arXiv:2609.26693v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: A coding agent must emit a valid tool call--a parseable invocation of a tool in the provided schema--before the harness can execute its chosen action....
By Lijuan Tang, Yuemeng Zheng
arXiv:2609.14758v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Tool-augmented language models are evaluated on whether they reach the right answer, not on whether they report honestly when a tool fails to supply...
By Arham Sethi, Arsen Kenzhebayev, Saanvi Paturi, Vatsal Raina, Vyas Raina, Ivaxi Sheth
arXiv:2606. 01365v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-using multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems spend computation through model tokens, tool calls, retries, and code execution before producing an answer.
By Xianyou Li, Weiran Yan, Yichao Wu, Penghao Liang, Mengwei Yuan, Jianan Liu, Jing Yang
arXiv:2608. 00107v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic systems must repeatedly decide whether to answer directly, decompose a task, invoke a tool, execute code, delegate to a specialist, verify an intermediate result, or recover from failure.
By Natan Vidra, Alina Kapanova, Arun Kanhai, Spurthi Setty
arXiv:2610.17633v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Work on debugging LLM agents treats the "first mistake" marked by a human or LLM judge as ground truth for where a trajectory failed. We ask whether su...
By Bingyu Shen, Jiaqi Tang, Lan Wei, Yi Sheng, J. Jenny Li, Boyang Li
Agent Harness Awareness addresses the gap between tool descriptions and real‑time operational suitability by having the host provide a verified, up‑to‑date state snapshot before an agent dispatches an action. In controlled benchmarks, this approach cut observable policy regret by nearly 97 % and boosted single‑dispatch completion from 69.4 % to 95.8 %. In live, fault‑injected tests, verified state eliminated excess operational cost and achieved 100 % completion across all model‑by‑fault scenarios.
By Manu Agrawal, Shrey Nagpal
arXiv:2605. 11030v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Closed-loop tool-using agents are increasingly evaluated in executable web, code, and micro-task environments, but benchmark reports often conflate workloads, action-generating drivers, and the evidence admitted for systems-facing claims.
By Zhiqing Zhong, Zhijing Ye, Jiamin Wang, Xiaodong Yu
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
Harness-Bench is a diagnostic benchmark that evaluates how different harness configurations affect LLM agent performance in realistic workflows. It tests 106 sandboxed offline tasks across multiple model backends, recording artifacts, execution traces, and usage statistics to analyze completion, process quality, efficiency, and failure behavior. The study finds significant variation in outcomes across model-harness pairings, indicating that agent capability should be reported at the configuration level rather than solely by the base model.
By Yilun Yao, Xinyu Tan, Chao-Hsuan Liu, Yaoming Li, Zhengyang Wang, Zongwei Lv, Wenhan Yu, Zhewen Tan, Yuxuan Tian, Lin Sun, Xiangzheng Zhang, Guangxiang Zhao, Tong Yang
The paper introduces TraceTrial-Bench, a benchmark that evaluates the reliability of AI agent harnesses across seven components—context, execution, governance, lifecycle, observability, tools, and verification—using 95 expert-level tasks with executable or state-based ground truth. It employs a Trajectory Tracing module to record agent execution, a two-layer evaluation framework to separately assess agent performance and harness reliability, and a Multi-source Evidence Acquisition module to gather evidence for LLM-based evaluation. The benchmark’s analysis of 3,420 runs across four harnesses and nine models shows harness scores between 59.8% and 72.0%, with 31.1% of runs succeeding despite failing at least one harness criterion, highlighting the need for auditable and reproducible harness evaluation.
By Zhiyong Cao, Hengjie Zhu, Yongxin Wang, Xuchen Li, Jintao Li, Shuxia Liu, Dunqiang Liu, Bo Wang, Kairan Zhang, Cong Lin, JiangDi Yu, Siyuan Liu, Sijia Yao, Yi-Liang Wei, Lingxu Ma, Aijia Wang, Anxin Chen, Zixian Wei, Xiang Ruan, Ruizhi Xu, Ruqian Shi, Baihua Xiao, Sicheng Zhou
CASEL (Consequence-Aware Selective Execution Layer) is a runtime allocation policy for tool‑using language agents that chooses among direct execution, verification, sandboxing, clarification, approval, and abstention for each proposed tool call. It combines calibrated failure probability, state‑dependent consequence, reversibility, ambiguity, and evidence freshness to minimize a per‑mode cost. In controlled simulations, CASEL cuts harmful‑side‑effect trajectories from 14.75 % to 7.02 % and reduces mean normalized harm from 0.184 to 0.123 compared to an uncertainty‑ranked gate.
By Yanyan Zhang, Fei Shen, Ting Yan, Hao Zhang
arXiv:2608.22510v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Agent benchmarks often evaluate only final answers even when agents run on stateful runtimes. We argue this under-specifies what is being evaluated: th...
By YuanHang Xiao