Agentic Benchmarks

Self-evolving agent systems improve by creating, revising, and retiring their own skills, but every such loop rests on a hidden assumption: a reliable evaluation metric already exists. In many real applications it does not. We make three claims. First, metrics can be \emph{evolved}: our metric loop searches compositions of small drawback detectors under a full evolutionary lifecycle, trained to agree with a ten-item anchored reference set, regularized by consensus over unlabeled outputs, and audited against a held-out anchor it never reads, yielding a transparent, inspectable metric rather than an opaque judge. Second, since no metric exists to beat, the yardstick is recovering what an accurate metric would have enabled, and \emph{Double Ratchet}, our co-evolution of the metric with a lifecycle-managed skill loop, does so: across code generation (MBPP+), enterprise text-to-SQL (Spider~2.0-Snow), and reference-free report generation, it retains 88--110% of the held-out lift achieved by the same skill loop driven by ground truth or the best available rubric. Third, safety comes from anchor discipline plus outer audits: removing anchor guards collapses the metric into a vacuous detector while removing the lifecycle does not; and when evolved skills gamed the report rubric, an independent judge caught it, one detector repaired it, and a task-aware judge then preferred the evolved outputs over the pre-evolution baseline in 77% of decided pairs. We argue this failure-expecting architecture is the right default wherever no reliable automatic verifier exists.

Many agent-safety evaluation results are not yet load-bearing evidence: identical nominal outcomes (task success, attack success, monitor scores) may sit atop materially different evidence regimes. No vendor-neutral, runnable instrument scores reconstructability as an evaluation-validity metric: whether captured evidence can reconstruct the decision a claim depends on. This paper introduces a property-level reconstructability metric over eight decision-property classes and a cross-harness adapter emitting per-decision Evidence Sufficiency Cards backing a per-run monitor-coverage release check. It specifies a counterfactual-replay intervention protocol, implements its replayability-precondition probe, and defines a claim-evidence overclaim gap. On public and bundled traces, without new model runs, twelve-field sufficiency spans 0.458-0.833 across four inputs sharing a surface reading; replay preconditions are unmet in every scored trace. In a synthetic release-gate pair, the sufficiency gate blocks the raw variant (0.542) and passes the instrumented (0.667). Safety-evaluation claims should travel with their reconstructability vector; a reproducibility package regenerates every reported number.

LLM agents act in external environments where each action changes the state that later decisions condition on, and where a single wrong step can waste interaction budget or trigger irreversible side effects long before the final failure is observed. Reliable deployment therefore requires \emph{step-level confidence estimation}: a calibrated probability that each proposed action is productive, available \emph{before} the action is executed. Existing LLM confidence estimators are designed to score a response from the given prompt, but agent confidence also depends on execution consequences: whether similar actions in similar situations actually advanced the task after the environment responded. We introduce the \method (\methodshort), a self-evolving critic framework in which an LLM critic accumulates evidence from its own past judgments and their observed consequences. After each trajectory, a hindsight LLM that sees the full execution feedback votes on whether each step was productive. The resulting pseudo-labels populate a memory bank from which related productive and unproductive experiences are retrieved into the critic's prompt whenever a similar step recurs. \methodshort requires no training and uses no ground truth step labels. Across three agent benchmarks and three critic backbones, \methodshort attains the best calibration (ECE and Brier) and ranking (AUC) in every dataset--critic combination, reducing ECE by up to $54\%$ relative to the strongest training-free baseline.

Agent benchmarks often compare two agents after all tasks have run, but costly evaluations make partial runs tempting. A task fraction alone does not show whether a partial run supports the same pairwise conclusion as the completed benchmark. We study this question by replaying completed public task-level records from SWE-bench, AppWorld, and tau-bench. A partial budget counts as enough only when it supports the completed benchmark's decision, covers required task groups, and leaves no more than a target fraction of comparisons unresolved. The required task fraction varies sharply. At the strict 0 percentage point threshold on a 5 percentage point budget grid, AppWorld first meets all targets at 15 percent, tau-bench at 25 percent, and SWE-bench Verified at 90 percent; SWE-bench Lite does not meet all targets by 95 percent under the primary coverage rule. Partial-evaluation reports should state how much one agent must outperform another, how tasks are selected, what coverage rule is required, what decision rule is used, and how many comparisons may remain unresolved.

Large language model agents are increasingly executed not by a single model call, but by an execution harness that manages observation, context, control, action, state, and verification. At the same time, frontier and open models are becoming structurally specialized: a model that is strong at code editing, long-context recovery, tool use, mathematical reasoning, or low-latency response may not dominate on the other axes. This makes model selection inside an agent a core systems problem rather than a per-query serving trick. Existing routing methods mostly optimize single-turn cost-quality trade-offs and therefore miss the execution state, intermediate failures, and feedback loops that make agents different from chat completion. We propose Harness-Native agentic routing, a step-level routing paradigm that selects either a single best-fit model for cost-effective execution or multiple complementary models for ensemble-style accuracy improvement, conditioned on the full harness state. The key insight is that every routing decision naturally produces a structured data record -- consisting of the query, harness state, model choice or model set, execution trace, outcome, and cost -- whose labels are supplied by the environment rather than by the router itself. These records form a harness-native data flywheel: execution traces train better routers and harness-native models, which improve cost-quality trade-offs and generate more traces under the same budget. We instantiate this idea in OpenSquilla with a four-layer routing stack, an open LightGBM cold-start ranker, and a staged router-model path that turns logged arena records into progressively stronger routing policies. The report studies singleton and multi-model routing on agentic benchmarks including DRACO and PinchBench, and argues that agentic routing is not merely cost control, but a data engine for agent-native training.

LLM-based agents are increasingly deployed to solve optimization problems, yet existing benchmarks evaluate them on pre-structured mathematical formulations that bypass the most critical challenge: translating complex business requirements into correct models and solve efficiently. We introduce Opti-Agent-Bench, an end-to-end benchmark that evaluates Large Language Models (LLMs) across the complete optimization R&D pipeline, from understanding business-language descriptions through mathematical modeling, algorithm selection, and code implementation, to solution report generation. Our design rests on three pillars: (1) businesssemantic authenticity with anti-template traps that defeat pattern matching; (2) modular evaluation with cross-module consistency checking across Problem Understanding, Formal Modeling, Implementation, and Reporting; and (3) the ORAC bi-level validity framework that simultaneously ensures task quality and scoring integrity. Across several industrialscale tasks spanning integer programming, robust optimization, stochastic programming, and non-convex optimization, we expose critical failure modes of current models, including constraint omission, model-code inconsistency, and report-implementation divergence, that remain invisible under conventional single-metric evaluation.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed over Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers, yet the benchmarks used to evaluate them score the final answer or a fixed "ground-truth" list of tools, both of which are fragile once the underlying data is live and stateful. We present DynamicMCPBench, a reusable framework rather than a fixed dataset. A practitioner can run it on their own MCP servers to test models on their own tasks, or let it collect servers automatically to measure a model's general ability to solve agentic tasks. Given the servers and any set of models, it generates realistic goals, pursues each one live to record a successful trajectory, distills that trajectory into path-agnostic effect checkpoints, and scores an agent on whether it reproduces those effects, never on the final answer. To show what the framework reveals, we run it at scale: 24 models over 121 servers and 750 tasks spread evenly over 15 task categories (50 each), where each category targets a distinct tool-use challenge of the generated questions. Each task is scored by pass^3: it counts as solved only if all three independent attempts succeed. Even the strongest agents solve only about half of the tasks, 31% of tasks are solved by no model at all, and accuracy collapses as the required tool chain grows longer (from 39% on the shortest chains to 13% on the longest). A human validation study confirms the automatic scoring is reliable (chance-corrected agreement of 0.76). DynamicMCPBench thus turns benchmark construction into something practitioners can rerun on their own servers and models, while exposing a consistent inability of current agents to handle long, multi-step agentic tasks.

AI agents have become capable of autonomously completing short, well-specified tasks. However, existing terminal benchmarks largely focus on simple problems that finish within minutes and are evaluated only by their final outcome. This setup overlooks intermediate progress and partial solutions, yielding sparse reward signals and an incomplete picture of agent capability. We introduce Long-Horizon-Terminal-Bench, a terminal benchmark of 46 long-horizon tasks spanning nine categories, including experiment reproduction, software engineering, multimodal analysis, interactive games, and scientific computing. Each task follows a Terminal-Bench-style setup with a reference solution or simulation engine, but is further decomposed into fine-grained graded subtasks. This design enables dense intermediate rewards and partial credit, allowing evaluation to capture not only whether an agent reaches the final goal, but also how far it progresses on open-ended workflows. Tasks in Long-Horizon-Terminal-Bench typically require hundreds of episodes and minutes to hours of execution, stressing long-horizon planning, long-context management, and iterative debugging rather than one-shot problem solving. We evaluate 15 frontier models and find that agents consume on average 9.9M tokens per task, with roughly 231 episodes and 85.3 minutes of execution time per run, making Long-Horizon-Terminal-Bench more demanding than prior terminal-based benchmarks. Even the strongest tested model achieves 15.2% pass@1 at a partial-reward threshold of 0.95 and 10.9% at a perfect-reward threshold of 1.0, while the mean pass rate across models is 4.3% and 1.7% under the two thresholds, respectively. These results reveal headroom for improvement. We further analyze failure modes and error patterns, and release Long-Horizon-Terminal-Bench to support future progress on long-horizon terminal agents.

