arXiv AI

Beyond the Leaderboard: A Synthesis of Tool-Use, Planning, and Reasoning Failures in Large Language Model Agents

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 AI
Sep 11

AgentAudit: An Open, Extensible Framework for Full-Lifecycle Trust Evaluation of AI Agents

AgentAudit is an open, extensible framework that evaluates the full lifecycle of AI agents, assessing planning, tool selection, execution, memory, and reasoning across ten dimensions such as instruction integrity, security, and alignment. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on single aspects, AgentAudit analyzes the entire execution trace to attribute failures to specific stages. The framework was tested on five large language models, revealing significant differences in trustworthiness even among models with similar task‑completion performance.

By Shrey Nag, Sachita, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Lipi Goel, Rajeshwar Singh Janwar
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 22

CCTU: A Benchmark for Tool Use under Complex Constraints

CCTU is a new benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) on their ability to use tools under complex constraints. It includes 200 test cases that average seven constraint types and 4,700‑token prompts, covering resource, behavior, toolset, and response dimensions. An executable validation module performs step‑level checks, and nine state‑of‑the‑art LLMs were tested, revealing that none exceed a 20% task completion rate when strict constraints are enforced, with frequent violations and limited self‑refinement.

By Junjie Ye, Guoqiang Zhang, Wenjie Fu, Zelin Li, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, Xuanjing Huang
arXiv AI
5d ago

The Hard Part Comes After Search: Benchmarking Web Agents on Synthesizing, Organizing, and Displaying Knowledge

The paper introduces KNOWS, a benchmark for evaluating web agents that act as assistants by retrieving, synthesizing, and presenting information across complex, multi-step browser tasks. It outlines a task design rubric, evaluation protocol combining deterministic checks with LLM judgments, and reports that current agents achieve only modest success, with the best performing agent succeeding on less than 3% of tasks. The study highlights significant gaps in agents’ tool use, visual understanding, and long‑horizon reasoning.

By Alexander Gill, Md Farhan Ishmam, Xuyen Nguyen, Neha Bhat, Parker Henry DeYoung, Fateme Hashemi Chaleshtori, Nathan Stringham, Kenneth Marino, Ana Marasovi\'c
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14

ParaRecover: A Process-Level Benchmark for Error Localization and Recovery in Parallel Tool-Use Agents

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.

By Bowen Guan, Zhentao Yin, Yanming Shen
arXiv AI
Jul 14

AgentAbstain: Do LLM Agents Know When Not to Act?

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.

By Xun Liu, Yi Evie Zhang, Vira Kasprova, Parisa Rabbani, Pardis Sadat Zahraei, Tianyu Zhang, Ali Ebrahimpour-Boroojeny, Varun Chandrasekaran