Agentic Benchmarks

Interactive travel planning has become a popular use case for language models. Agents are deployed to manage evolving preferences and unexpected disruptions over multiple turns. Such settings require models to make complex, profile-conditioned planning decisions. However, existing benchmarks often evaluate feasibility, personalization, or interaction in relatively isolated settings. We therefore introduce Trip+ to measure the ability of agents to plan travel holistically. In Trip+, given traveler profiles and dynamic interactions, agents must generate and revise minute-level itineraries. End-to-end traveler experiences are evaluated via an LLM-based simulator, enabling the assessment of subjective metrics like fatigue. Our scenarios range from simple request resolutions to complex environment-driven replanning. We evaluate 18 LMs and find a consistent gap in experiential quality. Models favor technically feasible but exhausting itineraries that diverge sharply from profiled traveler preferences.

LLM agents increasingly solve local tasks through command-line and CLI-based harness interfaces, including code editing, repository inspection, data analysis, and file workflows. Existing evaluations often emphasize task success, but deployed local agents are not models alone: the CLI mediates prompts, context replay, tool outputs, file access, terminal observations, and stopping behavior. As a result, the same model can produce different success, token, and cost profiles under different CLIs. We introduce AGENTMETER, a benchmark for evaluating model-CLI matching in CLI-mediated local task-solving agents, together with AgentMeter Score (AMS), a success-anchored, cost-aware metric over calibrated task-effort tiers. AgentMeter uses Benchmark90 as the full validation set and Core30 as a lower-cost subset for expanded comparison across 24 complete model-CLI configurations. On Core30, common deployment criteria select different configurations: highest Pass/30 selects GLM-5.1 with qwen-coder, lowest Tok./Pass selects GPT-5.3-Codex with kimi-cli, lowest billable USD/Pass selects Qwen3.6+ with Codex, while highest AMS selects Qwen3.6+ with kimi-cli. Benchmark90 validation preserves the Top-1 configuration and Top-3 set, with Spearman correlation 0.765, Kendall correlation 0.567, and AMS MAE 0.0383. These results show that model choice and CLI choice should not be decoupled, and that model-CLI configurations should be evaluated as the deployed unit.

Executable evaluation -- checking the consequences of an agent's actions with a program rather than grading its prose -- has become a prominent way to assess tool-using AI agents in software settings. Electric power engineering has not yet had an analogous benchmark: language-model use is still dominated by retrieval and text question answering, while agents acting on power-system artifacts remain mostly academic prototypes. We introduce the Power Systems Agent Benchmark, an executable benchmark for power-engineering agents. An agent receives a structured task and returns a structured solution; a deterministic evaluator recomputes the engineering quantities, checks operational constraints, and returns a feasibility flag, a normalized score, and explicit violations. The benchmark contains 41 task families across eight areas of power engineering, from power flow and protection to stability, microgrids, reliability, power quality, and forecasting. Each task is grounded in a citable source, standard, or documented engineering formulation. To resist contamination, held-out cases are synthesized on demand by per-family generators from private seeds: the construction is inspectable, but the instances remain private. In a reference evaluation with three command-line agents, the strongest score near the compact tier's ceiling, a smaller open model trails, and public and held-out performance are broadly consistent; a separate public-split grid with OpenCode and Aider probes harness effects. The reference evaluation doubles as quality control: unanimous failures flag candidate task or evaluator defects, and it exposed a latent evaluator bug missed by self-consistency checks. The evaluators are compact deterministic surrogates, but the task contract allows their internals to be upgraded to simulator-backed checks without changing how tasks are posed or solved.

When large language models serve as evaluators in multi-agent systems, their strategy preferences -- whether induced by explicit prompts or by shared architectural priors -- propagate through the agent network. We introduce Contagion Networks, a formal framework for measuring how evaluator preferences spread across interacting LLM agents. In a controlled 3-agent experiment using DeepSeek-chat with three distinct evaluator preference profiles (structured, balanced, evidence-based), we measure the Cross-Agent Contagion Matrix Gamma_3 and find that preferences consistently propagate between agents (gamma in [0.157, 0.352]). A neutral-prompt control experiment reveals a counter-intuitive result: shared architectural priors dominate explicit preference prompts as the driver of contagion (rho_neutral = 1.498 vs. rho_mixed = 1.299; prompt contribution: -63.5%). We identify three propagation regimes governed by the spectral radius rho(Gamma_N) and demonstrate that the same agents suppress preference contagion in chain topology (beta_3 = 0.0126 +/- 0.0038, 95% CI [0.0089, 0.0163], n=4 seeds) but cascade in fully-connected topology (Delta H_avg = -0.020) -- a topology-dependent regime transition validated both for homogeneous and cross-model agent pools (rho^cross = 1.296 +/- 0.016, n=4). We show that increasing evaluator committee size from k=1 to k=3 reduces effective contagion by 68.9% +/- 14.1% (n=4 seeds), providing an actionable mitigation strategy. We release the open-source Contagion Network experimental framework.

Academic paper search is a core step in scientific research, and LLM-based search agents are emerging as a promising paradigm for iterative, intent-driven literature exploration. However, existing benchmarks are insufficient for systematically evaluating agentic academic search under realistic open literature environments. We propose ScholarQuest, a large-scale, taxonomy-guided benchmark for agentic academic paper search. ScholarQuest is constructed from over 1,000 computer science topics and four representative research intents, including method-oriented, setting-anchored, comparison-based, and scope-controlled queries. It further provides scalable answer construction and a shared retrieval backend ScholarBase for reproducible evaluation. Benchmarking results show that agentic methods outperform single-shot retrieval baselines, yet the best-performing agent only achieves 0.314 Recall@100 and 0.355 Recall@All, indicating substantial room for improvement. In addition, analyses of search efficiency, intent-level robustness, and failure cases further highlight the benchmark's ability to provide multi-dimensional evaluation signals for academic paper search agents.

This paper addresses a rapidly emerging policy challenge: how to generate and interpret credible evidence about the biological capabilities and risks of AI scientists, or agentic AI systems capable of autonomously or collaboratively performing multi-step scientific tasks. As these systems enter real research workflows, decision-makers increasingly face evaluation results whose meaning depends on underlying design choices that are often implicit or under-documented. We synthesize current evidence on AI-enabled biological risks and introduce biological agentic evaluations as a promising, but interpretation-sensitive, tool for assessing these systems. Our central contribution is a set of practical, experience-grounded considerations -- drawing from our own evaluations -- that show how choices around defining, designing, running, scoring, and documenting evaluations materially shape what results do and do not imply about risk. The analysis is intended to help policymakers interpret biological evaluation outputs with appropriate caution; guide public and private funders toward high-leverage investments in AI-biology evaluation research; and support biosecurity practitioners assessing emerging AI systems. A secondary audience includes researchers designing or conducting agentic evaluations within frontier AI labs, AI providers, scientific institutions, and third-party evaluation organizations.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents for multi-step tasks in executable environments, yet their ability to perform realistic operations research (OR) work remains unclear. Existing OR evaluations often decouple modeling from solving, rely on pre-formalized or text-only instances, and rarely test the full workflow from operational artifacts to validated decisions. In this work, we introduce ORAgentBench, an execution-grounded benchmark for evaluating autonomous agents on challenging end-to-end operations research tasks. It contains 107 human-reviewed tasks across diverse operational scenarios, each packaged in an isolated environment with a natural-language brief, multi-file data, configuration artifacts, and a required submission schema. Agents must write and run solution code, and their submissions are evaluated by hidden validators for schema validity, hard-constraint feasibility, and normalized objective quality. Experiments with fourteen frontier agent-model configurations show that current agents remain far from reliable OR practice. The best agent passes only 35.51% of all tasks and 20.59% of hard tasks, and many feasible submissions still fall below the required quality threshold. Failure analysis further shows that errors are dominated by strategic weaknesses, including missed operational rules, brittle formulations, weak feasible-solution construction, and insufficient solution improvement. OR-specific procedural skills increase hard-task feasibility, but do not reliably improve solution quality or pass rate. These results suggest that progress in OR agents requires moving beyond plausible optimization code toward dependable, high-quality operational decision-making.

Agent benchmarks are growing fast, but no single benchmark touches more than four or five of the dimensions that deployment exposes. This paper aggregates the largest coordinated deep-dive of one MCP-based industrial-agent benchmark to date: fourteen parallel implementation studies covering new asset classes (including a multi-modal visual extension), alternative orchestrations, retrieval strategies, reasoning modes, infrastructure optimizations, and evaluation-methodology probes. Consolidating those studies with seven prior agent benchmarks, we argue that aggregate-score leaderboards systematically underspecify deployed-agent evaluation. Rankings derived from aggregate scores do not transfer to out-of-distribution settings; recent public-to-hidden competition retrospectives provide direct empirical evidence of this rank instability. We propose ranking configurations by predictive validity, the correlation between in-sample and out-of-sample rank, rather than in-sample mean, and report a twelve-tier measurement apparatus that exposes the deployment-relevant dimensions HELM and its agent-era successors collapse. The position is operationalized through three falsifiable out-of-distribution criteria with explicit thresholds; existing evidence partly supports it but is too thin to confirm. We close with a pre-registered pilot design and a field-level vision for what the next generation of agentic benchmarks should report.