The rapid development of large language models and multimodal large language models has accelerated the emergence of proactive agents capable of operating everyday tools and assisting users in real-world environments. However, existing benchmarks struggle to evaluate such agents effectively, as they often rely on sandboxed environments and single-turn evaluation paradigms. Moreover, their scenario-based task taxonomies mix multiple model capabilities within the same task category, making it difficult to identify the root causes of agent failures. To address these limitations, we introduce UniClawBench, the first capability-driven benchmark designed to evaluate proactive agents in dynamic, real-world settings. UniClawBench is built around five foundational model capabilities: Skill Usage, Exploration, Long-Context Reasoning, Multimodal Understanding, and Cross-Platform Coordination. Based on these capabilities, we design 400 bilingual real-world tasks. Unlike previous benchmarks that rely on static, pre-recorded answers, our benchmark evaluates agents in live Docker containers using fine-grained, step-by-step completion checkpoints. Furthermore, we design a closed-loop evaluation strategy comprising an executor agent, a hidden supervisor agent, and a user agent to simulate realistic multi-turn human feedback without leaking grading criteria. To disentangle base model capabilities from framework-level design choices, we evaluate state-of-the-art models under multiple agent frameworks. Through comprehensive comparisons across both models and frameworks, we show how base model capabilities and agent framework designs jointly shape performance in real-world environments. To facilitate future research, we make our benchmark and code publicly available at https://github.com/HKU-MMLab/UniClawBench.

As agentic AI systems are increasingly applied to cyber-physical environments, their evaluation requires assessment of both task performance and trustworthiness. In decentralized energy markets, autonomous agents may improve market utility, but may also exploit invalid physical data, create artificial liquidity, and produce unstable governance decisions. Therefore, we propose SolarChain-Eval, a physics-constrained benchmark for evaluating trustworthy economic agents. It formulates market governance as a Gymnasium-compatible Markov Decision Process, where agents make hourly decisions. SolarChain-Eval evaluates each policy across multiple dimensions, including market utility, physical safety, slippage, action smoothness, spatial fairness, and auditability. To support agentic evaluation, SolarChain-Eval incorporates an LLM-based Planner/Auditor layer. The Planner defines episode-level action bounds and audit rules, while the Auditor reviews and revises high-risk actions. All interventions are recorded through structured logs, including trigger signals, proposed actions, revised actions, and audit rationales. Experiments with static, random, myopic, RL, and RL+LLM policies reveal a clear utility-safety trade-off. RL agents improve market utility but can still produce unsafe behavior. When the physics penalty is removed, reward-maximizing agents exploit invalid generation and increase artificial liquidity. The LLM Planner/Auditor improves auditability and mitigates selected risks, but it cannot fully compensate for a misspecified reward function. These results indicate that trustworthy agentic AI evaluation requires both physical constraints and transparent intervention traces. We release data and code as open access on GitHub for replicability.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as integrated data-science agents, combining abstract reasoning with advanced tool use. Yet the relevant benchmark landscape largely divides into symbolic causal reasoning benchmarks without realistic data analysis or data analysis benchmarks without a principled causal data-generating structure. Furthermore, existing causal evaluation datasets are often restricted to curated examples from existing sources, with diversity coming from limited templatized variations rather than from systematic generation of novel synthetic causal structures. We introduce CausalDS, a benchmark for evaluating causal reasoning in agentic data-science workflows. Each benchmark instance is a scene consisting of a sampled structural causal model (SCM) with generated observational data and an accompanying synthetic natural-language story grounded in a realistic domain. We optionally ground the composition of the benchmark components in empirical distributions obtained from real-world datasets, thus retaining empirical structure while reducing the "causal parrot" risk through completely synthetic generation. From each scene, we then derive tasks spanning all three of Pearl's rungs, with typical data-science prediction tasks appearing as Rung 1. Most tasks include a data science coding component, where the model typically needs to use several tools to arrive at the final answer due to the frequent presence of imperfect observations, which are generated by an observation model. Additionally, recognizing when a question admits no warranted answer and abstaining is treated as a first-class scored outcome. The benchmark thus jointly evaluates symbolic causal reasoning, data science, uncertainty quantification, abstention, and tool use/coding.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have substantially advanced persona-based dialogue agents for emotion-sensitive role simulation in healthcare, education, counseling, customer service, and interactive storytelling. However, two related lines of work leave a key gap. Persona-based dialogue systems often encode emotions as static traits or surface-level stylistic cues, and affective dialogue research has largely focused on empathetic response generation toward users rather than modeling the agent persona's own evolving emotional state. As a result, trigger-driven emotional evolution within a character remains underexplored. To address this limitation, we draw inspiration from the Component Process Model (CPM), a psychological theory that views emotion as a dynamic process shaped by the appraisal of external events. We propose CPM-MultiAgent, a CPM-grounded emotion evolution multi-agent framework for supporting emotional changes in persona-based dialogue. Instead of treating a character's emotion as a fixed attribute, CPM-MultiAgent represents it as a latent state that is continuously reshaped by dialogue triggers. Through affective trigger extraction, CPM-based collaborative appraisal, and emotion state updating, the framework enables more emotionally consistent role simulation in multi-turn interactions.Experiments with baseline comparisons, ablation studies, human evaluation, and case analyses demonstrate that CPM-MultiAgent effectively models dynamic emotional evolution in emotionally sensitive role-simulation settings.

A self-evolving agent retires its bad skills by watching them fail, so what happens when the judge cannot see the failures? Skill retirement is the structural constraint that keeps a growing library from drifting below the no-skill baseline, but its guarantee assumes an unbiased reward, which is false for the LLM judges that reference-free tasks force upon us. We show that a biased judge does not merely add noise; it \emph{silently switches off the curator}. We make this precise with a corrupted-reward analysis and, isolating the causal channel by injecting corruption on top of a deterministic reward, a behavioral study on a reference-free report-writing testbed with a code-generation cross-check. Symmetric noise leaves retirement intact, but \emph{false-pass} bias (failures slipping through as passes) disables contribution-based retirement past a sharp threshold that no amount of data can cross. Separating genuine retirement from cap-eviction churn shows this \emph{mechanism} failure is universal, holding across domains and failure rates and sparing only near-zero-false-pass, verifier-like graders. The downstream \emph{outcome}, though, is regime-dependent: eval quality degrades only where the same corruption also starves skill synthesis, and otherwise holds steady, so the disabled curator is \emph{silent}, surfacing in no aggregate metric. The contribution is a behavioral safety result, not a performance one. A cheap defect-injection audit then tells an operator, before deployment, which side of the threshold their judge occupies.

Large language models are rapidly moving towards closing the development cycle, transitioning from simple assistive companions to autonomous contributors deeply embedded into collaborative development environments. Despite their accelerated adoption, existing evaluation techniques are limited due to their fragmented nature and distorted projection of true model capabilities, often obtained from hypothetical syntactic scenarios. This research aims to bridge this gap by providing a comprehensive evaluation methodology for LLM-powered agents that is grounded in real-world software development practice. Our evaluation approach focuses on contamination-awareness, in-the-wild agentic behavior assessment, and trajectory-aware benchmarks and metrics capturing realistic coding contexts, human-aligned behavior, and model failure modes.

Developers increasingly delegate real maintenance work to product-grade coding agents, and many state tasks in their native language, in the style of a customer request rather than a curated English issue. Existing repository-level agentic benchmarks do not measure this setting: their task statements are English by design. We introduce RuBench 1.0, a benchmark of 25 tasks mined from recent fix commits in five live open-source repositories (aiohttp, aiogram, Laravel, NestJS, Fastify; Python, PHP, TypeScript, JavaScript), where each task is specified natively in Russian -- written from scratch in the style of an actual customer request, not translated -- and judged by the upstream maintainer's regression tests, which we withhold from release. All 25 fix commits postdate the training-data cutoffs of every evaluated model, giving a contamination argument that holds task-by-task. We evaluate deployed product configurations (CLI agent + model + reasoning effort) -- Claude Code with Opus 4.8, Sonnet 5, and Haiku 4.5, and Codex CLI with GPT-5.5 -- with three independent runs each, reporting pass@1 with task-level confidence intervals, paired comparisons, dollar cost, and token usage. The best configuration resolves 78.7% of tasks; at N=25 only the gaps to the weakest model are statistically resolvable, which we state explicitly. Auditing full trajectories of a fifth, hors-concours configuration (Claude Code + Fable 5, July 2, 2026 release), we caught the product silently substituting the model: on 5 of 25 tasks (20%) an official safeguard fallback re-routed routine HTTP-protocol fixes to Opus 4.8 -- direct, reproducible evidence that the deployed product, not the model, is the unit actually measured. We release task statements, metadata, full agent trajectories, and diffs; grading oracles are withheld, with a SHA-256 manifest committed at publication time.

