arXiv AI

"LLM Agent Performance" Is Not a Single Evaluation Target

arXiv:2602. 03238v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM agent benchmark scores are shaped not only by the model but also by the agent harness, environment, evaluator, and inference budget.

arXiv AI
Sep 2

UniACE: A Unified Framework for Evaluating LLM Agentic Capabilities

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 AI
Jun 19

Beyond Static Leaderboards: Predictive Validity for the Evaluation of LLM Agents

arXiv:2606. 19704v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent benchmarks are growing fast, but no single benchmark touches more than four or five of the dimensions that deployment exposes.

By Dhaval C. Patel, Kaoutar El Maghraoui, Shuxin Lin, Yusheng Li, Tianjun Feng, Chun-Yi Tsai, Yihan Sun, Wei Alexander Xin, Akshat Bhandari, Tanisha Rathod, Aaron Fan, Sanskruti Vijay Shejwal, Tomas Pasiecznik, Sagar Chethan Kumar, Tanmay Agarwal, Rohith Kanathur, Sam Colman, Amaan Sheikh, Dev Bahl, Ann Li, Krish Veera, Alimurtaza Mustafa Merchant, Shambhawi Baswaraj Bhure, Sajal Kumar Goyla, Chengrui Li, Kirthana Natarajan, Rui Li, Thomas Ajai, Rujing Li, Vivek G. Iyer, Sanjaii Vijayakumar, Yitong Bai, Ayal Yakobe, Darief Maes, Yassine Jebbouri, Tianyang Xu, Thai Quoc On, Vera Mazeeva, Winston Li, Yuval Shemla, Yeshitha Bhuvanesh, Rushin Bhatt, Siddharth Chethan Gowda, Alisha Vinod, Caroline Cahill, Shriya Aishani Rachakonda, Yunfeng Chen, Aryaman Agrawal, Aman Upganlawar, Mao Le Jonathan Ang, Yubin Sally Go, Madhav Rajkondawar, Yang-Jung Chen, Trisha Maturi, Ananya Kapoor, Andrew Li, Shrey Arora, Mana Abbaszadeh, Shen Li, Charles Xu, Byeolah Kwon
arXiv AI
Sep 11

AgentAudit: An Open, Extensible Framework for Full-Lifecycle Trust Evaluation of AI Agents

AgentAudit is an open, extensible framework that evaluates the full lifecycle of AI agents, assessing planning, tool selection, execution, memory, and reasoning across ten dimensions such as instruction integrity, security, and alignment. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on single aspects, AgentAudit analyzes the entire execution trace to attribute failures to specific stages. The framework was tested on five large language models, revealing significant differences in trustworthiness even among models with similar task‑completion performance.

By Shrey Nag, Sachita, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Lipi Goel, Rajeshwar Singh Janwar
arXiv AI
Jul 3

PACE: A Proxy for Agentic Capability Evaluation

arXiv:2607. 02032v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating LLM agents on benchmarks like SWE-Bench and GAIA can be expensive, time-consuming, and requires complex infrastructure.

By Yueqi Song, Lintang Sutawika, Jiarui Liu, Lindia Tjuatja, Jiayi Geng, Yunze Xiao, Daniel Lee, Aditya Bharat Soni, Vincent Lo, Xiang Yue, Graham Neubig
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
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 10

Rethinking the Evaluation of Efficiency Methods for Multi-Agent Systems

The paper critiques current evaluations of efficiency methods for large language model–based multi‑agent systems, arguing that reported gains are often inflated by method‑specific prompts and starting topologies. It introduces a controlled, MAS‑demanding diagnostic benchmark that standardizes the backbone model, agent registry, and runtime, and systematically varies topology, scale, depth, and tool use. The authors find that many claimed efficiency improvements are setup‑dependent, sometimes stemming from structural collapse or random pruning rather than genuine, robust gains.

By Jiamu Zhang, Lingxi Zhang, Pengjun Lu, Qiyue Zhang, Yu-Neng Chuang, Zhengchen Li, Shuai Xu, Vipin Chaudhary, Hanjie Chen
arXiv AI
2d ago

Agent Evaluation Reliability: More Tasks Won't (Always) Fix An Agent Leaderboard

Agent evaluations increasingly benchmark LLMs, but rankings can be swayed by evaluation conditions such as scaffolds or tasks, making reliability claim‑dependent. A Bayesian variance‑decomposition framework applied to 22 benchmarks shows that reliability varies with the measurement goal: fixed model‑scaffold systems rank reliably, while underlying‑model rankings are less stable. Scaffold choice can alter conclusions, and adding more tasks only modestly improves reliability when scaffold coverage is limited; however, pooling diverse benchmarks can substantially raise cross‑task ranking reliability and reduce cost.

By Michael Hardy, Ruhana Azam, Anka Reuel, Mykel Kochenderfer, Sanmi Koyejo