Voice agents deployed in structured workflows (customer service, healthcare scheduling, account management) must handle frequent user interruptions while maintaining progress through multi-step procedures. Existing benchmarks for speech-capable models focus on the timing of interruptions: barge-in detection, endpointing, and turn-taking dynamics. They leave unmeasured what happens after the interruption: does the agent resume the workflow at the correct step? Does it address the user's interjection? Does it avoid re-delivering content the user already heard? We introduce IHBench (Interruption Handling Benchmark), a benchmark that evaluates post-interruption recovery in voice agents executing state-machine-driven workflows across 10 enterprise domains. Six interruption types are injected at controlled points mid-utterance, with per-interruption evaluation rubrics generated alongside the data. Each interruption is scored on two axes: task fulfillment and recovery quality. We evaluate 27 audio-language model configurations from OpenAI, Google, and the open-weight community. Models vary widely, and recovery quality depends strongly on the interruption type. Across our experiments, closed-weight models are consistently more robust to interruptions than open-weight ones: they win far more often on task fulfillment, degrade roughly 3.3x more slowly as conversations grow longer, and show no audio-versus-text modality gap, whereas the open-weight models lose ground on all three. A human study validates the LLM judge against human annotators, and a cross-benchmark analysis against AudioMultiChallenge indicates that recovery quality is a largely distinct capability axis.

Modern Vision-Language Models (VLMs) often struggle with strategic reasoning, i.e., anticipating and influencing other agents' actions, under uncertainty in competitive and cooperative settings. Real-time strategy (RTS) games can be a natural testbed for diagnosing this limitation, as they demand coordination with allies, adaptation to opponents' strategy, and long-horizon planning under partial observability. However, existing RTS benchmarks offer limited evaluation scope, lack systematic competency diagnosis, and remain fixed in the pre-designed scenario coverage. To address these limitations, we present RTSGameBench, which is built on Beyond All Reason, a large-scale RTS game with an expanded battlefield that demands broader strategy diversity than the existing testbeds. The proposed benchmark provides evaluations through diverse gameplay across various matchup structures, diagnostic assessment via mini-games, each targeting an individual strategic competency, and extensible coverage via a self-evolving generation framework that converts free-form queries into new mini-games, improving over successive cycles. Additionally, for VLMs to operate in large-scale RTS games, we provide RTSGameAgent that manages units by an FSM with agentic memory. We empirically validate that multiple state-of-the-art VLMs do not perform well when matchups demand tighter coordination, multiagent coordination and when task scale increases.

Realistic coding-agent benchmarks often replay public GitHub issues and pull requests, making them vulnerable to overlap with model pretraining, fine-tuning, synthetic-data generation, or benchmark-driven model selection. Fully synthetic tasks avoid direct historical replay, but can drift away from real repository needs. We propose SWE-Future, a forecast-conditioned data synthesis method for future-oriented coding tasks. Given a forecast snapshot at time $T_0$, the method uses only pre-$T_0$ repository evidence to forecast future feature implementation/enhancement, bugfix, and refactor task families. We first validate this forecasting step retrospectively: after forecasts are fixed, later pull requests are used only to measure whether the predicted task families match future repository work. In an 80-repository study, the forecaster achieves 58.1% future-work relevance under the main semantic matching metric. We then use validated forecast families as conditioning signals to synthesize a 200-task coding-agent dataset across 61 repositories from a task-generation snapshot, rather than replaying the later pull requests used for validation. SWE-Future shows that repository-evolution forecasts can guide realistic, future-oriented coding-task synthesis while reducing direct dependence on historical pull-request replay.

In real-world reinforcement learning (RL), the choice of action space can play a key role in shaping motion smoothness, safety, and overall task performance. In this study, we evaluate pose increment, pose velocity, joint position increment, and joint velocity across two vision-based manipulation tasks: object picking and pushing. We train policies in simulation and deploy them to the real world using sim-to-real transfer. We find that action-space representation indeed significantly affects sim-to-real performance. In particular, we find that the joint velocity action space is best for the vision-based picking and pushing tasks in terms of smoothness and final task performance. We also provide practical guidance for RL practitioners in choosing action spaces for both simulation and real-world experiments.

Previous research has evaluated animal welfare using question-and-answer benchmarks. This study investigates whether these evaluations also hold in agentic settings. The agents may showcase different behaviors compared to stand-alone large language models, as demonstrated in prior studies. This work introduces \textit{TAC (Travel Agent Compassion)}: the first agentic benchmark for assessing animal exploitation. TAC evaluates AI agentic behavior in travel booking scenarios across six animal categories, using thirteen hand-authored scenarios that vary by price, rating, and position, expanded via four augmentation variants into $52$ prompts and run for three epochs, giving $156$ scored observations per model. Nine frontier models across five model families were evaluated.. The results indicate that models tend to prefer harmful scenarios, performing below the random chance rate of $65\%$ for selecting a neutral booking option, with Claude $4.8$ achieving the highest performance at $64.7\%$. To address this issue, the persona of an ethical-brand identity was infused into the system prompt, resulting in welfare rates increasing from $32$ to $80$ percentage points, with a mean of $53$ across all nine models. No evidence of evaluation awareness affecting the results was found, based on an Inspect Scout audit of $3,120$ transcripts. These findings are directly relevant to the EU General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, which identifies non-human welfare as a systemic risk. TAC provides a practical method for measuring this risk.

Agent skills -- structured, reusable knowledge artifacts that augment LLM agent capabilities -- have been rapidly adopted in industry, yet their cross-domain impact and use across commercial and open-source models remain under-studied, and no reusable methodology exists for evaluating an individual skill. In this work, we present an evaluation framework that lets a skill author construct realistic tasks to rigorously assess the aspects of a skill that matter most to them, and that estimates skill utility by solving those tasks. Further, we apply our evaluation approach at scale to 500 real-world skills, generating 1,000 tasks derived from the skills' content, along with instruction-following and goal-completion scoring rubrics. Using these metrics, we evaluate how 19 agent-model configurations, both proprietary and open-source, perform on the tasks. Our results show that models vary widely in how closely they adhere to the instructions encoded in skills, leading to substantial differences in their performance gains. Furthermore, we show that access to a skill significantly changes model behavior compared to the no-skill setup, providing an essential mechanism for encoding opinionated workflows into LLM agents. We release our evaluation dataset to support future work on agent skills.

As LLM-based shopping agents enter production, existing benchmarks fail to capture how a shopper's requirements arrive: stated implicitly in the query, recorded in a profile, or revealed only when the right question is asked. Benchmarks that expose full intent upfront and grade only the final choice can neither pose this long-horizon challenge nor explain which requirement an agent missed. To address this gap, we introduce EComAgentBench, a benchmark of 662 tasks grounded in real Amazon products and reviews. Each task scatters these requirements across a visible query, a tool-gated profile, and scripted clarification; an agent must uncover hidden intent, verify candidates against attributes and review evidence, and commit to a single product within 100 tool calls. Moreover, typed, source-tagged rubrics grade every task, attributing each failure to a requirement and its source. Construction is automated yet reliable, with every answer fixed in code before any text is generated and every sample validated. Our evaluation of seven models reveals that even the strongest attains only 57.1% overall accuracy, and rubric satisfaction degrades from visible to hidden sources. Overall, we believe EComAgentBench will serve as a reproducible foundation for moving shopping agents from single-query search toward dependable assistance over long horizons.

AI agent performance is not just a modeling problem, it is fundamentally a systems problem. The advanced capabilities of models are realized through agent harnesses. Therefore, a gap between model assumptions and harness behavior can easily prevent the model's full capabilities from translating into agent performance. We formalize this as the intent-execution' gap: the mismatch between what the model intends and what the harness executes, and vice versa. We argue that minimizing this intent-execution gap is as important as other aspects of harness design such as tools and execution loops. To illustrate the impact of this harness-model alignment, we develop a simple and customizable harness called Simple Strands Agent' (SSA). SSA aims to find the bulk of common patterns which generalize across different model families (such as Claude, Gemini, GPT, Grok, Qwen), as well as a small number of model-specific preferences. We make two contributions: (i) we reproduce or improve on the pass@1 performance reported by diverse model-provider families on popular agentic benchmarks (SWE-Pro, SWE-Verified and Terminal-Bench-2), and (ii) building on an analysis of 138k trajectories generated by SSA, we look beyond the pass@1 numbers which tend to be relatively even across frontier models. By representing agent trajectories in code state-spaces, we observe model-level differences in problem-solving behavior. Finer-grained metrics such as edit frequency, testing activity, and phase-transitions reveal how individual models allocate effort across different stages of autonomous problem solving.