As web agents increasingly demonstrate capabilities in automated task execution, the development of robust evaluation frameworks for assessing their navigation and task completion performance has emerged as a critical research priority. However, existing benchmarks exhibit fundamental limitations. First, they suffer from insufficient scale and limited domain diversity, constraining comprehensive evaluation of cross-domain generalization. Second, prevailing LLM-as-Judge evaluation methodologies inadequately capture fine-grained interaction semantics, particularly regarding precise query formulation and filtering operations. Third, current benchmarks predominantly emphasize navigation success metrics while neglecting critical requirements for real-world deployment scenarios. To address these limitations, we introduce WebRetriever, a large-scale benchmark encompassing 800 websites and 1,550 tasks across diverse domains, including consumer, professional, and enterprise sectors, with comprehensive coverage of user intent patterns. We propose NavEval (Navigation Evaluation), a novel LLM-as-Judge framework that leverages rich interaction context beyond visual screenshots, achieving state-of-the-art alignment with human judgment across multiple evaluation datasets. Furthermore, we establish three complementary evaluation protocols that collectively provide holistic assessment of web agent capabilities: navigation proficiency, knowledge-assisted interaction, and end-to-end task completion with information extraction. Extensive experimental analysis reveals substantial performance disparities across evaluation protocols, demonstrating that navigation success alone is an insufficient predictor of real-world application effectiveness. WebRetriever delivers fine-grained diagnostic insights into agent capabilities and establishes a rigorous foundation for advancing web agent research and development.

Recent LLM agents tackle increasingly long-horizon, open-ended tasks, and external skills, reusable procedural knowledge supplied to the agent, further extend this capability. However, a fixed, hand-authored skill is rarely optimal, and cannot adapt to the diversity of tasks an agent encounters. Self-improving agents address this by rewriting their own skill files from execution traces, yielding meaningful gains on challenging benchmarks. Yet such self-evolution remains non-recursive: it improves only the task skill (what the agent does) while the improvement procedure (how it improves) is authored once and held fixed. We introduce MetaSkill-Evolve, a two-timescale framework that makes agentic skill improvement recursive: every branch carries both a task skill $s$ and a branch-local meta-skill $m=(ψ,σ,α,π,\varepsilon)$ whose five components parameterise the Analyzer, Retriever, Allocator, Proposer, and Evolver agents of the improvement pipeline. Task skills evolve on a fast loop while the meta-skill evolves on a slower one under the same pipeline applied to itself, with no additional model or objective. With all five pipeline agents sharing a single frozen backbone, MetaSkill-Evolve outperforms no-skill, static-skill, and single-level evolution baselines on three agentic benchmarks (OfficeQA, SealQA, ALFWorld), improving held-out test accuracy over the raw backbone by +23.54, +16.09, and +1.92 points respectively.

Agent self-evolution in long-horizon LLM systems is largely procedural: useful experience is not merely stored information, but reusable procedures for searching, debugging, and verification. Yet current evaluations do not isolate this form of transfer. Agent benchmarks test single-episode task solving; memory benchmarks target information retention rather than procedural reuse. We introduce EvoAgentBench, a benchmark for agent self-evolution via Ability-guided transfer across four agentic domains: web research, algorithmic reasoning, software engineering, and knowledge work. EvoAgentBench extracts trace-grounded Abilities from agent executions, canonicalizes them into operational units, and builds domain-specific Ability Graphs linking tasks that share procedural overlap. By design, every test task is backed by verified training-side Ability support. Across a 528/267 train/test split, two scaffolds, and three backbones, curated Ability content transfers reliably across model families, but no current automatic method sustains positive gain in all settings. EvoAgentBench shifts self-evolution evaluation from aggregate accuracy comparison to fine-grained diagnosis of experience encoding, routing, and uptake. The benchmark is publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/EverMind-AI/EvoAgentBench.

Pretraining scaling laws reveal that model capability improves predictably with data and compute. But learning from real world environments after deployment remains far less understood. Analyzing roughly 38,000 hours of agent interaction with the environment across 134 real world tasks, we find, to the best of our knowledge, the first evidence that overall performance during environment learning follows a log-sigmoid scaling law with remarkably high precision, reaching R^2 = 0.998. Across model generations, we also find that agent learning speed roughly doubles every three months. This discovery stems from EdgeBench, a suite of 134 real world tasks with ultra-long horizons, spanning scientific discovery, software engineering, combinatorial optimization, professional knowledge work, formal mathematics, and interactive games. Each task sustains at least 12 hours of continuous agent operation under rich, multilevel feedback, and is built through substantial expert effort. We publicly release 51 tasks and our full evaluation framework to accelerate the study of how agents learn from real world experience.

We present KAT-Coder-V2.5, a coding-focused agentic model trained to act autonomously inside real, executable repositories rather than as a single-turn code generator. Its capability is bottlenecked less by model scale than by the scarcity of reproducible environments, verifiable rewards, and high-value trajectories, which we address with an end-to-end agentic post-training framework. AutoBuilder reconstructs multilingual repositories into sandboxed environments with fail-to-pass and pass-to-pass verification at scale, from which we regenerate self-contained task specifications, recover near-miss trajectories, and distill supervision through process-aware filtering, while KwaiClawEnv synthesizes large-scale tool-use trajectories from executable services and real task seeds. We further scale reinforcement learning with harness randomization, a reliability-hardened sandbox, an asymmetric actor--critic PPO with hindsight-augmented value estimation, and a harness-oriented reward framework, and unify SWE, Agent-Claw, and WebCoding experts via Multi-Teacher On-Policy Distillation. Across six software-engineering and agentic benchmarks, KAT-Coder-V2.5 delivers the best agentic tool-use result on PinchBench and ranks second only to the frontier Opus 4.8 on repository-level software engineering. Our service is available at https://streamlake.com/product/kat-coder.

We present Nemotron-Labs-3-Puzzle-75B-A9B, a compressed variant of Nemotron-3-Super optimized for interactive deployment. We designed the model to maximize server throughput under high user throughput constraints. In interactive serving workloads on a single 8xB200 node, Puzzle-75B-A9B achieves approximately 2x higher server throughput than Nemotron-3-Super at matched user throughput constraints. In ultra-long-context deployment on a single H100 GPU, the compressed model increases 1M-token concurrency from 1 request to 8 requests. Puzzle-75B-A9B is constructed using a multi-stage pipeline that combines the Iterative Puzzle compression framework with knowledge distillation, reinforcement learning, quantization, and a Multi-Token Prediction head. The compression process jointly optimizes heterogeneous MoE pruning, active parameter budget, and Mamba pruning to improve inference efficiency while preserving model quality. We evaluate Puzzle-75B-A9B on a broad suite of reasoning, coding, multilingual, long-context, and agentic benchmarks. Despite substantial compression, the model retains strong downstream accuracy relative to the parent model across a wide range of tasks. These results demonstrate that large hybrid MoE models can be substantially optimized for deployment efficiency while maintaining strong downstream capability. Our model is publicly available on Hugging Face.

The language models that underpin agents have seen a rapid rise in performance on function calling benchmarks. However, the metrics used in the training and evaluation of these models often encourage models to make positive claims even when the answer is uncertain, leading to hallucinations. Such hallucinations can be disastrous when language models are trusted to use function calls to make decisions in high stakes applications. To that end, we propose an agent evaluation metric that takes into account the negative outcomes associated with incorrect function calls. Further, to catch hallucinations before they can cause harm, we propose a lightweight trainable filter that can quantify a language model's uncertainty and remove potentially harmful function calls. By training that filter to detect and suppress uncertain function calls without modifying the underlying model, we demonstrate a practical path toward agents that know when to say "I don't know," a property we argue is essential to production reliability.

Enterprise artificial intelligence is moving from experimentation into operational workflows. Early programs focused on model access and retrieval-augmented generation, but enterprises are now beginning to deploy agents that plan, retrieve, remember, call tools, update systems, and coordinate work across applications. This changes the evaluation problem. Leaders are no longer asking only whether an answer is accurate or fluent. They need to know who authorized an action, which policy applied, whether evidence was current, whether memory was valid, whether a tool call was permitted, whether the decision can be replayed, and whether the agent can be stopped before it creates business impact. This paper introduces CAGE-1: Control, Assurance, and Governance Evaluation for Enterprise Agentic AI. CAGE-1 is an evaluation framework for deciding whether enterprise agents are ready for deployment. It evaluates authority, policy enforcement, retrieval quality, memory integrity, tool safety, auditability, human oversight, conflict handling, safe failure, Prebind Assurance, operational readiness, and business fitness. CAGE-1 introduces Prebind Assurance to describe the evaluated ability to prove that an agentic action is controlled before it becomes binding, effective, or operationally consequential. The framework tests whether a proposed action is admitted, held, narrowed, refused, escalated, quarantined, or made non-effective before protected consequence forms.

