arXiv:2601. 14192v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent years have witnessed increasing interest in extending large language models into agentic systems.
arXiv:2606. 00135v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-calling is a central component of modern large language model (LLM) agents, equipping them with skills beyond their parametric knowledge.
The paper critiques current evaluations of efficiency methods for large language model–based multi‑agent systems, arguing that reported gains are often inflated by method‑specific prompts and starting topologies. It introduces a controlled, MAS‑demanding diagnostic benchmark that standardizes the backbone model, agent registry, and runtime, and systematically varies topology, scale, depth, and tool use. The authors find that many claimed efficiency improvements are setup‑dependent, sometimes stemming from structural collapse or random pruning rather than genuine, robust gains.
arXiv:2606. 21140v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Rapid advances in large language models have improved the task-solving capabilities of command-line-interface (CLI)-based agents, whose CLIs determine how models invoke tools, maintain interaction history, and recover from failures.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly extended into deep search agents that solve complex questions through multi-step interaction with external search and browsing tools. However, existing agents often incur substantial computational and interaction costs, generating lengthy trajectories that contain redundant queries, inefficient exploration, and irrelevant observations.
MemoryArena is a new evaluation gym that benchmarks agent memory in interdependent multi‑session tasks. Unlike prior benchmarks that test memorization or single‑session action in isolation, MemoryArena requires agents to acquire memory while interacting with the environment and then use that memory to guide future decisions across a range of tasks such as web navigation, planning, information search, and formal reasoning. The benchmark reveals that agents excelling on existing long‑context memory tests perform poorly here, highlighting a gap in current memory evaluation methods.
arXiv:2608. 15071v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Learning from experience is critical for developing capable, self-improving large language model (LLM) agents.
arXiv:2608. 19662v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic language models repeatedly encode tool and skill schemas that recur across requests in different combinations and orders, preventing standard prefix caching from reusing their key--value (KV) states.
arXiv:2605. 18421v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent benchmarks for Large Language Model (LLM) agents mainly evaluate reasoning, planning, and execution.
arXiv:2606. 07074v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deep research agents have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in complex information-seeking tasks, yet this power comes at a steep computational cost.
Agentick is a unified benchmark for sequential decision‑making agents that evaluates RL, LLM, VLM, hybrid, and human agents on 37 procedurally generated tasks across six capability categories, four difficulty levels, and five observation modalities via a single Gymnasium‑compatible interface. It includes a Coding API, oracle reference policies, pre‑built SFT datasets, a composable agent harness, and a live leaderboard. An evaluation of 27 configurations and over 90,000 episodes shows no single approach dominates, with GPT‑5 mini leading overall, PPO excelling in planning and multi‑agent tasks, and the reasoning harness boosting LLM performance by 3‑10×, while ASCII observations outperform natural language.
arXiv:2608. 08389v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Long-horizon research agents solve open-ended tasks through iterative retrieval, aggregation, and synthesis, but context grows rapidly while the marginal value of additional evidence often declines.
RideWay is a new benchmark that evaluates ride‑hailing language agents not just on task completion but on interaction efficiency. It introduces the Efficiency Utility metric, which penalizes agents for excessive tool calls and user‑facing turns relative to a task‑specific reference effort, with human preferences used to calibrate the penalties. Across 58 tasks and 24 models, the metric shows that extra dialogue is penalized more heavily than extra tool use, and it achieves high accuracy in distinguishing trajectories that differ in turns but struggles when differences are only in tool calls.