AI agents must be evaluated as behavioral systems, not as isolated response generators. They reason across turns, call tools, preserve context, follow policies, and act under uncertainty. Existing methods provide useful but fragmented signals: benchmarks measure fixed capabilities, Human-in-the-Loop review preserves expert judgment but does not scale easily, LLM-as-judge methods depend on evaluator design, red teaming is often episodic, and trace auditing requires explicit evidence rules. This paper introduces Human-on-the-Bridge (HOB), a scalable evaluation paradigm for agentic AI. HOB places human expertise upstream, where experts curate reusable evaluation intelligence before testing begins, including domain context, Red-Team Traps, Juror Personas, scoring guidelines, audit rules, and fallback policies. ProofAgent Harness then executes this curated intelligence repeatedly through multi-turn adversarial evaluations, trace capture, multi-juror scoring, and evidence-linked reporting. We evaluate HOB through symmetric and cost-efficient asymmetric settings across frontier LLM-based agents and Harness LLM tiers. The study covers 23,500 agent turns and produces evidence-linked findings across finance, healthcare, and code generation. The results show that HOB can amplify evaluation quality without requiring equally large evaluator models, allowing smaller Harness LLMs to challenge agents built on frontier LLM backbones. The evaluation surfaces failures often missed by static benchmarks and single-evaluator scoring, including phantom tool-call claims, missing mandatory tool calls, policy drift, manipulation paths, and safe but non-resolving refusals. These findings support HOB as a paradigm for scaling human-curated evaluation intelligence, where expert judgment is encoded upfront and reused across repeated agent evaluations rather than applied manually inside every run.

Vision language models are serving as general-purpose interfaces for complex multimodal tasks. However, deployment still faces three gaps: VLMs typically incur high latency and cost when processing dense video frames and long prompts, the agent scaffold remains static after deployment, and standard video-QA benchmarks do not test whether agents can use visual evidence inside tool-using workspaces. We present VisualClaw, a self-evolving multimodal agent built around two principles. First, hybrid encoding reduces deployment cost by filtering less informative streaming frames with a cascaded gate and compressing the text skill bank through hot/cold top-k injection. Second, skill evolution lets the agent learn from failures: retrieved memories condition an evolver as direct concatenated context or as guided evidence, producing skill-bank updates that help future questions. Across 4 video-QA benchmarks with 2 VLMs, VisualClaw cuts per-question API cost by an average -98% versus full-frame upload and by -25.9% over the offline uniform 8 frame baseline, while boosting accuracy in most settings, e.g., an average +3.85% and a peak +15.80% on EgoSchema with Gemini 3 Flash. To address the gap, we curate VisualClawArena, a 200-scenario multimodal agentic benchmark built through a strict five-stage pipeline; models must use video evidence, documents, dynamic updates, and executable checks inside a workspace. On VisualClawArena, the same framework with computer-use agent backends improves macro accuracy by +2.9% for Codex (GPT-5.5) and +3.2% for Claude Code (Sonnet 4.6) over no-evolution baselines, with a -9.5% cost reduction compared to the uniform-sampled baseline. These properties make VisualClaw a natural fit for edge applications, where the cascade reduces a 1-hour streaming session from ~3,600 API uploads down to only 5-20 calls and the self-evolution makes it a perfect personalized assistant.

We present TickingCollabBench, a Minecraft-based multi-agent benchmark for a novel class of time-sensitive complementary collaboration tasks. Our benchmark reflects four core characteristics of real-world collaboration: agent heterogeneity, mandatory collaboration, dynamic environments, and strict real-time constraints with failure risks. To enable this, we develop the TickingCollab framework, which supports the generation of diverse dynamic environments and abstracts Minecraft's primitive APIs to enable declarative YAML task specifications for composing these events. Building on this, we design a feasibility-aware automated benchmark generation pipeline, where an LLM drafts structurally diverse task configurations and feasibility verifier filters out invalid ones using approximate constraints. Evaluations demonstrate that lang latency and inherent difficulty of coordinating under partial observability and agent heterogeneity cause LLMs to frequently fail under dynamic environments and fall significantly short of a global-knowledge oracle.

Social interaction depends on both language and visible social signals, such as facial expressions, posture, gaze, and emotional shifts. Yet existing social-agent benchmarks are largely text-based and rarely test whether multimodal agents can use visual cues to guide interaction. We introduce \textsc{\benchmarkname{}}, a benchmark evaluating visual social intelligence in multimodal social simulation. It contains 240 scenarios, 585 role instances, and 2,340 role-task instances, combining aligned textual-visual evidence, structured role profiles, and four role-level tasks: expression task, characteristic task, interaction regulation task, and interaction outcome task. Evaluating seven recent MLLMs under verbalized-vision and direct-vision reveals a clear gap between local role enactment and interaction management: role-specific expression and conflict handling are near saturation, whereas interaction regulation and visually grounded outcome achievement remain substantially more difficult. The code is released at https://github.com/JunsWan/AgentViSS, and the dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/JunsWan/AgentViSS.

We present CacheRL, a system for training small agent foundation models that achieves 92 percent process accuracy on multi-step tool-calling tasks, approaching GPT-5's 94 percent while requiring 100 times less compute. Our approach addresses three challenges in practical agent training: transferring tool-calling knowledge from large models at scale, enabling reinforcement learning without costly live tool execution, and learning robustly from noisy cached environments. CacheRL introduces three key innovations. First, a hybrid thinking trajectory pipeline augments agent trajectories with LLM-generated reasoning traces, producing training examples that teach models not only what tools to call but also why. Second, the CacheAgentLoop eliminates live execution costs through a three-tier fuzzy cache while preserving trajectory fidelity using token-level masking. Third, a cache-tier-aware reward dynamically adjusts answer-quality weights to avoid penalizing models for cache-induced limitations. Through iterative supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), CacheRL improves Qwen3-4B-Thinking's validation reward from 0.43 to 0.78. On public agentic tool-calling benchmarks, our model achieves competitive performance against frontier models such as GPT-5. Ablation studies show that removing knowledge transfer reduces performance by 41 percent, while cache-aware rewards contribute a 17 percent improvement. Interestingly, reinforcement learning improves training stability but yields limited gains beyond strong supervised fine-tuning, suggesting that data quality and reward design play a more important role than complex optimization methods in building practical small agent models.

Recent work has demonstrated that coding agents can formalize entire advanced mathematics textbooks in Lean 4, yet existing efforts concentrate on branches of mathematics already well-represented in mathlib and measure success solely through kernel acceptance. We address both limitations by applying a coding agent to formalize Numerical Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations, a textbook in numerical analysis that is largely absent from mathlib, stressing the agent's capacity to develop new theory from scratch. We further introduce a systematic, reproducible three-dimensional framework for evaluating the quality of agent-produced formalizations beyond compilation: semantic correctness, Mathlib reuse, and cross-file reuse via LLM-as-judge methods. Applying this framework to our own formalization and to the released outputs of RepoProver and M2F, we uncover recurring unfaithful formalization patterns, including incomplete multi-part statements, added weakening hypotheses, and parameter restrictions, that kernel acceptance entirely obscures. Our results suggest that compilation-based metrics substantially overstate formalization quality, and we provide a reproducible audit methodology to support more rigorous evaluation of future autoformalization systems.

AI coding agents have rapidly transformed software engineering, powering widely used interactive coding assistants. Despite their interactive real-world use, existing benchmarks evaluate them as fully-autonomous systems. In this work, we introduce Dialogue SWE-Bench, an automatic benchmark dataset for evaluating the ability of coding agents to resolve real-world software engineering problems through dialogue with a user. We design a novel, persona-grounded user simulator to support our task evaluation, and augment our task evaluation with automatic evaluations of dialogue quality. We also propose a new schema-guided agent, aimed at improving the dialogue capabilities of off-the-shelf coding agents, which improves over strong baselines by 3-14%. Our results indicate that better coding models do not always correspond to better dialogue models, suggesting that dialogue capability is a distinct and currently understudied dimension of coding agent performance.