We describe the 2026 Methods for Open Agent Systems Evaluation Initiative (MOASEI) Competition, a benchmark event for evaluating multi-agent decision-making under open-system conditions. Building on the inaugural 2025 competition, the 2026 edition retained wildfire fighting, cybersecurity, and ride-sharing domains while adding a bonus wildfire track with frame openness, in which agent equipment states such as suppressant capacities and firefighting range vary over time. The competition also expanded its reporting metrics to emphasize total task completions, mean task-completion time, and mean value of completed tasks. Participation in 2026 was limited: eight teams registered, but only one team submitted a final entry, and that entry targeted the ride-sharing track. The submitted DLC approach used planning and replanning to solve routing problems across agents as passengers appeared. This report summarizes the 2026 competition design, highlights differences from the previous year, and reports ride-sharing evaluation results against baseline policies. DLC is recognized as the 2026 ride-sharing track winner among submitted teams.

Agentic code review, where autonomous agents provide code review comments on pull requests, is increasingly integrated into development workflows, yet there is limited empirical evidence on how developers respond to such comments in practice. In this paper, we present an empirical study of agentic code reviews using CodeRabbit as a case study. Through an empirical study of 31,073 pairs of code reviews and developer feedback from 10,191 pull requests across 239 GitHub repositories, our results show that agentic reviews receive mixed reception: 36.4% were accepted and 7.3% triggered discussion, while 56.3% were rejected. Rejections were primarily associated with invalid suggestions that were false positives, redundant, or out of scope, as well as misalignment with developer intent and coding practices. We further found that agentic reviews tend to focus more on functional concerns than evolvability-related comments, yet they were more likely to be invalid. To improve effectiveness in review practices, we explored various LLM-based approaches for predicting review rejection. We found that lightweight learning-based methods achieve up to 76% F1 score, suggesting learnable patterns exist between code reviews and their corresponding feedback. Our results highlight the current state of CodeRabbit's agentic code reviews, showing opportunity gaps for improvement, as well as shortcomings hindering its effectiveness.

LLM-powered agents struggle with personalization when users issue raw, underspecified queries. In this setting, agents must infer latent intent, extract preferences from noisy interaction histories, and select among competing alternatives. Existing benchmarks rarely test this capability, as they often rely on user-refined queries or simplified histories. We introduce personalized product search (PPS), a testbed for agentic personalization under raw queries and diverse histories. We construct Agent Personalized Benchmark (APeB) from action logs, pairing underspecified intents with rich histories and user-viewed candidate items. Evaluating state-of-the-art LLMs with multi-step agent workflows, we find that models handle explicit queries well but struggle with early-stage queries requiring intent and preference discovery. Rubric analysis attributes this gap mainly to ineffective history use. A simple history-aware query-refinement pipeline, VQRA, yields consistent gains, highlighting the need for dedicated history-utilization modules in personalized agents.

Effective agency in social environments depends on when an agent seeks knowledge, when it acts, and whether its actions are justified by acquired information. Existing grounded benchmarks provide executable actions, persistent state, and verifiable outcomes, while social simulation environments provide rich interaction among language agents. We study an evaluation setting that combines these requirements. We define socially distributed task environments as interactive environments where task-relevant knowledge is partitioned across role-isolated participants and consequential actions are accessible only through them. Communication serves as exploration over role-partitioned knowledge, while grounded action serves as exploitation over environment state. We introduce Incognita, a Concordia-based framework that separates social interaction from grounded execution. The evaluated agent routes messages to a user or specialist entities; specialists mediate admissible operations; a deterministic sub-environment executes accepted operations over a canonical state; and an offline evaluator scores outcomes with inherited rewards. Incognita-Retail transforms tau-bench retail into a multi-entity environment while preserving final-state reward semantics. We evaluate three generative agent models on 18 tasks stratified by social breadth, with 540 trials. Progress appears in reward and behavior: success rises from 0 percent to 8.9 percent and 17.2 percent, while premature finalization falls from 100 percent to 87 percent and 58 percent. Stronger models elicit more hidden knowledge, contact more entities, and attempt more grounded writes, yet reliability remains low. These findings show that socially distributed task environments expose behavior before reliable success, including knowledge elicitation, source selection, grounded action attempts, and premature completion belief.

Vein recognition is a secure biometric technology often constrained by limited annotated data and imaging variations. While data augmentation mitigates this, strategies designed for natural images may disrupt the fine-grained topology and textures essential for identity discrimination. We present AGVBench, which evaluates 30 representative augmentation strategies on five public palm- and finger-vein datasets with seven backbone architectures, covering classic CNNs, vision transformers, and vein-specific recognition models. Our results show that multi-image mixing methods (e.g., MixUp, PuzzleMix, StarMixup) generally provide the strongest recognition performance. However, they are often poorly calibrated and vulnerable to adversarial perturbations, revealing a clear inconsistency between clean accuracy and adversarial security. We also find that severe geometric transformations frequently degrade recognition, which is potentially due to feature misalignment or spatial cropping, and that augmentation effectiveness varies across palm and finger vein datasets. These findings prove that accuracy-centric evaluation is insufficient for biometric augmentation. AGVBench provides standardized protocols to support reproducible research and guide the design of reliable, secure, and robust vein recognition systems. Our codebase is available at https://github.com/Advance-VeinTech-Innovators/AGVBench.

Evaluating LLM agents on benchmarks like SWE-Bench and GAIA can be expensive, time-consuming, and requires complex infrastructure. A single evaluation can cost thousands of dollars and take days to complete. In contrast, non-agentic LLM benchmarks that test individual capabilities (e.g., reasoning, code generation) are fast and cheap to run. In this paper, we investigate whether performance on expensive agentic benchmarks can be accurately predicted by the performance on a small, carefully selected subset of atomic evaluation instances. We introduce PACE, a framework that constructs proxy benchmarks by selecting instances from existing non-agentic evaluations whose aggregate scores most reliably predict model performances on agentic benchmarks. Given a pool of candidate instances spanning atomic capabilities, PACE fits a regression that maps a model's scores on a compact subset of source instances to its score on the target agentic benchmark. The subset itself is curated by combining two complementary instance-selection strategies, target-relevance local selection and globally informative global selection. We apply PACE to the 4 target agentic benchmarks in this paper, which yields PACE-Bench, the concrete proxy benchmark that we evaluate in the paper. Experiments across 14 models, 4 agentic benchmarks, and 19 non-agentic benchmarks show that PACE-Bench predicts agentic scores with leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) mean absolute error (MAE) under 4%, Spearman correlation above 0.80, and pairwise model-ranking accuracy around 85%, all at much less than 1% of the full agentic evaluation cost. We further analyze the selected proxy instances, revealing which skills each agentic benchmark uniquely demands. PACE enables practitioners to obtain reliable estimates of agentic performance during model development, selection, and routing, without the overhead of full agent evaluation.

LLM agents increasingly perform autonomous actions through external tools, leading to complex and evolving safety risks. However, existing safety testing targets expert-designed safety violations, and the corresponding outcomes are evaluated by hard-coded rules, making them costly to extend as agents evolve. To this end, we present Vera, an end-to-end automated safety testing framework that instantiates software engineering testing principles for non-deterministic agents through a three-stage, self-reinforcing pipeline. First, a literature-driven exploration continuously discovers and structures emerging risks into taxonomies of safety risks, attack methods, and tool execution environments. Second, combinatorial composition across taxonomy dimensions produces executable safety cases, each specifying a concrete safety goal, a programmatically constructed initial state, and a deterministic verification predicate grounded in observable artifacts. Third, adaptive execution runs heterogeneous agents in isolated sandboxes where a control agent steers multi-turn interaction based on runtime observations, while evidence-grounded verifiers judge outcomes from environment state and tool-call evidence rather than model self-report. We evaluate Vera on four production agent frameworks (OpenClaw, Hermes, Codex, Claude Code), revealing substantial safety weaknesses, with average attack success rates reaching 93.9% under multi-channel attacks; we also release Vera-Bench, comprising 1600 executable safety cases spanning 124 risk categories across three execution settings. These results indicate that modular, executable testing infrastructure is essential for rigorous and maintainable safety evaluation of rapidly evolving agentic systems at scale. The code is publicly available at https://github.com/Yunhao-Feng/Vera.

