arXiv AI

HumanStudy-Bench: Towards AI Agent Design for Participant Simulation

arXiv AI
Jul 24

HARP: The Human--AI Research Platform

arXiv:2607. 20773v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shifted human--computer interaction from `traditional'' interface journeys toward more conversational exchanges.

By Zeshu Zhu, Natalie Friedman, Kevin Weatherwax, Emily Eiben
arXiv Computation and Language
6d ago

Agent Seer: Synthesizing Scenarios from Specification Understanding

Agent Seer is a pipeline that automatically synthesizes realistic evaluation scenarios for AI agents that use external tools, using only the tool’s specification (function names, natural‑language descriptions, and typed parameter schemas). Starting from a single Model Context Protocol (MCP) specification, it enriches raw schemas, generates graded scenarios with synthetic tool outputs, and expands them into mock‑data‑grounded multi‑turn dialogues that demonstrate strong tool‑calling correctness and conversational coherence. Across seven diverse MCP specifications, the pipeline achieves high quality, with parameter‑schema complexity emerging as the main driver of quality variation and argument‑value accuracy identified as the dominant failure mode.

By Harish Karumuri, Mahesh Vemula, David Lopes Pegna
arXiv AI
Jun 10

T1-Bench: Benchmarking Multi-Scenario Agents in Real-World Domains

arXiv:2606. 11070v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent advances in reasoning and tool-calling capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have enabled increasingly capable agentic systems.

By Genta Indra Winata, Amartya Chakraborty, Yuzhen Lin, Swasthi P Rao, Shikhhar Siingh, Houhan Lu, Nadia Bathaee, Sriharsha Hatwar, Paresh Dashore, Anmol Jain, Kshitij Tayal, Xiuzhu Lin, Anirban Das, Sambit Sahu, Shi-Xiong Zhang
arXiv AI
2d ago

Ideation Arena: Evaluating LLM Generated Research Ideas with Battle-style Human Expert Assessment

Ideation Arena is a battle-style platform that evaluates research ideas generated by large language models (LLMs) and research agents through pairwise human assessment. The system builds shared literature contexts, collects over 6,000 double-blind comparisons from 105 computer science researchers, and constructs an Elo rating leaderboard to rank proposal-stage expert preferences. It also introduces Ideation Arena Eval, a benchmark to test whether automated evaluators align with human preferences, finding that current LLM judges achieve at best 72.56% Soft Accuracy on overall quality.

By Zhiyu Chen, Keyu Zhao, Jigao Fu, Dong Liang, Yanbiao Wu, Jiaoyang Li, Haidong Xue, Xinhua Zeng, Yuanyi Zhen, Fengli Xu, Yong Li
arXiv AI
Jun 12

AgentBeats: Agentifying Agent Assessment for Openness, Standardization, and Reproducibility

arXiv:2606. 13608v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent systems are advancing quickly across domains, but their evaluation remains fragmented.

By Xiaoyuan Liu, Jianhong Tu, Yuqi Chen, Siyuan Xie, Sihan Ren, Tianneng Shi, Gal Gantar, Evan Sandoval, Donghyun Lee, Daniel Miao, Peter J. Gilbert, Nick Hynes, Mauro Staver, Warren He, David Marn, Andrew Low, Xi Zhang, Elron Bandel, Michal Shmueli-Scheuer, Siva Reddy, Alexandre Drouin, Alexandre Lacoste, Ramayya Krishnan, Elham Tabassi, Yu Su, Victor Barres, Chenguang Wang, Wenbo Guo, Dawn Song