The paper introduces OneMillion-Bench (OMB), a benchmark comprising 400 expert-curated tasks across Law, Finance, Industry, Healthcare, and Natural Science. OMB evaluates language agents on complex, real-world scenarios that require authoritative source retrieval, conflict resolution, domain-specific rule application, and constraint decision-making. The benchmark uses a rubric-based scoring system assessing factual accuracy, logical coherence, practical feasibility, and professional compliance to differentiate agent performance on expert-level problems.
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.
arXiv:2606. 30441v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A rigorous formalization of system requirements is a fundamental prerequisite for the verification of Multi-Agent Systems (MAS).
arXiv:2608. 06329v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Task-oriented conversational agents are evaluated using curated or automatically generated benchmarks, yet benchmark quality is rarely assessed.
arXiv:2602. 06486v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating agentic AI on open-ended professional tasks faces a fundamental dilemma between rigor and flexibility.
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly support complex professional tasks, yet their capabilities in rule-intensive document review remain insufficiently evaluated. National standard documents, such as China GB/T standards, offer a representative testbed: they are lengthy, highly structured, and governed by explicit rules for scope, terminology, normative wording, and cross-section consistency.
The paper introduces Tasks over Application Manuals (TAM), a benchmark designed to test long‑horizon procedural reasoning in large language models. TAM uses real‑world tasks from ICD‑10‑CM clinical coding and U.S. federal sentencing, requiring models to follow extensive, rule‑based manuals and perform interdependent steps to produce exact answers. Experiments with GPT‑5 and various prompting strategies show very low exact‑match accuracy—1% for coding and 15.5% for sentencing—highlighting a gap between current benchmarks and the ability to reliably follow complex procedures.
Legal Research Bench (LRB) is a new benchmark comprising 413 open-ended U.S. legal research questions, each paired with a gold answer, supporting authorities, and a binary grading rubric. The study evaluates thirteen advanced language‑model agents using web search, case‑law search, page parsing, and retrieval tools, scoring responses only when all required criteria are met and cited authorities verify. Results show that even the best model, Claude Opus 4.8, achieves full correctness on only 42.9% of questions, with performance varying by legal area and task complexity, and no clear link between more tool calls or inference cost and higher accuracy.
arXiv:2607. 25891v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating AI agents in interactive environments is hindered by fragmented tasks, scaffolds, verifiers, and scoring rules.
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. Reported benchmark gains often obscure recurring failure modes documented across otherwise unrelated evaluation efforts.
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.
The paper introduces MentorQA, a multilingual dataset and evaluation framework for mentorship-oriented question answering derived from long‑form videos. It contains nearly 9,000 QA pairs across four languages and defines evaluation dimensions such as clarity, alignment, and learning value that extend beyond factual accuracy. Experiments show that Multi‑Agent QA pipelines outperform other architectures, especially on complex topics and low‑resource languages, while automated LLM‑based evaluation shows variable alignment with human judgments.
arXiv:2509. 02594v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on their ability to generate high-quality, accurate, situationally aware answers to clinical questions requires going beyond conventional benchmarks to assess how these systems behave in complex, high-stakes clinical scenarios.