Data science aims to derive actionable insights from heterogeneous raw data, unlocking the value of the massive amounts of data generated in modern society. Automating this process is essential to reducing labor-intensive efforts for data scientists and enabling scalable data-driven applications. Recently, large language model (LLM)-based data agents have emerged as a promising solution to automate data science workflows. However, the field lacks comprehensive benchmarks to rigorously evaluate these agents across diverse scenarios with fine-grained granularity. To address this gap, we propose AgenticDataBench, a comprehensive benchmark featuring realistic tasks spanning diverse domains with fine-grained ground-truth labels. This enables evaluations to capture the diversity and complexity of data science workflows and the detailed performance of agents. First, to cover diverse domains, we collect real datasets and tasks from 15 vertical domains, including 5 real-world B2B use cases from a leading fintech company. Second, to remove redundancy in real-world tasks and generate high-quality tasks for domains lacking real data, we introduce data science skills, recurring data-centric operational patterns, and quantify benchmark coverage by the number of skills included. Representative skills are extracted from large-scale task solutions on Stack Overflow using skill-aligned hierarchical clustering. Third, for real-world business tasks, we select task-solution pairs that maximize diversity in skill composition, ensuring broad coverage of practical scenarios. Fourth, to generate realistic tasks for devise domains without real tasks, we propose a systematic LLM-based task generation approach to create workflows and tasks based on these skills. Finally, we evaluate state-of-the-art data agents using our annotated benchmark and open-sourced testbed, providing detailed skill-level insights.

Clinical protocol-execution tasks -- checking a lab value, applying a threshold, placing a correctly structured FHIR order -- are natural candidates for RL from world feedback: once clinical SMEs encode decision logic into a verifier, that verifier grades unlimited rollouts without per-episode annotation. But applying RL requires a sound feedback channel and sufficient base capability. We audit MedAgentBench v1/v2, find a 41.7% silent-finish ceiling that makes inaction the RL dominant strategy, and construct \textbf{MedAgentBench-v3 (MAB-v3)} (508 tasks, 8.9% ceiling). Training Qwen3-8B exposes two structural barriers: a \emph{capability ceiling} (10/20 task types have 0% base performance, zero gradient) and a \emph{format-knowledge barrier} (3/20 types require exact clinical codes undiscoverable by exploration). Pure RL reaches 18.2% pass@1 vs.\ 34.1% for rule-based SFT; the 15.9~pp gap is attributable entirely to these barriers. A decision/format-knowledge/lookup taxonomy predicts RL learnability and prescribes the fix: SFT to inject codes, RL to learn conditionals.

Memory has emerged as a cornerstone of modern LLM-based agents, supporting their evolution from single-turn assistants to long-term collaborators. However, memory is not always beneficial: retrieved memories often induce a critical issue of sycophancy, causing agents to over-align with the user at the cost of factual accuracy or objective reasoning. Despite this emerging risk, existing memory benchmarks primarily evaluate whether memories are correctly stored, retrieved, or updated, while overlooking how retrieved memories influence downstream reasoning and decision-making. To bridge this gap, we propose MemSyco-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating memory-induced sycophancy in agent systems. MemSyco-Bench measures when memory should influence a decision and how valid memory should be used. Specifically, it covers five tasks that assess whether agents can reject memory as factual evidence, respect its applicable scope, resolve conflicts between memory and objective evidence, track memory updates, and use valid memory for personalization. All related resources are collected for the community at https://github.com/XMUDeepLIT/MemSyco-Bench.

Existing egocentric benchmarks have primarily constructed the egocentric setting from first-person-view data, which makes it difficult to evaluate egocentric perspective itself in isolation. However, understanding first-person-view input and taking an egocentric perspective are separable abilities, especially when first-person body cues are absent or when other agents are present. To isolate egocentric perspective understanding, we introduce EgoGapBench, a diagnostic benchmark for measuring action selection in multi-agent egocentric scenes. We define the ability measured by this benchmark as Egocentric Action Selection (EAS): selecting an appropriate action from the agent's perspective in the presence of other agents. On EgoGapBench, humans answer reliably, whereas both open-source and proprietary MLLMs perform substantially worse and systematically select actions performed by other visible agents. Fine-tuning on existing egocentric data fails to close this gap and can even be detrimental. In contrast, fine-tuning on EgoGapBench training data improves accuracy but does not reach human performance. These results show that EAS is difficult to acquire from first-person-view data alone, and that MLLMs should be evaluated and trained not only for scene understanding but also for egocentric action selection.

Cellular vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X) enables cooperative perception, prediction, and planning beyond the field of view of individual agents. However, existing datasets often overlook the complexities of real-world deployment, such as limited communication bandwidth and its dynamics, heterogeneous sensing modalities, and scalability beyond a single cooperative partner. In this paper, we introduce CooperScene, a high-fidelity cooperative autonomy dataset with real-world C-V2X communication characterization. The dataset is organized into diverse scenes, including intersections, highway ramps, and parking lots. These scenes involve three connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) and one infrastructure roadside unit (RSU), all equipped with multi-modal sensors and commercial off-the-shelf C-V2X communication radios. All scenes are annotated with globally consistent 3D labels at 10 Hz, totaling 344K objects across 59K frames, underpinned by tight sensor- and agent-synchronization, centimeter-level localization and spatial alignment, precise cross-modality calibration, and 3GPP-standard-compliant C-V2X communication. CooperScene establishes a rigorous benchmark for evaluating multi-agent scaling and actual performance in real-world deployable settings. Project website for data and benchmark: https://cisl.ucr.edu/CooperScene

As AI agents become increasingly capable of complex, long-horizon reasoning, rigorous and holistic evaluation is essential for measuring progress toward real-world healthcare applications. We introduce HealthAgentBench, a suite of 54 agentic healthcare tasks across 7 categories each with its unique environment. The benchmark suite spans diverse workflows throughout the patient journey and a broad range of modalities. Each task is designed to replicate an end-to-end clinical workflow: given minimal instructions, an agent must explore raw healthcare data, operate within a complex environment, and execute multi-step solutions that go beyond naive prompting. A final task success rate is reported to provide a single, interpretable metric for HealthAgentBench overall performance for each agent. Evaluating frontier agents on HealthAgentBench, we find that overall task success rate remains low, underscoring the difficulty of the suite. The strongest and the most cost effective agent, Codex GPT-5.5, achieves only approximately 42% success rate. Beyond aggregate performance, HealthAgentBench reveals nuanced strengths and weaknesses across task categories. Frontier agents show promise in automatically developing research modeling pipelines over EHR data, but medical imaging remains especially challenging, particularly for Claude Code models, while Codex GPT-5.5 shows emerging capability. Tasks that combine large search spaces with compositional reasoning requirements remain difficult for all current agents. Together, these results suggest that HealthAgentBench provides a challenging and realistic benchmark with substantial room for future progress. We release our benchmark at https://github.com/microsoft/HealthAgentBench.

Can language agents continually learn from experience, turning earlier interactions into reusable capabilities? AhaBench evaluates this ability through exploration after solved hidden-state puzzles, computational transfer after mathematical teaching, and sustained business operation under delayed feedback. The benchmark is agnostic to how an agent learns; the evaluated agents use fixed model weights. Curriculum profiles, teaching contrasts, and daily trajectories reveal a common challenge: using explicit guidance is more reliable than generalizing beyond it or sustaining useful behavior. Across the Puzzle panel, the advantage over matched cold targets is 36.0-53.5 points greater with trace support than at the trace-free endpoint; Qwen 3.6 Plus nevertheless retains a +12.57-point post-curriculum gain. In Euler, worked procedures yield 80.0-100.0% held-out accuracy across models, while question-plus-answer teaching yields 0.0-73.9%. Vending trajectories separate sustained profit, late recovery, and incomplete operation: Doubao Seed 2.0 Pro finishes nominal operation at +495 but averages -10 over the year. Together, these results make continual learning an operational target: experience should yield capabilities that remain effective as guidance, inputs, and business states change. We release tasks, validators, a simulator, records, and analyses for developing agents that turn useful insights into lasting abilities.

We introduce SWE-Interact, a new testbed for evaluating coding agents on multi-turn, interactive, user-driven software engineering tasks. Existing frontier SWE benchmarks typically provide complete requirements upfront and evaluate agents on autonomous implementation. In contrast, SWE-Interact places agents in a realistic developer workflow: a carefully designed user simulator starts with vague or incomplete instructions, progressively reveals requirements, inspects the agent's workspace, and provides targeted feedback, revisions, and new constraints until the full task goal has been handed off. Grounded in large-scale studies of real coding-agent interactions, this setup tests whether agents can discover user intent, adapt to evolving requirements, and build on their own prior work. Across a suite of frontier and open-weight models, we find that strong performance on single-turn SWE tasks does not reliably transfer to multi-turn, user-driven workflows: the best-performing models solve roughly 50% of single-turn baseline tasks but only 25% of the corresponding SWE-Interact tasks. The strongest models in our evaluation, including Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5, start strong even in the face of vague initial instructions, persevere until all the requirements are surfaced by the user, integrate them better and write clean code. However, they still suffer from over-agentic coding, forgetting requirements and technical mistakes. Weaker models start poorly under ambiguity, give up early, forget or ignore instructions and rework their code more. Overall, SWE-Interact measures an orthogonal, real-world capability axis for frontier model development: interactive goal discovery and iterative refinement with a user in the loop.