Agent systems are advancing quickly across domains, but their evaluation remains fragmented. Most benchmarks rely on fixed, LLM-centric harnesses that require heavy integration, create test-production mismatch, and limit fair comparison across diverse agent designs. The root problem is the lack of an open, agent-agnostic assessment interface. We advocate Agentified Agent Assessment (AAA), where evaluation is performed by judge agents and all participants interact through standardized protocols: A2A for task management and MCP for tool access. Conventional benchmarking defines two separate interfaces, one for the benchmark and one for the agent, while AAA only needs one; this yields a generic, unified framework that separates assessment logic from agent implementation and enables reproducible, interoperable, and multi-agent evaluation. We further introduce AgentBeats as a concrete realization of AAA: we identify five practical operation modes that make standardized assessment compatible with real-world constraints on openness, privacy, and reproducibility. To evaluate our design at scale, we conduct two studies: a five-month open competition that drew 298 judge agents across 12 categories together with 467 subject agents from independent participants, showing that AAA applies across a heterogeneous range of benchmarks; and a case study on coding agents that confirms agentified evaluation preserves fidelity with the public record while surfacing previously missing head-to-head results, yielding research insights about agent design. Combining a community-scale field study and a controlled coding case study, we verify that AAA delivers coverage, practicality, and fidelity across heterogeneous scenarios at scale. Together, AAA and AgentBeats offer a clear path toward open, standardized, and reproducible agent assessment.

Search Agents -- large language models augmented with search tools -- have intensified the need for future-proof evaluation benchmarks. Existing benchmarks such as BrowseComp rely on static knowledge, making them vulnerable to test-set contamination and parametric memorization. Consequently, models can achieve high scores through fact recall rather than genuine retrieval, obscuring true browsing competence via reasoning shortcuts. In this paper, we introduce EvoBrowseComp, an evolving benchmark of 400 English and 400 Chinese contamination-free complex questions synthesized via live-web traversal. To collect these questions, we design a three-agent collaborative framework: (1) a QA synthesis agent that retrieves fresh knowledge from the live web to synthesize QA pairs; (2) an information filtering agent that filters retrieved knowledge in terms of credibility and popularity to block parametric shortcuts; and (3) a high-level guidance agent that formalizes questions into reasoning graphs to reduce logical redundancy and shortcuts in synthesized QA pairs. Because the framework supports fully automated synthesis, EvoBrowseComp can be regularly updated to prevent data contamination and maintain temporal freshness. Extensive experiments confirm its great difficulty, requiring broad horizontal search. It establishes a scalable paradigm for auto-updatable, high-difficulty benchmarking that keeps pace with both evolving world knowledge and advancing agent capabilities.

AI agents are increasingly being developed to accelerate scientific discovery, yet their practical capabilities in real research settings remain poorly understood. Existing benchmarks for AI agents rarely capture the complexity, heterogeneity, and extended reasoning required by scientific work, whereas benchmarks for scientific tasks often reduce research to static, direct problems and provide limited support for interactive evaluation. Here, we introduce SciAgentArena, a systematic benchmark for evaluating AI agents in real-world scientific research scenarios drawn from emerging needs across multiple domains. SciAgentArena comprises approximately 200 tasks with stepwise verification and an interactive, agent-agnostic environment for assessing diverse AI agents. Using this benchmark, we find that current agents can contribute effectively to well-specified data-analysis workflows, particularly when the task structure and evaluation criteria are clear. However, their performance remains uneven across scientific contexts: agents struggle to generate genuinely novel insights, sustain self-directed exploration, and formulate robust solutions for open-ended research questions. We further characterize common failure modes across agents and identify opportunities for improving their reliability, autonomy, and scientific reasoning. Together, SciAgentArena provides a practical framework for measuring progress in AI agents for science and for guiding the design of future agents capable of addressing complex scientific challenges. Full codes, tasks, and datasets can be accessed via this link: https://sciagentarena.github.io/.

General-purpose agents such as OpenClaw are increasingly used as autonomous tool users, but their coding ability is difficult to measure under SWE-bench: a generic agent does not by itself satisfy the clean Docker workspace, patch, and prediction contract required for scoring. We introduce Claw-SWE-Bench, a multilingual SWE-bench-style benchmark and adapter protocol that makes heterogeneous agent harnesses, or claws, comparable under fair settings including a fixed prompt, runtime budget, workspace contract, patch extraction procedure, and evaluator. The full benchmark contains 350 GitHub issue-resolution instances across 8 languages and 43 repositories, drawn from SWE-bench-Multilingual and SWE-bench-Verified-Mini after future-commit cleanup. We also release Claw-SWE-Bench Lite for faster validation, which is an 80-instance subset selected by a cost-aware, rank-aware procedure over 17 calibration columns. On the full benchmark, OpenClaw with a minimal direct-diff adapter scores only $19.1\%$ Pass@1, whereas the full adapter reaches $73.4\%$ with the same GLM 5.1 backbone, showing that adapter design is essential for enabling OpenClaw-style harnesses to perform coding tasks effectively. Across an OpenClaw $\times$ nine-model sweep and a five-claw $\times$ two-model sweep, model choice changes Pass@1 by $29.4$ pp and harness choice by $27.4$ pp under fixed models; systems with similar accuracy can differ substantially in total API cost. Claw-SWE-Bench therefore treats harness and cost accounting as first-class axes of SWE-style coding-agent evaluation, providing both a full benchmark and a low-cost reference set for reproducible comparison. The data is available at https://github.com/opensquilla/claw-swe-bench and https://huggingface.co/datasets/TokenRhythm/Claw-SWE-Bench.

End-to-end task-success is the dominant way to evaluate LLM agents, but one aggregate number tells you that an agent regressed, not where. We present layer-isolated evaluation: a deployed ordering agent is decomposed into a fixed taxonomy of layers (ontology, intent, routing, decomposition, escalation, safety, memory, and cross-cutting envelope/defense), each exercised by its own assertion slice in a deterministic, no-LLM "pure" mode. The pure suite (238 cases across 23 slices; 225 run in 2.39 s, ~10 ms/case) runs in CI on every change against a locked per-slice baseline. We validate by controlled regression injection, degrading one layer at a time across seven non-safety layers. The effect we did not design in is masking: the aggregate pass-rate barely moves (-1.7 to -5.9 pp for six local regressions), while the matching slice craters (-25 to -91 pp). A layer's slice reacting to its own fault is partly by construction; the measured results are (i) the aggregate masking and (ii) that damage stays off the other slices: the injected layer's slice is the single worst-hit in 5 of 7 cases and top-3 in 7 of 7 (mean rank 1.29 of 19). Localization replicates on a second, structurally different tenant (Starbucks SG): all seven matching slices crater, so it is not a single-catalog artifact. We position it as a concrete, deterministic instantiation of the component-level evaluation EDDOps prescribes but leaves unimplemented, with CheckList as ancestor and as the deterministic mirror image of whole-workflow stochastic mutation testing. Our contributions: (a) a fully decomposed, sub-second, no-LLM per-layer harness for a production agent, (b) a coverage-honesty test-adequacy criterion that refuses to score an unexercised layer, and (c) the regression-injection demonstration that per-slice baseline-locked gates localize regressions an aggregate metric masks.

Autoresearch agents now propose, evaluate, and select scientific candidates against a metric, and that metric is usually an aggregate reduced over a heterogeneous space of regions, slices, or cohorts. We show that when scientific validity lives in that disaggregated structure, the aggregate can rank the wrong candidate first. The headline number improves while the structure underneath inverts, so a decision made on the number accepts a candidate that quietly breaks the model. The failure is not domain-specific. It appears wherever a candidate's validity is multi-dimensional but its verifier is a single reduction. We demonstrate the inversion on a fire-model task in the Ecosystem Demography model. The highest-scoring candidate and a slightly lower one are within noise of each other on global score, yet the top-scoring one collapses the protected boreal regions while the other preserves them. What separates them is the per-region behavior, not the headline number. This decision should not be left to the agent that produced the candidates. The agent optimizing the score is the last party likely to catch the score being wrong, and a prompt has no remaining turn once the agent has stopped. We move the decision to an external control loop that audits each candidate on its disaggregated behavior and acts after the agent has decided. It can demote a candidate the agent would have accepted, and it can reopen a run the agent had declared finished. Our contribution is the inversion finding itself, and a search-discipline protocol that decides on reviewable candidate-effect evidence instead of the score.

