UniACE is a unified framework that standardizes the evaluation of large language model (LLM) agents by representing each benchmark as an instruction–tool–environment triplet and running models through a shared, task‑agnostic harness in isolated runtimes. It preserves native success criteria, offers an offline mode for dynamic‑resource tasks, and standardizes efficiency metrics, execution records, and failure attribution. Applying UniACE to 7 benchmarks across 24 domains and 15 models revealed significant score shifts, ranking reversals, and sensitivity to evidence representation, highlighting the impact of evaluation configuration on reported agent performance.
By Pengyu Zhu, Lijun Li, Yaxing Lyu, Qianxin Luo, Jingyi Yang, Yi Liu, Tingfeng Hui, Xinyu Yuan, Li Sun, Sen Su, Jing Shao
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.
By Jehyeok Yeon, Ben Rank, Maksym Andriushchenko
arXiv:2610.07094v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: LLM deployment is shifting from single-turn completion to agentic trajectories in which a model plans, calls tools, reads results and reasons at test...
By Abbas Raza Ali, Muhammad Ajmal Siddiqui, Moona Zahid
arXiv:2608. 05886v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern LLM coding agents such as Claude Code and OpenHands share a common inefficiency: they spend much of their token budget finding the file to patch, rather than patching it.
By Wuya Chen, Yihao yang, Yang Cao, Yue Lin
arXiv:2607. 14989v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly evolving from text generators into general agents capable of understanding user requests, invoking external tools, and completing complex tasks through interaction.
By Chengyu Shen, Yujie Fu, Gangtao Xin, Yanheng Hou, Wenlong Fei, Guojie Zhu, Jiawei Li, Hongcheng Gao, Runming He, Zhen Hao Wong, Meiyi Qiang, Hao Liang, Zhao Cao, Hao Jiang, Chong Chen, Wentao Zhang
arXiv:2606. 05670v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Does adding more agents help an LLM workflow once compared systems share the same benchmark loader, tool access, answer contract, usage accounting, and trajectory logging?
By Yuhang Fu, Ruishan Fang, Jiaqi Shao, Huiyu Zheng, Zhengtao Zhu, Bing Luo, Tao Lin
arXiv:2609.24161v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: As LLM agents increasingly interact with external tools through standardized protocols such as MCP, tool-interface design becomes a critical yet unde...
By Demetris Paschalides, Moysis Symeonides, George Pallis, Marios D. Dikaiakos
arXiv:2607. 25891v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating AI agents in interactive environments is hindered by fragmented tasks, scaffolds, verifiers, and scoring rules.
By Stefan Krsteski, Charlotte Meyer, Guillaume Allegre, Tony O'Halloran, Alexandre Sallinen
arXiv:2608. 12282v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agents deployed in enterprise settings must reason across structured APIs and document collections, yet existing benchmarks evaluate these capabilities in isolation.
By Ankita Rajaram Naik, Anupama Murthi, Benjamin Elder, Siyu Huo, Raavi Gupta, Abhinav Jain, Praveen Venkateswaran, Abdulhamid Adebayo, Danish Contractor
Modern LLM coding agents such as Claude Code and OpenHands share a common inefficiency: they spend much of their token budget finding the file to patch, rather than patching it. On SWE-Bench Verified, a 30B OpenHands agent averages 23 rounds and 631K tokens per resolved issue, with many calls spent on grep, glob, and view_file during repository exploration.
arXiv:2606. 28480v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As large language models and harness frameworks continue to advance, agents operating in terminals are increasingly capable of performing a broader range of general computer-use tasks beyond coding.
By Shoufa Chen, Luyuan Wang, Xuan Yang, Zhiheng Liu, Yuren Cong, Yuanfeng Ji, Feiyan Zhou, Xiaohui Zhang, Fanny Yang, Belinda Zeng
The paper introduces BenchAgent, a framework for evaluating multi‑agent large language model (LLM) workflows against a single‑agent baseline, BenchAgent Core. Using GPT‑4.1 across ten reasoning, coding, and tool‑use benchmarks, the study compares six multi‑agent configurations, finding that EvoAgent achieves the highest mean pooled accuracy (79.70%) while other agents lag by 1.71–8.76 percentage points. The analysis also highlights trade‑offs in token consumption and accuracy, offering guidance for selecting and optimizing LLM multi‑agent workflows.
By Yuhang Fu, Ruishan Fang, Jiaqi Shao, Huiyu Zheng, Zhengtao Zhu, Bing Luo, Zhenyu Wen, Tao Lin