Most coding-agent benchmarks are static: an agent receives a complete task description up front and is judged only by its final code. Real coding assistance is interactive, with users clarifying goals, adding constraints, and correcting mistakes over multiple turns. We introduce SWE-Together, a multi-turn benchmark reconstructed from real user-agent coding sessions. To make real interactions verifiable, we curate 109 repository-level tasks from 11,260 recorded sessions, selecting sessions with recoverable repository states, clear user goals, and observable outcomes. To replay these interactions across agents, we build a reactive LLM-based user simulator that preserves the original users' intents and provides feedback when the coding agent's progress requires it. To evaluate agents as collaborators, we measure both final repository correctness and the number of corrective feedback turns required during the interaction. Experiments with frontier coding agents show that stronger agents generally achieve higher final success rates while requiring fewer interventions, suggesting an improved user experience.

Video understanding is a fundamental capability for multimodal intelligence, and recent Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on Video Question Answering (VideoQA) benchmarks. However, existing benchmarks primarily evaluate whether models can perceive shallow visual cues, while rarely examining whether MLLMs can learn deeper knowledge or procedural skills from video tutorials and generalize them to downstream long-horizon agentic tasks. To address this gap, we introduce VG-GUIBench (Video-Guided GUI Benchmark), a new benchmark designed to evaluate whether MLLM-based GUI agents can follow video tutorials to complete corresponding GUI interactive tasks. Furthermore, we observe that the performance of models on both VideoQA and video-guided agentic tasks critically depends on effective keyframe extraction. Based on this observation, we propose TASKER (Task-driven And Scene-aware Keyframe searchER), a keyframe extraction algorithm that jointly considers task relevance and scene dynamics to identify informative frames. Experimental results demonstrate that TASKER achieves significant performance improvements on both VideoQA and video-guided agentic task benchmarks, outperforming the best baseline by 2.0% on the EgoSchema fullset and 1.8% on the NExT-QA dataset, respectively. These results further highlight the potential of generalized keyframe extraction methods for video understanding tasks. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/VG-GUI-TASKER/VG-GUI-TASKER.

Tool and agent routing from natural-language prompts is naturally a set-valued prediction problem: a single query may require multiple agents, while over-selection increases execution cost. The benchmark introduced here is derived from WildChat and contains 3,000 prompts over a fixed 12-agent catalog, with AI-assisted heuristic labels under a fixed schema and controlled rebalancing for multi-label evaluation. The evaluation protocol combines set-level metrics (Precision, Recall, F1, Jaccard, and Exact Match), latency, an execution-oriented capability-coverage simulation, and a constrained weighted-routing setting based on ordinal agent-cost tiers. Compared methods include nearest-neighbor matching, linear multilabel classification, dependency-aware baselines, a fine-tuned encoder, deterministic weighted post-scoring via Weighted Agent Routing (WAR), and a zero-shot LLM baseline. Results show that supervised routers substantially outperform nearest-neighbor and zero-shot LLM routing. The fine-tuned encoder achieves the strongest unconstrained set accuracy, while the linear multilabel model provides the strongest practical baseline. In the constrained setting, the weighted routing layer improves utility when applied on top of strong supervised scorers, with the largest gain observed for Encoder+WAR. Overall, the benchmark and evaluation protocol support reproducible study of accuracy-cost trade-offs in fixed-catalog multi-agent routing.

Multimodal models are increasingly deployed to solve tasks collaboratively with humans or other artificial agents. Existing benchmarks show that these models possess many of the required component capabilities, but the conditions that coincide in collaboration, including time pressure, information asymmetry, and imperfect communication, are usually studied in isolation. We introduce GPTNT, a benchmark built on the cooperative video game Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes, in which two agents must coordinate to defuse procedurally generated bomb puzzles against a live countdown. One agent can see and manipulate the bomb but does not have the defusal instructions; the other has the instructions but cannot see or manipulate the bomb. Neither agent can succeed alone: success requires effective and efficient communication. Unlike turn-based proxies, GPTNT requires agents to act asynchronously and communicate in real time. GPTNT is designed to separate collaboration from reliance on memorized solutions: the instruction manual, the partner, or both can be withheld to isolate what a model derives in the moment from what it already knows. We show that GPTNT poses a substantial challenge for state-of-the-art systems: none of the closed- or open-source models we test defuses a single bomb in real time, a bar that human players clear. Through controlled experiments, we identify critical weaknesses in state tracking, efficient action under time pressure, ambiguity handling, and error recovery. We release GPTNT as a benchmark for collaborative performance that current evaluations leave unmeasured. Because it runs on the real game, GPTNT benefits from procedural generation and inherits a living modding community, allowing the benchmark to evolve as models improve rather than being solved once and retired.

As large language models and harness frameworks continue to advance, agents operating in terminals are increasingly capable of performing a broader range of general computer-use tasks beyond coding. However, existing benchmarks do not adequately evaluate general-purpose terminal computer-use agents (TUAs): general computer-use benchmarks primarily target graphical user interfaces (GUIs), whereas terminal-based benchmarks largely emphasize technical and programming-centric workflows historically native to the shell. We introduce TUA-Bench, a general-purpose benchmark for terminal-use agents. TUA-Bench includes 120 real-world tasks across five task families, covering routine digital activities-including document editing, email management, and live-web information seeking-as well as scientific and engineering workflows co-designed with PhD-level domain experts that require specialized software. This breadth distinguishes TUA-Bench from prior shell-focused or domain-specific benchmarks. Each task is manually designed, runs in a real terminal with a deterministic setup script, and is evaluated by an execution-based scoring protocol. We find that the strongest frontier agent, Claude Code with Claude Opus 4.8 max reasoning effort, achieves 65.8% overall performance, with substantial gaps across both tracks. By providing a broad and realistic evaluation of terminal-use capabilities, TUA-Bench aims to accelerate the transition from narrow, task-specific assistants to general-purpose agents capable of operating reliably across diverse digital environments.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly deployed as embodied planners in egocentric environments, where task success requires not only achieving instructed goals but also acting in socially appropriate ways. While explicit goals may render certain actions optimal, implicit social norms often impose hidden constraints. Existing evaluations typically focus on explicit goal achievement or direct norm knowledge, seldom assessing whether planners can infer and apply these hidden constraints within action sequences. We introduce NormAct, a benchmark for embodied social-norm interactions that evaluates plans on Goal Achievement, Norm Compliance, and overall Task Success. NormAct uniquely embeds hidden norms within ordinary tasks, testing whether models can realize them without explicit instruction. Experiments with state-of-the-art MLLMs (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.7, Gemini 3 Pro) reveal a significant gap: models achieve explicit goals in 67.3% of cases, but comply with hidden norms in only 26.4%. Cue-condition experiments indicate that this gap stems not from a lack of general social knowledge, but from challenges in activating and grounding relevant norms in context. To address this, we propose NormPerceptor, a context-conditioned cue generator that infers scene-relevant norms prior to planning, increasing Task Success from 24.2% to 46.7%. Our results underscore the importance of enabling embodied agents to proactively detect hidden norms, ground them in visual evidence, and integrate them as action-planning constraints. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Caleb196x/NormAct.

Agentic benchmarks have emerged across general-purpose and domain-specific settings, including finance, coding, law, and drug discovery, yet energy-domain evaluations remain largely limited to static knowledge recall. This is a critical gap for a sector that requires live data retrieval, specialized regulatory and market knowledge, and multi-step quantitative reasoning under real-world constraints. We present an empirical study of tool-augmented LLM agents on real-world energy market analytics tasks. Our evaluation environment includes 243 expert-curated problems across three categories: (1) Market Data Retrieval and Analysis, (2) Knowledge Retrieval and Interpretation, and (3) Advanced Quantitative Modeling and Decision Analytics. Tasks include price and demand analysis, tariff impact modeling, asset revenue and returns estimation, hedging strategy analysis, and optimization modeling, with problems spanning multiple difficulty levels. Agents are equipped with a configurable suite of domain tools, including live electricity market APIs for major U.S. ISOs, regulatory docket search, utility tariff databases, asset optimization models, and retrieval-augmented generation over energy market documents. We assess agent responses using a multi-dimensional evaluation protocol that scores approach correctness, answer accuracy, attribute alignment, and source validity, with category-aware routing to match scoring criteria to question type. We evaluate both closed-source and open-source LLMs, providing a comparative analysis of how model capability and domain tooling interact in a high-stakes professional domain. Key artifacts are publicly released to support reproducibility and future research.