The growth of agent skills has transformed how agentic systems are built, evaluated, and deployed. As skill libraries continue to scale, rigorous evaluation becomes critical to ensuring their utility, quality, and safety in real-world applications. Consequently, the field is undergoing an emerging paradigm shift from isolated skill creation to automated, evaluation-driven skill evolution. In this survey, we systematically examine the landscape of skill evolution and evaluation beyond foundational skill creation. We categorize evolution into four distinct paradigms, spanning execution feedback, trajectory distillation, compression, and reinforcement learning, showing how each element contributes to improving skill utility and reliability. We also provide an analysis of six skill-centric benchmark categories, identifying structural gaps in benchmark coverage, trade-offs, and metric richness to advance skill research. Finally, we identify open directions for building skill ecosystems that are generalizable, efficient, and verifiably safe. The project URL is https://github.com/Cassie07/AgentSkill_Survey

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly acquiring capabilities relevant to biological research, from literature synthesis to interpretation of experimental data. Increasingly, LLM agents can also perform in silico biology tasks that previously required experienced human biologists. These emerging AI capabilities offer new opportunities for scientific discovery and biomedical advances, but they also shift the landscape of biosecurity risks. To address this, we introduce the Agentic Bio-Capabilities Benchmark (ABC-Bench), a suite of tasks to measure agentic biosecurity-relevant capabilities. ABC-Bench evaluates LLM agents on both benign and dual-use biology tasks: writing code to operate liquid handling robots, designing DNA fragments for in vitro assembly, and evading DNA synthesis screening. These tasks require a combination of biology and software expertise. All tested LLM agents outperformed the median expert human baseliner on all three tasks. Agents performed highly on tasks drawing on published knowledge and well-documented protocols, and more weakly on a task requiring novel bioinformatics reasoning. In three wet-lab validation experiments, we found that OpenAI's o4-mini-high produced scripts that, when run on an OpenTrons liquid handling robot, successfully assembled DNA with expected sequences.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is a promising approach for enhancing reasoning and agentic behavior in large language models. However, rollout-intensive policy optimization is often limited by insufficient reward contrast, arising when overly simple or complex prompts generate low-variance feedback and when outcome-only rewards assign the same terminal assessment to every decision in a multi-turn rollout. Past efforts have focused on allocating available rollout resources to promising prompts, yet they only leverage sample informativeness at the prompt level and neglect variation in prefix-level informativeness across turns within the same rollout. This work targets multi-turn agentic RL by modeling each ReAct-style thought-action-observation turn as a semantically distinct node, allowing budget allocation to extend from prompt roots to turn-level prefixes with further continuations, which naturally forms tree-structured rollouts. We introduce Tree Rollout Allocation for Contrastive Exploration (TRACE), a unified rollout allocation framework that enhances reward contrast within a fixed sampling budget. Technically, TRACE allocates rollout budget to both prompt roots and intermediate prefixes that are most likely to yield mixed terminal rewards. A shared generalizable predictor estimates conditional success probability at these anchors from prefix histories to guide this allocation. The resulting adaptive tree structure enriches outcome-only feedback and amplifies the policy-update signal. Empirically, TRACE achieves competitive performance and efficiency gains on typical agentic benchmarks, e.g., improving Qwen3-14B Multi-Hop QA average accuracy by 2.8 points over competitive baselines at equal sampling cost.

Evaluation remains a critical bottleneck for interactive agent development. Existing evaluation methods often rely on static benchmarks, which fail to capture the dynamic, multi-step nature of agentic behavior and struggle to expose meaningful failure modes. While user-simulation-based evaluation offers a promising alternative, existing simulation frameworks suffer from two major limitations. First, they provide limited mechanisms for evaluating the quality and comprehensiveness of simulated interactions, making it difficult to assess whether a simulator sufficiently explores an agent's capabilities and failure modes. Second, most frameworks are restricted to either UI-only actions or API-only actions, limiting their ability to model the full range of realistic user behaviors. To address these limitations, we propose VISTA, a Versatile Interactive user Simulation Toolkit for Agent evaluation. Our toolkit includes a suite of six metrics for measuring the realism, capability coverage, and interaction effectiveness of simulated interactions. In addition, we develop a hybrid user simulator that integrates both UI-based interactions and API-based interactions, enabling more realistic and comprehensive evaluation across diverse interactive environments. We evaluate VISTA in e-commerce shopping and education customer service settings and demonstrate that it produces more realistic and comprehensive evaluations than existing methods.

Recent advances in reasoning and tool-calling capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have enabled increasingly capable agentic systems. However, existing benchmarks remain limited in task complexity, realism, and domain diversity, and often fail to capture interactions that span multiple domains, limiting their ability to evaluate agents in realistic multi-step settings that require sustained reasoning and coordination. To address these limitations, we introduce T1-Bench, a high-fidelity, comprehensive benchmark for evaluating agentic systems in realistic customer-facing, multi-domain environments, featuring interleaved scenarios that require structured reasoning across multi-turn user-assistant interactions and substantially increasing both compositional complexity and evaluative rigor across 25 domains of varying difficulty. We evaluate T1-Bench using 12 proprietary and open-weight models, providing a reproducible and standardized framework for assessing agent behavior, tool utilization, and conversational quality in complex, multi-step environments. We further complement automatic evaluation with human judgments to strengthen the assessment of qualitative performance. Overall, T1-Bench substantially advances prior benchmarks by increasing task complexity, interaction depth, and domain coverage in simulated multi-domain environments. To facilitate future research on agentic systems, we will publicly release data and evaluation code as open source.

LLM-based coding agents are usually evaluated in familiar software settings: mainstream languages, common libraries, and public repositories. These benchmarks remain important, but they can hide how agents behave when the language itself is unfamiliar. We evaluate six contemporary coding agents on four esoteric programming languages using a sequential setup with file editing, local execution, and hidden-test grading. Our protocol exposes capability differences between these agents that mainstream coding and agentic benchmarks such as SWE-Bench Verified and Terminal-Bench 2.0 compress into much narrower bands. We observe that the strongest agents, Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4 xhigh, often avoid writing the target language directly. On Brainfuck and Befunge-98, they write Python programs that generate target-language code and debug those generators locally. Forbidding this metaprogramming strategy causes large performance drops. Text guidance distilled from this strategy does not materially improve weaker agents. In contrast, Opus-derived Python helper code for building generators, with no solved benchmark programs or hidden-test answers, sharply improves Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-5.4 mini on the same problems, while Haiku 4.5 remains low. More interpreter calls and output tokens improve stronger agents but leave weaker agents near their original performance, indicating that these resources amplify useful strategies rather than create them. Together, these results show that strong coding agents adapt to unfamiliar languages by using tools, feedback, and workspace state to build a working model of the target language. Metaprogramming is the clearest case, but the broader gap is constructing and debugging a strategy that works under the target language's rules.

Large language models are increasingly used to power personal agents for everyday applications, but evaluating these agents remains a challenge. Existing benchmarks still rely on sandboxed artifacts, static task design, and coarse scoring, which hinder scalability and limit progress toward reliable personal-agent evaluation. This paper introduces STAGE-Claw, an automated framework for building and evaluating realistic personal-agent scenarios in state-based personal-computing environments. Given a task hint, STAGE-Claw automatically creates and validates a realistic benchmark task with its environment, task prompts, ground truth, and related verification programs. Agents are then evaluated in realistic operating environments, where performance is measured by the correctness of the final system state rather than only the textual response. Using STAGE-Claw, this paper creates a benchmark with 40 challenging real scenario agent tasks, evaluates 11 frontier models, and analyzes their task scores, costs, tool-call reliability, and common failure patterns. Overall, STAGE-Claw offers a scalable, state-based way to evaluate agents in realistic user scenarios.

To interact with users fairly and without stereotyping, AI models must display cultural competency, i.e., the ability to infer and adapt to a user's implicitly signaled cultural values, rather than relying on static demographic traits. We introduce CCBENCH, a framework for evaluating cultural competency in large language models (LLMs), treating culture as a continuum of norm adherence states rather than as a binary state of cultural belongingness. As a case study on health, we create CCBENCH-Health, which includes 60 theoretically grounded personas exhibiting varied norm-adherence states across six cultures, each engaging in 18 realistic dialogues. Each persona is evaluated on 52 authentic healthcare questions drawn from real user forums, yielding 3,120 unique interactions. Benchmarking five leading models reveals that even the best achieve culturally appropriate responses only 20-30% of the time. When explicitly prompted to focus on culturally relevant cues from the conversational history (CoT), performance improves modestly by 3-5% on average. We find that models perform best when personas avoid cultural norms rather than follow them, revealing a persistent asymmetry, suggesting a preference in the models to align with built-in biases than adapt to cultural cues. This is especially observed in the Afghan context (Avg: 8.8%), where cultural cues rarely yield appropriate health advice. Finally, we find that models sometimes adapt more readily to implicit, cultural conversational styles than to explicitly stated cultural practices, though this varies across cultures.

