ParaRecover is a new process-level benchmark designed to evaluate error localization and recovery in multi-turn parallel tool-use agents. It contains 10,626 instances across two difficulty levels, built on a taxonomy of 14 error types that cover planning dependencies, tool selection, and argument matching. The benchmark introduces the SDE rubric, which assesses structural integrity, diagnostic reasoning, and evolutionary strategy during agent execution, and demonstrates that it can guide improvements in agents’ reflective recovery capabilities.
arXiv:2606. 05806v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing benchmarks evaluate Tool-Integrated Reasoning (TIR) in LLMs on idealized ''happy paths'', largely overlooking real-world tool failures.
arXiv:2607. 05775v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly evaluated on their ability to use tools, plan multi-step tasks, coordinate with other agents, and operate over extended horizons.
arXiv:2608. 06346v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-based agentic systems have shown remarkable capabilities in complex domains, while suffering from cascading errors and difficulty in debugging.
ToolRobustBench is a stage-wise diagnostic benchmark designed to evaluate and diagnose failures in tool‑calling agents, which are large language models that select tools, provide structured arguments, and interpret tool feedback. The benchmark aligns four perturbation families—tool‑interface, user‑intent, tool‑output/observation, and runtime‑environment—with the tool‑use pipeline, attributing failures to specific stages such as tool selection, schema grounding, argument binding, and feedback handling. Experiments across 15,456 instances, 7 models, and 16 local tools reveal that while overall performance is high, robustness degrades significantly, especially under tool‑output/observation perturbations, and mixed‑family perturbations produce non‑additive failure patterns.
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly evaluated on their ability to use tools, plan multi-step tasks, coordinate with other agents, and operate over extended horizons. Reported benchmark gains often obscure recurring failure modes documented across otherwise unrelated evaluation efforts.
arXiv:2608.25920v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MASs) are increasingly applied to long-horizon complex tasks, their reliability has emerge...
arXiv:2608. 14380v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Many real-world tasks require LLM agents to interact with their environments over long execution horizons.
arXiv:2607. 10059v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent systems based on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for autonomous tasks, yet existing evaluations mostly focus on task success rather than whether agents know when to abstain.
arXiv:2606. 01416v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-augmented large language model (LLM) agents rely on orchestration layers that coordinate planning, retrieval, tool invocation, validation, memory, and recovery.
UniACE is a unified framework that standardizes the evaluation of large language model (LLM) agents by representing each benchmark as an instruction–tool–environment triplet and running models through a shared, task‑agnostic harness in isolated runtimes. It preserves native success criteria, offers an offline mode for dynamic‑resource tasks, and standardizes efficiency metrics, execution records, and failure attribution. Applying UniACE to 7 benchmarks across 24 domains and 15 models revealed significant score shifts, ranking reversals, and sensitivity to evidence representation, highlighting the impact of evaluation configuration on reported agent performance.
arXiv:2603. 14465v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) have evolved into tool-using agents, they remain brittle in long-horizon interactions.
PeakBench is a new benchmark designed to evaluate how large language model agents invoke multiple tools while respecting resource constraints and parallel execution. It provides executable multi‑tool workflows with dependency annotations and measured resource profiles, and introduces a two‑part evaluation framework that separates logical planning from physical scheduling. The study shows that strong logical planning alone does not guarantee safe or efficient execution, and that providing resource information can reduce overflows and improve utilization.