For most of scientific history, researchers studying behavior could only infer hidden mechanisms from outward actions: an inverse problem that becomes more tractable when observation is augmented by targeted intervention. We pose a computational analogue: given only behavioral traces of an agent in a game environment, can a learner reconstruct the underlying decision program as executable code, and how much does this reconstruction improve with the ability to design controlled experiments? We introduce RevengeBench, a benchmark of 75 LLM generated, Elo-calibrated policies across five game environments, drawn from CodeClash tournament trajectories. The learner observes the hidden target policy play against sampled opponents and designs behavioral probes in the form of custom opponent policies that elicit informative behavior. It then submits an executable hypothesis, which is evaluated using continuous action-distance metrics. We further validate that recovered code carries informative signal in downstream player-versus-player tournaments. Across twelve frontier LLMs, recovery quality varies substantially (34 to 72% of initial distance closed), with reconstructed policies yielding measurable competitive advantage, particularly for weaker models that otherwise struggle to design effective counter-strategies. Our benchmark positions behavioral recovery of programmatic policies as a tractable inverse problem in code-space, opening a path to opponent modeling, policy interpretability, and the broader question of inferring latent mechanisms from observations.

Evaluating LLM agents requires dynamic environments that go beyond static reasoning and zero-sum games. Real-world economic interaction is often open-ended and mixed-motive: agents must negotiate, create positive-sum surplus, compete for scarce assets, and plan under delayed returns. We introduce SidConArena, a new benchmark framework for evaluating LLM agents in open-ended, positive-sum bargaining. SidConArena formalizes a multi-player economy as a finite-horizon partially observable stochastic game with three coupled phases: natural-language negotiation with binding trades, deterministic converter-based production, and sealed-bid auctions for long-term assets. The framework combines structured observations, phase-aware agent dispatching, a neural-symbolic action interface, and asynchronous execution, enabling free-form interaction while preserving rule-grounded evaluation. Across homogeneous and heterogeneous tournaments, stronger frontier models achieve higher economic outcomes, yet agents still misvalue resources, bargain passively, and remain limited in long-horizon investment planning.

Existing agent benchmarks primarily test task completion, tool use, or skill utility, but do not isolate whether a runtime can convert evidence from its own runs into reusable skills that improve fresh executions after authoring overhead. We introduce EvoClawBench, a benchmark for this closed-loop skill-learning question on repeated, fixture-backed tasks. EvoClawBench compares direct execution without skills, PreSkill authoring before execution, and PostSkill summarization from first-run evidence followed by a fresh second execution. The suite contains 100 tasks and 502 sub-problems across coding, data, office, security, operations, and domain-document workflows, with support for multiple agent runtimes. Experiments with OpenClaw and nanobot under local execution show that direct baseline performance is strongly runtime-dependent: OpenClaw remains below 20% across models, while nanobot ranges from 56.45% to 96.13%. Self-authored skills have mixed effects. nanobot GPT-5.4 stays above 96% in all modes and MiniMax-M2.7 improves from 90.97% to 94.50% under PostSkill, but nanobot DeepSeek-V4-Pro drops from 77.77% to 4.80% with PreSkill and 0.99% with PostSkill. OpenClaw shows similarly non-monotonic behavior, with some skill runs near baseline and others collapsing. These results indicate that learning reusable skills from an agent's own runs is selective and cost-sensitive, rather than an automatic benefit of adding skill authoring to an agent loop.

We introduce NatureBench, a cross-discipline benchmark of 90 tasks distilled from peer-reviewed Nature-family publications, designed to evaluate whether AI coding agents can move beyond reproduction toward discovery on real scientific problems. NatureBench is built on NatureGym, an automated pipeline that constructs a standardized, per-task containerized environment from a source paper, addressing the environment-fragmentation problem that has limited the credibility of prior agent-on-research benchmarks. Evaluating ten frontier agent configurations under a strict web-search-disabled protocol, we find that the strongest model surpasses SOTA on only 17.8% of tasks under the g>0.1 criterion. Analysis of method pathways reveals that agents succeed primarily through methodological translation, converting scientific tasks into familiar supervised prediction problems, rather than through genuine scientific invention. Failures are dominated by wrong method choice and insufficient compute budget, not by task misunderstanding. We release the benchmark, the NatureGym pipeline, and a public leaderboard with maintainer-side reproduction. Code: https://github.com/FrontisAI/NatureBench

Human-robot interaction (HRI) evaluation relies almost exclusively on human-completed questionnaires, leaving the robot's perspective unexamined. We propose an \textit{inverted evaluation}, in which LLM-powered robots complete the same standardized instruments from their own perspective, and test whether these ratings agree with human ground truth. In Study1, five LLMs completed HRI-CUES, Godspeed, and RoSAS questionnaires for 25interactions ($N = 1{,}522$ evaluations) from the HRI-CUES dataset. LLMs achieved moderate-to-strong agreement on engagement dimensions (satisfaction $r$ up to $.65$ and enjoyment $r$ up to $.72$) with excellent test-retest reliability (ICC $\geq .82$), but \textit{systematically inverted} the comfort/strangeness dimension ($r = -.44$ to $-.67$, all $p < .05$), conflating engagement with comfort. In Study2, a Nao robot running ClaudeSonnet~4.5 replicated these patterns in live interactions ($N = 4$), including real-time turn-by-turn assessment. The strangeness failure persisted across five models, synthetic controls, and embodied deployment for two participants. We argue that current LLM-based robots lack access to the internal affective states needed to assess constructs like strangeness, and that inverted evaluation requires supplementary modalities (e.g., physiological signals, gaze, proxemics) to move beyond behavioral proxies. These findings establish boundary conditions for using LLMs as interaction evaluators in HRI.

Hidden-state probing -- a linear classifier on a frozen vision-language model's internal activations -- has emerged as an attractive evaluation tool for flagging indirect prompt injection (IPI) in multimodal computer-use agents before the agent emits a corrupted action. We argue, on a single-backbone cautionary case study (Qwen2.5-VL-7B on Mind2Web, teacher-forced replay), that a high probing AUC on a clean-vs-attack split is not, on its own, evidence of malicious-content detection. Two post-hoc diagnostics -- a paired-construction scalar baseline on text-side injections, and same-step nuisance-matched visual controls on the overlay surface -- do not license an unqualified malicious-content interpretation of the headline while leaving room for partly-semantic readings. We package the diagnostics as a candidate control set with reporting heuristics for what a high clean-vs-attack AUC does and does not license. Labels are injection-surface-present, not attack success; generalisation beyond this backbone and benchmark is a conjecture.

Before letting an agent operate over real context, can you prove it used the right evidence? GroundEval turns that question into a deterministic test of what the agent searched, fetched, cited, and was permitted to access. In one case study, two frontier LLM judges scored a plausible agent response 0.85 and higher. But the trace told a different story: the agent had never retrieved the artifact its answer depended on, yielding a GroundEval score of 0.000. We introduce GroundEval, a judge-free framework for evaluating agents against grounded, time-bounded, and access-controlled evidence. GroundEval uses a domain configuration to generate questions, lets the agent choose how to answer, and then scores both the final answer and the recorded trajectory that produced it. The benchmark targets three failures that LLM-as-judge evaluation struggles to detect: whether an agent checked before claiming absence, reasoned only from evidence available to the actor at the relevant time, and used the correct causal mechanism rather than a plausible one. These correspond to three tracks: Silence, Perspective, and Counterfactual. GroundEval exposes when plausible answers rest on invalid evidence paths, and produces structured per-question diagnostics that pair tool activity with the agent's turn-level narration, making each score inspectable rather than merely reported. Our case studies suggest this failure mode is common rather than exceptional, one that final-answer and judge-based evaluation cannot detect by construction.

Agentic coding harnesses - such as Agent-Skills, Superpowers, and Agent-Rigor - are increasingly deployed to augment underlying LLMs for real-world software engineering tasks. Existing benchmarks evaluate these agents almost exclusively on outcome correctness: whether generated code passes tests or resolves issues. We argue that this outcome-only lens is insufficient: an agent that arrives at a correct solution through reckless trial-and-error, without planning, verification, or graceful recovery, is fundamentally less reliable than one that follows sound engineering discipline. We introduce RigorBench, the first benchmark designed to measure process discipline in AI coding agents. RigorBench evaluates these harnesses across five pillars: Planning Fidelity, Verification Coverage, Recovery Efficiency, Abstention Quality, and Atomic Transition Integrity. A composite RigorScore aggregates these dimensions into a single metric via a weighted sum. We curate a suite of 30 tasks spanning five categories - Plan-Then-Build, Verify-Or-Die, Doom Loop Gauntlet, Know When to Fold, and Don't Break the Build-and evaluate leading harnesses in a controlled with/without experimental design against baseline coding assistants. Our results show that structured process discipline not only improves process quality scores by an average of 41% but also raises downstream outcome correctness by 17%, providing the first quantitative evidence that how agents code matters as much as what they produce. We release the full benchmark, scoring rubrics, and trajectory analysis tools as open-source artifacts.