Small-model agentic post-training is bottlenecked less by the algorithm than by the trajectory substrate it consumes. Leading recipes (RLVR, group-relative RL, rejection-sampled re-SFT) all need multi-turn traces carrying per-trajectory supervision, and the two existing sources fall short: frontier-synthesised data inherits the synthesizer's biases and collapses the long tail, while unfiltered production logs are unjudged and contaminated by shortcut behaviour. We argue that an incentive-aligned agent arena can be engineered to manufacture such trajectories, and demonstrate this on ORO Subnet 15 (SN15), a Bittensor deployment of the ShoppingBench agentic-commerce benchmark. SN15's race mechanism, LLM reasoning judge, and rotating leak-cluster-guarded problem suite yield a corpus with three properties: incentive-aligned diversity, per-trajectory judging, and anti-memorised held-out evaluation. We introduce a structural-quality filter that converts the raw firehose into a trainable corpus by keeping agentic trajectories (the model itself emits the tool calls) and rejecting sub-task trajectories (the model only classifies or narrates over a deterministic search loop), then post-train Qwen3-4B with a recipe matched to the published ShoppingBench SFT-then-GRPO pipeline. On a leak-cluster-guarded held-out partition scored production-strict, the model lifts from the published Qwen3-4B base of 18.0% ASR to 42.7%, within single-problem noise of the synthetic-data SFT-only baseline (43.6%), while training on a fraction of a single day of subnet output. The supervised stack leaves a large pass@8 to pass@1 gap (53.3% vs 34.8%); a per-step teacher-grounded Dr. GRPO reward converts that headroom into process improvement, and we identify the sub-task firehose as the primary lever for closing the gap to the 48.7% SFT+GRPO bar. We release the filter, the corpus splits, and the arena mechanics.

Vision-language model (VLM) agents are increasingly deployed in interactive game environments. Yet game benchmarks for VLM agents typically report a single first-attempt score per (agent, game) pair, focus on single-agent Solo play, and lack unified protocols for evaluating heterogeneous agent classes (commercial VLMs, open-weight VLMs, and specialized game policies) on the same footing. We address these gaps with OmniGameArena, a real-time benchmark of twelve newly built Unreal Engine 5 games spanning Solo (7), PvP (3), and Coop (2) with unified action interfaces, and the Improvement Dynamics Curve (IDC), an agentic-reflection harness in which a tool-using reflector LLM autonomously refines a bounded skill prompt across multiple rounds. Beyond cold-start leaderboard scores, IDC exposes two additional observables for each (agent, game) pair: how the score evolves across reflection rounds, and how the learned skill behaves on held-out task variants. We report these observables for twelve VLM agents on the cold-start leaderboard and four top agents under IDC.

Spatial reasoning is a foundational capability for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to perceive and operate within the physical world. However, existing benchmarks predominantly rely on passive evaluation (e.g., static VQA) or simulator-specific pipelines, failing to assess general interactive spatial understanding. We introduce SpatialWorld, a unified benchmark designed specifically for evaluating the interactive spatial understanding of multimodal agents in complex real-world tasks. Integrating eight heterogeneous simulation backends under a shared, simulator-agnostic protocol, SpatialWorld features 760 human-annotated tasks across diverse domains (e.g., household routines, travel, social collaboration). Agents must solve tasks under vision-only partial observability, actively gathering egocentric visual evidence and expressing decisions via a unified, text-based action interface native to MLLMs. For reliable evaluation, each task includes a human-validated initial state, a reference trajectory, and a terminal-state verifier. Evaluating 15 advanced agents reveals that robust spatial task solving remains challenging: the strongest model, GPT-5, achieves an average task success rate (TSR) of only 17.4%, while the leading open-source model, Qwen-3.5, reaches 14.1%. Further analysis exposes a clear mismatch between task success and execution efficiency, alongside substantial domain-specific performance variations. These bottlenecks in active exploration and long-horizon planning position SpatialWorld as a rigorous testbed for future spatial agents.

Agent benchmarks score submissions with outcome verifiers that are typically hand-written and brittle, leaving them open to reward hacking. We audit 1,968 tasks across five terminal-agent benchmarks and find 323 (16%) hackable by frontier models given only the task description. This corrupts both leaderboard rankings and RL training signal, yet the standard response is manual and reactive. We introduce the hacker-fixer loop, a method for building exploit-resistant verifiers without per-task manual patching. The loop alternates three LLM agents: a hacker tries to pass the verifier without solving the task, a fixer patches the verifier to reject each discovered exploit, and a solver confirms the patched verifier still admits legitimate solutions. The loop iterates: each patch reshapes what the verifier rewards, surfacing the next exploit. We further add verifier access, and let patches transfer across tasks, to broaden the exploits the loop discovers. On KernelBench, the loop drives the attack success rate from 62% to 0% on a held-out corpus of publicly reported exploits. We also find that weaker agents in the loop can defend against much stronger hackers: Gemini 3 Flash's loop drives the stronger Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.7's attack success rate from 76% and 61% to 0% on KernelBench, and Gemini 3.1 Pro's from 39% to 17% on Terminal Bench across 77 tasks. We release Terminal Wrench (323 hackable environments, 3,632 hack trajectories) as a snapshot of the current attack surface, our patched verifiers, the exploits the loop discovered, and our implementation as a basis for future work.

As LLM agents begin to take real, irreversible actions (shell commands, file edits, deploys), the standard safety pattern is a human-in-the-loop approval gate: risky actions pause and wait for a person. We argue the gate is the easy part; the hard part is the judgment - which actions to stop - which the field evaluates against two false assumptions: that there is a ground-truth notion of "risky," and that the human reviewer is a perfect, infinitely-available oracle. On a hand-labeled set of 125 adversarially-weighted agent actions we show that (i) reviewers only moderately agree on what is risky (Fleiss' kappa = 0.52), so there is no single correct label; (ii) framing the guard as selective classification under asymmetric cost makes its operating limits measurable, and on hard inputs the guard cannot safely auto-decide; and (iii) when the reviewer is modeled as endogenous (fatiguing as escalation load grows), realized safety becomes an inverted-U in the escalation rate: more human oversight can make a system less safe, and the safety-optimal guard escalates below full escalation - a setting a load-aware policy also uses to resist a flooding attack that slips a malicious action past a fatigued reviewer. Agent oversight, framed this way, is not only a classification problem but a resource-allocation one: human attention is finite, and the guard's escalation policy spends it. We claim none of these mechanisms as novel - fatigue-aware learning-to-defer (FALCON), cost-sensitive deferral under workload constraints (DeCCaF), trajectory-level guarding, and reviewer-fatigue/flooding attacks are all prior art we cite. Our contribution is an open-source agent-oversight system that operationalizes and measures them in the LLM-agent action-gating setting, turning "is my guard good?" from a guess into a curve. The inverted-U and the flooding attack are modeling results that motivate a human study.

The rapid rise in LLM capabilities has made AI agents increasingly viable across a broad range of tasks. Among the most promising applications is building production-ready customer-facing agents, a challenge that demands coordinated excellence in evaluation methodology, context engineering, training, and online measurement. Yet these critical pillars are typically developed in isolation, creating blind spots that only surface after deployment. In this paper, we present a unified framework that bridges offline development with online impact for customer support AI agents at Nubank, a company with 100M+ users. Our approach integrates several key components: (1) structured context engineering tailored to customer support agents, (2) systematic human-in-the-loop prompt iteration, (3) rigorous LLM judge evaluation with measured inter-rater agreement and GEPA optimization for consistency, and (4) ideation-to-production validation. A central insight is that evaluation-pipeline quality directly determines iteration velocity. We present results from five production deployments spanning distinct domains: card delivery, debt management, credit-limit support, card management, and product explanation. These deployments deliver consistent customer-satisfaction gains while substantially accelerating iteration. In our card-delivery deployment, large-scale A/B testing yields a 37 percentage-point improvement in AI transactional Net Promoter Score and a 29 percentage-point gain in self-service rate over prior agent variants, alongside a strong correlation between offline simulation metrics and online outcomes, demonstrating that eval-driven development reliably predicts production impact. On most use cases, AI satisfaction reaches within a few percentage points of expert human agents.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evolving from simple text-based interaction systems into LLM agents that can maintain memory, use tools, access external environments, and execute tasks. As their capabilities and autonomy expand, the safety risks they face also become more diverse. Existing evaluations often rely on manually written scenarios, static prompts, or final-output judgments, making it difficult to capture the diverse risks that agents may face during task execution. We introduce ForesightSafety-SAGE, a fully automated scenario generation and safety evaluation framework for LLM agents. Based on five risk dimensions,we instantiae abstract and diverse safety risks in real-world task execution into 1,072 measurable evaluation scenarios. Using the automated evaluation pipeline, 12 LLM agents are evaluated under two authority contexts. The results show that current agents still face substantial behavioral safety risks during task execution, with an average ASR of 47.1% and several models exceeding 70%. These findings demonstrate the importance of executable, process-level evaluation for understanding and improving LLM agent safety.

