLM Agent Safety
AskPDF
May 17, 2025

LLM-BabyBench: Can Language Models Plan in Worlds They Can Simulate?

Interactive benchmarks for LLMs usually report a single metric, even though succeeding in them requires models to show several different skills. While those benchmarks are useful for measuring the overall capability of models to perform the downstream task, it is harder to identify which skill was lacking and caused failure solely from the aggregate score. For example, in benchmarks where models are supposed to navigate a simulated world to perform a task, failures can come from perception, an ambiguous instruction, retrieval, missing commonsense about what actions do, unknown dynamics, or planning. \benchmark recasts the procedurally generated BabyAI gridworld as a fully observable, purely textual environment designed to evaluate planning separately from those factors. The nature of the environment and the structure of the prompt control for the other factors cited above. To evaluate the models, we define the PPD suite: Predict asks for the state that follows an action sequence, Plan asks for an action sequence that reaches a goal, and Decompose asks for a subgoal sequence that achieves a mission. Across seven frontier and open models, queried zero-shot, we find simulation far ahead of planning for every model, close to saturated for the strongest. The length of the required solution governs planning failure, and each of the four strongest models has a horizon beyond which single-attempt success collapses. The responses of claude-opus-4-6 and claude-sonnet-4-6, which show their working step by step, reveal that they plan by proposing L-shaped corridors, which is consistent with their successful plans staying near-optimal while success falls. At the subgoal level, decomposition precision likewise falls to zero on long missions, while comprehension of those missions persists.

Idriss Malek, Omar Choukrani, Daniil Orel +5

Tandon School of Engineering New York University · Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence (MBZUAI) Abu Dhabi, UAE

LLM PlanningLLM Agent EvaluationAI Agent BenchmarksLong-Horizon LLM Agents
AskPDF
Apr 16, 2025

Towards LLM Agents for Earth Observation

Earth Observation (EO) provides critical planetary data for environmental monitoring, disaster management, climate science, and other scientific domains. In this work we ask: Are AI systems ready for reliable Earth Observation? To answer this, we introduce UnivEARTH, a coding benchmark of 408 yes/no questions from NASA Earth Observatory articles across 7 various topics and over 15 satellite instruments and sources. Using Google Earth Engine API as a tool in a zero-shot setup, LLM agents achieve an accuracy of 40.0% where the code fails to run over 44% of the time. To better understand LLM agent behavior, we also analyze the impact of using the JavaScript API versus Python and the effect of providing documentation. Furthermore, we find that using a Reflexion framework significantly reduces errors: Claude-4.5-Sonnet, Gemini-2.5-Pro, and GPT-5 accuracies rise to around 60%. However, these results remain only marginally above random chance. Taken together, our findings identify significant challenges to be solved before AI agents can automate earth observation, and suggest paths forward.

Chia Hsiang Kao, Wenting Zhao, Cheryl Lam +10

Cornell University · Columbia University

Code GenerationLLM Agent EvaluationRemote SensingAI Agent BenchmarksLLM AgentsEarth Science
AskPDF
Mar 28, 2025

Evaluating LLM-based Agents for Multi-Turn Conversations: A Survey

This survey examines evaluation methods for large language model (LLM)-based agents in multi-turn conversational settings. Using a PRISMA-inspired framework, we systematically reviewed nearly 250 scholarly sources, capturing the state of the art from various venues of publication, and establishing a solid foundation for our analysis. Our study offers a structured approach by developing two interrelated taxonomy systems: one that defines what to evaluate and another that explains how to evaluate. The first taxonomy identifies key components of LLM-based agents for multi-turn conversations and their evaluation dimensions, including task completion, response quality, user experience, memory and context retention, as well as planning and tool integration. These components ensure that the performance of conversational agents is assessed in a holistic and meaningful manner. The second taxonomy system focuses on the evaluation methodologies. It categorizes approaches into annotation-based evaluations, automated metrics, hybrid strategies that combine human assessments with quantitative measures, and self-judging methods utilizing LLMs. This framework not only captures traditional metrics derived from language understanding, such as BLEU and ROUGE scores, but also incorporates advanced techniques that reflect the dynamic, interactive nature of multi-turn dialogues.

Shengyue Guan, Jindong Wang, Jiang Bian +3

Microsoft, China

LLM Agent EvaluationMulti-Turn Dialogue EvaluationAutomated Agent Evaluation
AskPDF
Dec 12, 2024

How Well Can Modern LLMs Act as Agent Cores in Radiology Environments?

Radiology, with its heterogeneous modalities, anatomies, and evolving protocols, is a natural yet high-stakes testbed for agentic AI. As LLMs grow more capable and tool ecosystems such as MCP and Agent Skills more complex, their capability boundaries in radiology remain unclear. We introduce RadA-BenchPlat, a two-layer benchmark spanning idealized reasoning and real-world execution: a synthetic layer with 2.2k clinician-verified records, 24.2k QA pairs, and 10 tool categories under diverse availability settings; and a real-environment layer pairing 165 2D/3D cases with executable tools for grounding, diagnosis, and report generation. We find that high completion rates under idealized settings do not carry over to real environments, where the best agents trail their upper bound by approximately 15% and drop to 0.327 on long-chain tasks. Prompting strategies (few-shot exemplars, multi-agent coordination) and AutoTB (on-the-fly synthesis of missing tools) mitigate execution drift and breakdowns in difficult scenarios, lifting execution success to 94.5%, yet remain not fully reliable. Overall, our findings suggest that radiology agents are no longer limited to conceptual demonstrations, but are beginning to show potential for real-world applications. Project repository: https://github.com/MAGIC-AI4Med/RadABench

Qiaoyu Zheng, Chaoyi Wu, Weike Zhao +5

Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China · Department of Radiology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China

HealthcareLLM Agent EvaluationAI Agent BenchmarksLLM AgentsLong-Horizon LLM Agents
AskPDF