arXiv:2608. 11232v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluating LLM coding agents in algorithmic trading is difficult because static benchmarks risk data contamination and numerical backtest outputs require ground truth from actual code execution.
arXiv:2605. 28556v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As agent capabilities advance, existing benchmarks, such as $\tau^2$-Bench, are becoming increasingly saturated.
arXiv:2607. 20468v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI agents are increasingly used to automate research and development tasks, yet existing benchmarks typically evaluate them on prescribed workflows or narrow action spaces.
arXiv:2607. 00436v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model agents are increasingly connected to scientific software, yet it remains unclear when tool access makes scientific computation more reliable rather than merely more complex.
arXiv:2608. 00106v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic systems must decide not only what answer to produce, but which reasoning and execution operations should precede it.
arXiv:2607. 23722v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as agents that interact with stateful environments over multiple steps: gathering hidden information, composing tool calls, and committing state changes.
arXiv:2607. 08964v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI agents have become capable of autonomously completing short, well-specified tasks.
Harbor Adapters is a unified evaluation infrastructure that ports over 80 agentic benchmarks, enabling arbitrary agents to be tested across complex environments. The authors performed a large‑scale evaluation of 8 models on 54 benchmarks, using Terminus‑2 and three native harnesses, revealing detailed agent capabilities and failure modes. They also created Harbor‑Index, a curated set of 82 challenging tasks from 29 benchmarks, designed to be affordable yet comprehensive, with the best model achieving a 28.0% pass rate.
arXiv:2609.38294v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We study the generation of agentic workflows that jointly optimize multiple objectives, such as accuracy, cost, latency, robustness, and consistency. E...
The paper introduces RuVerBench, a benchmark with 2,458 instances for evaluating the reliability of Large Language Models acting as judges (LaaJ) in verifying rubric compliance within agentic scenarios such as deep research and agentic coding. It systematically meta‑evaluates frontier LLMs, revealing that even the most advanced models perform well yet still produce substantial noise. The study also examines how prompt design, batching, and majority voting affect verification accuracy, noting that weaker models are more prompt‑sensitive, batched verification trades accuracy for efficiency, and majority voting offers diminishing returns.
arXiv:2606. 07682v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI agents are increasingly expected to complete long-horizon workflows that require sustained progress over hours, millions of tokens, and complex environments.
ToolGate is an executable acceptance pipeline designed to streamline the creation of scientific benchmarks that rely on specialist software. It evaluates each model-generated item through three gates: (1) an executable solution script must reproduce the proposed answer, (2) a randomized no‑tool screen rejects items solvable without the software, and (3) a tool‑using agent must solve the item within a time limit. In a FEniCSx instantiation, 500 generation attempts produced 128 unique, verified benchmark items after successive filtering.
arXiv:2607. 28037v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLM-based agents are deployed in complex, multi-step workflows, a critical evaluation gap has emerged: most existing benchmarks judge only final outcomes, unable to distinguish reliable reasoning from lucky success or attribute failures to specific process deficiencies, hindering attribution in long-horizon tasks.