Evaluating LLM-powered interactive social agents is challenging because socially relevant behaviors depend not only on isolated outputs, but also on prior interactions, social roles, and downstream actions. Existing methods typically allow a target agent to act freely in an environment and then score the resulting trajectory. However, this passive setup can miss capabilities that only become observable under specific social circumstances; for example, conflict handling may remain untested if no disagreement arises. We propose Online Agent-as-a-Judge, a situation-generating evaluation framework for interactive social agents. Online Agent-as-a-Judge deploys an in-world evaluator agent that interacts with the target agent through the environment's native dialogue and action protocol, actively eliciting situations relevant to the evaluation criteria. The resulting trajectories provide evidence for assessing both immediate responses and subsequent behavior. In a life-simulation environment with $32$ designer-authored social criteria, Online Agent-as-a-Judge improves criteria coverage and agreement with human labels, yielding more reliable evidence-grounded evaluations of behaviors that passive methods can leave unobserved.

Leading commercial endpoint detection and response (EDR) products have shifted from operator-configured rule sets to multi-component systems where autonomous AI components operate alongside, and increasingly in place of, operator-deployed policies. Autonomous defense agents using commercial EDR as their hardening tool are no longer tuning a passive tool, but a black-box autonomous system capable of making vendor-specific decisions. We present the first evaluation framework for autonomous defense agents hardening commercial EDR. We instantiate it in a Game of Active Directory (GOAD) lab with Horizon3.ai's NodeZero as the autonomous pentester and Microsoft Defender XDR as the EDR. We run a sample benchmark of defense agents with two large language model (LLM) backbones (Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Cisco Foundation-Sec-8B). We report three lessons learned that neither simulation nor open-source-EDR evaluation can surface: (i) commercial EDR telemetry is engineered for Security Operations Center (SOC) analyst workflows rather than scientific benchmarking; (ii) the importance of per-policy attribution to separate defense agent actions from autonomous EDR actions; and (iii) the EDR's autonomous behavior varies during the evaluation window. Together, these findings highlight a sim-to-real gap for enterprise defense and motivate evaluation methodology for benchmarking autonomous defense agents in environments with black-box, autonomous tools.

Self-evolving agents improve by repeatedly proposing changes to their own prompts, skills, or workflows and keeping those that score higher on a small held-out set. Almost all effort has gone into the proposer that generates candidates; we argue the weak point is the acceptor, the rule that decides whether to commit a change. Applied hundreds of times against the same noisy dev estimate, the ubiquitous "keep it if the score went up" rule is uncontrolled adaptive multiple testing: the agent effectively p-hacks itself, accumulating false commits that make it churn and drift rather than improve. We recast committing as a sequential hypothesis test and propose PACE (Paired Anytime-valid Commit Evaluation), a training-free, anytime-valid commit gate. Each candidate is compared to the incumbent on identical instances and committed only when a testing-by-betting e-process accumulates decisive evidence, stopping early to save evaluations and controlling each candidate's false-commit probability at a user-set level even under optional stopping (a per-decision guarantee). On Qwen2.5 agents (0.5B-3B) self-evolving at the prompt level on GSM8K, SVAMP, and ARC-Challenge, greedy acceptance commits 30-42% false and 10-33% harmful edits when a genuine improvement is hidden among noisy proposals, while PACE commits the real one and essentially nothing else, matching greedy's held-out accuracy at sharply lower variance and about 18% lower evaluation cost. With no real gain available, greedy commits 13-21 spurious self-modifications per run (72-100% false) and degrades the most fragile agent by 4.9 points, while PACE holds at baseline. Reliability of self-evolution depends on the acceptor, not only on the proposer.

The rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) from passive assistants to autonomous, execution-capable agents has introduced critical operational risks. Most current evaluation frameworks neglect procedural compliance, leading to ''Machiavellian'' behaviors where agents strategically violate safety rules to maximize rewards - a direct manifestation of Goodhart's Law. To address this blind spot, we introduce MAC-Bench, a dynamic, adversarial benchmark designed to evaluate the procedural alignment of multi-agent systems under realistic pressure. We propose the SERV(Seed - Evolve - Refine - Verify) pipeline, an ``Agent-as-a-Benchmark'' paradigm that transforms unstructured legal texts into executable, contamination-free scenarios. By synthesizing holographic sandbox environments and injecting calibrated social-engineering pressure vectors, MAC-Bench forces agents into Pareto-optimal trade-offs between task success and regulatory adherence. We introduced novel metrics: the Compliance-Weighted Success Rate (CSR) and the Machiavellian Gap (MG), and conducted a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art frontier models to reveal the pervasive trade-offs between success and compliance.

As foundation models advance and agent scaffolding becomes increasingly sophisticated, agents have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in complex, long-horizon coding tasks and even autonomous experiment execution. Despite their evolution from research assistants into autonomous research agents, these systems still exhibit significant limitations in field sensitivity, research ethics, and nuanced scientific judgment. Consequently, frontier agents remain unable to fully replace human researchers. To bridge this gap, we conceptualize the AARR (Act As a Real Researcher) benchmark series. Unlike existing benchmarks that primarily assess macro-level execution capabilities, AARR focuses on whether agents can emulate the professionalism, thoroughness, and nuanced reasoning that characterize human researchers in granular research scenarios. In this work, we propose AARRI-Bench (Act As a Real Research Intern), the first benchmark in this series. We conduct extensive experiments across frontier models and agentic systems, revealing that even the best-performing configuration (Mini-SWE-Agent with Claude Opus 4.7) achieves only 68.3% success rate, frequently overlooking subtle yet critical details that are obvious to real human researchers. Our results indicate that developing researcher-like AI requires further exploration of research behavior, rather than merely complex scaffolding. Our data is released at https://github.com/AARR-bench/AARRI-bench.

A growing failure mode in agent evaluation and training is that models can achieve high evaluation scores by exploiting shortcuts instead of solving the intended task, producing deceptive performance. This makes evaluation scores unreliable as measures of true task-solving ability. We propose CapCode, a framework for constructing coding datasets with randomized tests whose best achievable non-cheating performance is deliberately capped below one. This capped-performance design gives evaluation scores a clearer interpretation: scores substantially above the cap are implausible and therefore provide evidence of cheating. To prevent cheating, we propose CapReward, a reward design based on the CapCode principle to discourage optimization beyond the cap. Experiments across multiple datasets show that CapCode detects cheating while preserving performance ranking of models, and CapReward reduces cheating behavior, yielding models that better follow the intended task specification.

Repository-level coding benchmarks such as SWE-bench have driven a rapid surge in the capabilities of coding agents. Yet they usually treat coding tasks as a holistic, binary prediction problem (e.g., resolved or unresolved), neglecting fine-grained agent capabilities such as repository understanding, context retrieval, code localization, and bug diagnosis. In this paper, we introduce SWE-Explore, a benchmark that isolates the evaluation of repository exploration, a critical capability of coding agents. Given a repository and an issue, SWE-Explore asks an explorer to return a ranked list of relevant code regions under a fixed line budget. SWE-Explore covers 848 issues across 10 programming languages and 203 open-source repositories. For each instance, we derive line-level ground truth from independent agent trajectories that successfully solved the same issue, distilling the specific code regions their solution paths actually consulted. We evaluate exploration along coverage, ranking, and context-efficiency dimensions, showing that these metrics strongly track downstream repair behavior. Across a broad set of retrieval methods, general coding agents, and specialized localizers, we find that agentic explorers form a clear tier above classical retrieval. While file-level localization is already strong for modern methods, line-level coverage and efficient ranking remain the key axes differentiating state-of-the-art explorers.

Foundation model agents are increasingly deployed for real-world decision-making, but suffer from the sim-to-real gap. While robotics and classical control have mature frameworks to address this gap, the foundation model community is treating agent robustness as an entirely novel phenomenon. Our paper proposes formalizing the foundation model agent evaluation and training gap as a classical sim-to-real problem structured entirely around the four elements of a Markov Decision Process, including Observation, Action, Transition, and Reward. In this paper, we set a comprehensive research agenda that translates classical discrepancies into the foundation model domain and advocates for adopting established solutions like domain randomization. We provide concrete examples, such as a multilingual tool calling to demonstrate how severe observation space gaps lead to operationally invalid actions despite correct semantic intent. Ultimately, this agenda aims to drive a paradigm shift, yielding a unified vocabulary and standardized stress test benchmarks to foster a new generation of highly trustworthy agents for reliable real-world applications.

AI agents are increasingly expected to complete long-horizon workflows that require sustained progress over hours, millions of tokens, and complex environments. Yet current agent benchmarks largely evaluate short-form tasks, such as single pull requests, small tickets, or 5-10 minute exercises, limiting our ability to measure agents' capabilities in planning, long-context understanding, and memory use. We introduce SWE-Marathon, a benchmark of 20 long-horizon tasks spanning software engineering and adjacent technical domains. Each task consists of a unique executable environment, a human-written reference solution, and a multi-layer verification suite. Logged agent attempts average 27.2M total tokens, making SWE-Marathon substantially longer-horizon than existing SWE and command-line agent benchmarks. Current frontier coding agents solve fewer than 30% of tasks. Failures often arise from poor self-verification, self-reported infeasibility, and premature termination. We also observe reward-hacking behavior in 13.8% of rollouts, where agents attempt to exploit the environment or verifier to bypass the intended workflow. SWE-Marathon includes adversarial review of test suites and execution environments, as well as multi-layer checks designed to prevent shortcut solutions. We release SWE-Marathon, evaluation code, and agent trajectories at https://swe-marathon.org/.