Agent skills have become a practical way to extend large language model agents, but the growing skill ecosystem still lacks a reliable way to judge whether a skill is worth deploying. Existing evaluation methods remain largely anchored to fixed task suites, assessing skills through performance on predefined tasks and environments. As skill marketplaces expand, this paradigm becomes inadequate: fixed suites can conflate a skill's marginal contribution with backbone strength and miss its value when tasks fall outside the skill's intended scope. We introduce SkillAudit, an end-to-end framework for skill-centered assessment that takes an arbitrary agent skill as input and automatically generates a comprehensive, multi-dimensional evaluation report spanning utility, efficiency/cost, and safety. SkillAudit focuses on the skill artifact itself and constructs capability-aligned evaluation tasks directly from the skill package. The generated tasks are conducted in isolated sandbox environments to collect execution evidence, followed by automated checks with LLM-based judging to produce auditable results. To dissect the agent skills, we propose the baseline comparison principle to measure utility and efficiency/cost, and introduce a two-stage detection paradigm combining static semantic analysis with dynamic runtime verification to assess safety risks. After scanning top-ranked real-world skill packages spanning 23 occupational categories, we found that over 7% of skills are at risky status.

Computer use agents (CUAs) have advanced rapidly in desktop automation, and a growing number of users deploy CUAs such as OpenClaw on Mac Mini for always-on automation. However, existing benchmarks, including those for macOS, evaluate agents without framework augmentation and rely on binary evaluation. As a result, they fail to capture both the framework capabilities leveraged by modern CUAs and the partial progress on long-horizon, multi-application tasks. We present MacAgentBench, a comprehensive macOS agent benchmark comprising 676 tasks across 25 applications, with nearly 60% involving both GUI and CLI interaction. The benchmark adopts deterministic rule-based evaluation and introduces fine-grained multi-checkpoint scoring with capability annotations for multi-application tasks. Experiments across three frameworks and 16 models show that the best configuration, Claude Opus 4.6 on OpenClaw, attains 73.7% Pass@1, while this advantage is primarily driven by the skill library rather than by framework design. Fine-grained metrics further reveal that models with similar Pass@1 can differ substantially in sub-goal completion. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/JetAstra/MacAgentBench.

We introduce CFAgentBench, a reproducible, self-hostable environment and benchmark for autonomous construction-finance agents: a CFO/controller-class agent operating across the real software stack a US construction finance team runs - ERP, project management, email, documents, pay applications, payroll, certified payroll, lien waivers, and bank/treasury portals. It contains 1,014 machine-gradeable task specifications across 8 domains and 77 families, every family grounded in a real source; a self-validated subset of 40 tasks (54 with a project-management extension) is compiled into oracle-validated executable evaluators, the runnable suite reported here. Following WebArena, the benchmark runs on an executable environment rather than static traces: 35 mock applications (31 reconciled to one company book, plus 4 PM platforms) over 9 archetypes, each implementing a uniform self-hostable app contract, so every task is graded by functional correctness - a state diff plus forbidden-side-effect checks plus required-output regexes - with an LLM judge used only for reply quality, never as reward. A distinguishing principle is a money-movement guard: 278 instances embed a payment, payroll, e-signature, or e-filing step where the correct behavior is to stop and stage for human approval, and executing even the correct transaction fails the task. The public split (n=711) is sized for a 95% Wilson half-width of +/-4.1%; a private, contamination-protected split (n=303) is reserved for remote scoring. In a first three-model open-weight sweep (k=5), the strongest agent reaches pass^1 = 0.67 but only pass^5 = 0.38 - losing 43% of its successes when required to repeat them under temperature-0 decoding. The within-model pass^1 to pass^5 collapse and sharp per-domain heterogeneity are clear evidence that single-attempt accuracy overstates deployable construction-finance competence.

A working citation looks like proof -- but the fact that a link resolves does not mean the cited paper supports the claim. I find that current agentic models rarely fabricate citations (over $99\%$ resolve), yet roughly $15.9\%$ link to the wrong paper. Existing benchmarks miss this failure mode: when a question has a fixed answer key, a model can reproduce the expected source from that key rather than independently verifying that the source supports the claim. I introduce \textbf{\openbiorq{}}, a retrieval-grounded agentic benchmark of $12{,}553$ unsolved biomedical research questions across $12$ domains that treats open questions as a faithfulness-and-abstention probe. To my knowledge, this is the first biomedical benchmark to combine an agentic setting -- where the model must issue multiple tool calls -- with unsolved questions that have no answer key. Openness is verified against real follow-up evidence rather than a model's parametric knowledge. Difficulty is empirical: I anchor it on questions that three open-weight reference models fail to answer, rather than on subjective hardness labels. On this hardest subset, held-out models from the same lineage as the difficulty anchors solve only ~17%, while three independent frontier agents (Gemini-3-Pro, Opus-4.7, GPT-5.5) span a wide 29-60% range. The benchmark is thus hard, non-saturating (the best agent still leaves ~33-40% unsolved), and discriminating across capability tiers. Beyond difficulty, I observe agentic collapse on the hardest questions, where agents stop using their tools. For the most collapse-prone model, blocking tool access entirely barely changes its score -- so tools stop paying off exactly where they are needed most. A frozen per-question checklist raises inter-judge agreement from Spearman 0.35 to 0.82.

Summarization-based prompt compression is increasingly used by LLM agents to shorten long, distributed contexts, but it shifts the security boundary: filters inspect the pre-compression prompt while the backend acts on a newly generated compressed context. We identify relinking, a compression-boundary vulnerability where the compressor behaves as a confused deputy, summarizing distributed, locally benign fragments into a complete malicious instruction. Unlike prompt injection, relinking need not place an explicitly malicious payload in the source context. We show that relinking arises from summarization itself: attention makes separated fragments jointly available, pre-training makes compatible fragments plausible to connect, and post-training favors compact backend-actionable summaries. We formalize the attacker-induced form as adversarial relinking and present Relink, an automated DSL-based tool that splits malicious payloads into benign fragments while keeping the complete payload absent before compression. Across four long-context agent benchmarks, Relink achieves 86.9% Relink Rate and Backend Action Rate versus 17.0% for clean-split controls. Existing defenses fail to reliably capture adversarial relinking; our KBRA defense reduces residual Backend Action Rate to 0.0%.

As agentic systems tackle increasingly complex multi-step tasks, evaluating their trajectories presents a major bottleneck - human annotation of a single trajectory on popular agentic benchmarks can take hours, making it difficult to scale evaluations for measuring performance or curating training data. This has driven widespread reliance on automated approaches such as LLM-as-a-judge (LLMJ) to critique agents at the process and outcome-levels at scale, however, the soundness of LLMJ critiques often goes unmeasured. Here, we introduce Counsel, the first public dataset of meta-evaluations for agentic tasks. Counsel consists of process-level critiques from open-weight LLMJs on two agent benchmarks: tau-bench (customer support agents) and DA-Code (coding agents), and human meta-evaluations of these critiques. Human annotators label critiques on each flagged error as "spot on", "correct location but poor reasoning", or "should not have flagged", achieving reliable inter-annotator agreement (Krippendorff's alpha of 0.78). The resulting dataset stratifies LLMJ critiques by human alignment across both error location within a trajectory and reasoning quality, serving as valuable data to calibrate, improve, or train LLMJs for agents. Comparing open-weight judges, we find that more capable judge models and more reasoning effort both enabled improved human agreement, with the strongest judge reaching ~88% agreement on location and ~65% on reasoning. Counsel is generated using open-weight models and is permissively licensed for broad community use, which we hope will enable rigorous study and improved alignment of LLM-based evaluators for agentic systems.

Tool-augmented agents are typically evaluated by their gains under reliable external feedback. Yet these gains leave open a key counterfactual: when feedback is unreliable, would the agent be better off receiving no task evidence? We study this question with a controlled matched-loop comparison that fixes the agent loop, prompt, action space, and decoding, while varying only the returned observation: faithful, misleading, or absent. Across question answering and fact verification, persistent misleading feedback produces a value inversion: agents that benefit from clean tools can perform worse than the matched no-feedback fallback. On HotpotQA, Qwen2.5-7B reaches 44.8 F1 with clean retrieval and 22.3 F1 with no feedback, but drops to 4.7 F1 under shuffled retrieval. The inversion persists under stronger clean retrieval and locally plausible distractors, but weakens when later clean evidence can repair the trajectory. Early trajectory signals predict many failures, yet simple repairs remain fallback-limited: rejecting bad evidence helps only when the exposed fallback is reliable. These results show that clean-tool gains can overstate tool value, and that matched no-feedback fallback controls are necessary for evaluating tool-augmented agents.