Benchmarks are fundamental for evaluating and advancing LLMs and MLLMs by providing standardized and explicit measures of performance. However, their construction is labor-intensive and hard to reuse, raising concerns about sustainability and scalability. Moreover, existing benchmarks often quickly reach performance saturation after their release, resulting in insufficient discrimination among state-of-the-art models. To address these challenges, we introduce Benchmark Agent, a fully autonomous agentic system designed for benchmark building. Our framework orchestrates the complete benchmark construction pipeline, from user query analysis and subtask design to data annotation and quality control. To assess Benchmark Agent, we implement it to produce 15 representative benchmarks, spanning diverse evaluation scenarios, including text understanding, multimodal understanding, and domain-specific reasoning. Extensive experiments, including human evaluation, LLM-as-a-judge assessment, and consistency checks, demonstrate Benchmark Agent can generate high-quality benchmark samples with minimal human involvement. More importantly, through continual evaluation, we observe several insightful findings, including that current models struggle with certain domain-specific reasoning tasks. We believe that rapidly evolving benchmarks can contribute significantly to the research community. The preview and code will be publicly available at the demo page and code repository.

Planning for real-world problems by language models often involves both world and user constraints, which may not be fully specified upfront and are progressively disclosed through interaction. However, existing benchmarks still underexplore adaptive planning under such progressively revealed dual constraints. To address this gap, we introduce AdaPlanBench, a dynamic interactive benchmark for evaluating whether Large Language Model (LLM) agents can adaptively plan and re-plan under progressively revealed world and user constraints. AdaPlanBench is built on 307 household tasks, with a scalable constraint construction pipeline that augments each task with dual constraints. At runtime, agents interact with the environment in a multi-turn protocol where hidden constraints are revealed only when the agent proposes a plan that violates them, requiring iterative plan revision under accumulating feedback. This makes planning challenging, as agents must infer and track constraints from feedback while re-planning effectively. Experiments on ten leading LLMs show that adaptive planning under dual constraints remains challenging, with the best model reaching only 67.75% accuracy. We further observe that performance degrades as more constraints accumulate, with user constraints posing a particularly large challenge and failures often stemming from weaker physical grounding and reduced effectiveness. These results establish AdaPlanBench as a testbed for dual-constrained interactive planning and highlight the challenge of reliable adaptation to dynamically revealed constraints in LLM agents.

Repository-level coding benchmarks face a trade-off between task difficulty and evaluation reliability: tasks that challenge frontier models often involve large codebases with incomplete test coverage, while human review does not scale. We introduce TensorBench, a benchmark of 199 feature-addition and refactoring tasks on an open-source compiler-based tensor framework that extends PyTorch with first-class support for dense and sparse tensors. Tasks cover new sparse formats, dense optimization passes, IR transformations, scheduler changes, runtime components, and high-level numerical operators. TensorBench grades each run by applying the agent's patch and running the framework's test suite, which includes the pre-existing randomized regression tests and any tests the agent adds. For feature-addition tasks, a pass means that the patched repository preserves the tested pre-existing behavior and satisfies the agent-added checks for the requested feature. We evaluate seven coding agents spanning three frontier model families and one open-weight model. Pass rates under this criterion range from $64.8\%$ for the strongest agent to $22.1\%$ for the weakest. Agents pass different subsets of tasks: pairwise Cohen's $κ$ ranges from $-0.07$ to $0.43$, with $κ= 0.05$ for the two strongest agents.

Evaluating large language model (LLM) agents in multi-turn interactive environments is expensive and risky, as it requires online environment interaction. We propose ADWM (Autoregressive Diffusion World Model), an evaluation framework that estimates the performance of a new LLM agent policy purely from pre-collected trajectories. The core idea is to learn a latent diffusion world model that simulates how the environment responds to the evaluation policy, without ever executing it in the real environment. Existing diffusion-based OPE methods guide full trajectories in a single pass by jointly diffusing states and actions, an assumption that breaks down for LLM agents whose actions are discrete text that must be sampled from the policy after observing the environment. Unlike autoregressive world models that suffer from compounding errors, ADWM models each transition as an independent denoising process, enabling reliable step-by-step rollouts where the world model and agent alternate in causal order. Crucially, the LLM agent under evaluation directly guides the diffusion generation at each step via a policy-conditioned score function, ensuring that simulated trajectories accurately reflect its decision-making patterns. Empirically, ADWM achieves accurate value estimates and evaluation reliability across diverse multi-turn agent tasks, demonstrating its promise as a practical framework for offline LLM agent evaluation.

The rapid proliferation of Agent Development Kits (ADKs), SDK-level frameworks for building LLM-powered autonomous agents, has outpaced any empirical understanding of how framework choice affects agent performance. We propose \textbf{LLM-as-a-Developer}, a methodology that replaces human developers with an LLM coding agent that learns each framework's API from documentation, writes agent code, and iteratively repairs it through a validate-and-feedback loop until tests pass. By holding the developer constant and varying only the framework, generation effort becomes a quantitative proxy for API usability and the resulting agents provide a controlled measure of framework effectiveness. We implement this in \textbf{ADK Arena}, a fully automated pipeline with per-framework Docker isolation, a three-level validation pipeline, and benchmark adapters for SWE-bench, $τ^2$-bench, Terminal-Bench, and MCP-Atlas. Evaluating all 51 popular Python ADK frameworks (204 agent--benchmark pairs), we find that: (1)~generation succeeds for 57% of runs, and its cost varies 5.6$\times$ across frameworks ($0.6 to $3.4 per agent), a quantitative proxy for API complexity, though cost alone does not predict success; (2)~no single framework dominates: the best single-benchmark ADK agents resolve up to 80% of tasks and can even \emph{beat} general-purpose frontier coding agents at a fraction of the cost, yet the median framework resolves only 32%; (3)~across information-source ablations, genuine framework usage stays within a narrow 28--40% band (highest with raw source access and still 33% with no reference material at all), indicating that documentation, source code, and parametric knowledge are largely substitutable rather than any one being a hard bottleneck.

LLM agents operate in two distinct regimes: open-weight agents amenable to reinforcement learning (RL) and black-box agents whose behaviour must be controlled purely at test time. Although black-box agents are often backed by state-of-the-art proprietary LLMs, API-only access precludes parameter-level optimization, rendering most RL methods inapplicable. To address this limitation, we turn to a known equivalence between RL and Bayesian inference. We propose Agentic Monte Carlo (AMC) to directly sample from the optimal policy of a black-box agent rather than training it through RL. The optimal policy is a posterior over trajectories whose prior we define as the fixed black-box LLM agent. We employ Sequential Monte Carlo to sample from this posterior by learning a value function to steer the agent while leaving the underlying black-box model unchanged. We validate AMC on three diverse environments from the AgentGym benchmark, demonstrating significant improvements over prompting baselines and even outperforming Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) as we scale the test-time compute of our method. AMC demonstrates the feasibility of performing principled RL-style optimization of black-box LLM agents. Code is available at https://github.com/layer6ai-labs/Agentic-Monte-Carlo

Scientific and engineering progress is fundamentally a long-horizon iterative process: proposing changes, running experiments, measuring outcomes, and continuously refining artifacts. Yet existing benchmarks for frontier models primarily evaluate either single-turn responses or short-horizon agent trajectories, failing to capture the challenges of sustained iterative improvement over extended time horizons. To address this gap, we introduce AutoLab, a new benchmark for ultra long-horizon closed-loop optimization. AutoLab consists of 36 realistic, expert-curated tasks spanning four diverse domains: system optimization, puzzle & challenge, model development, and CUDA kernel optimization. Each task begins with a correct but deliberately suboptimal baseline and challenges agents to improve it within a strict wall-clock budget. Evaluating 17 state-of-the-art models reveals the dominant predictor of success is not the quality of an agent's initial attempt, but its persistence in repeatedly benchmarking, editing, and incorporating empirical feedback. While claude-opus-4.6 exhibits strong long-horizon optimization capabilities, most frontier models, including several proprietary ones, either terminate prematurely or exhaust their budgets with minimal progress. These results underscore the importance of time awareness and persistent iteration in autonomous agents. We open-source the full benchmark, evaluation harness, and task artifacts, to accelerate research toward truly capable long-horizon agents.