arXiv:2608. 13547v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM coding agents issue Bash commands through interfaces that may serialize, wrap, and reparse model output.
arXiv:2609.06993v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly generate Markdown that is consumed by renderers, agents, code extractors, and structured downstream pipelin...
The study examines how context projection—replacing older tool observations with concise, addressable excerpts—affects performance in ReVerPi, a Pi extension that archives observations and matches full to projected continuations. Across 86 source‑reading runs and 641 model requests, 15 completed pairs achieved identical success rates (12/15 per arm), while 12 boundary runs halted when the first arm failed, revealing that projection can reduce logical tokens by 25% but increase median pair tokens by 29% and total suffix requests from 35 to 55. The analysis highlights the importance of retaining all intervention boundaries, executing both arms independently, and reporting completion, token usage, and interaction details to accurately assess stopping rules and resource aggregation.
arXiv:2610.14146v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Long-horizon terminal benchmarks measure whether an agent can sustain progress through extended workflows with process rewards, not only whether its fi...
arXiv:2610.02363v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmarks for agent-generated data work grade a pipeline by running it once against a fixed snapshot. ArrivalBench instead re-executes the pipeline an...
The study investigates how post‑training quantization (8‑bit vs. 4‑bit) affects language‑model agents’ ability to recover from temporary tool failures. Using Llama‑3.1‑8B‑Instruct and Qwen2.5‑7B‑Instruct on twenty deterministic tool‑use tasks across five prompts, the authors find that recovery performance varies with prompt, evaluation target, and scoring policy, sometimes favoring 8‑bit, sometimes 4‑bit, and even reversing direction under different conditions. The results highlight that a single prompt, task set, or scoring rule cannot reliably determine the robustness of quantized agents. whyItMatters":"The findings emphasize that evaluation design choices critically influence conclusions about quantized‑agent robustness, underscoring the need for comprehensive, matched‑task assessments before deployment decisions are made."
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...
arXiv:2603.01209v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: In CodeAct, language-model agents write Python that calls tools and use execution feedback to choose actions. Persistent runtimes preserve Python v...
IBBench-Light is a paired evaluation framework that tests language models on both executing procedures and reading text from the same external record. The benchmark uses twelve semantic bases to generate 144 matched pairs per model, with four instruction‑quantized models producing 1,152 greedy responses. Metrics such as Paired Exact‑Contract Accuracy (PECA) reveal that models like Qwen achieve high success on individual prompts but only 97 complete pairs, highlighting the importance of paired evaluation.
arXiv:2607. 20531v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed over Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers, yet the benchmarks used to evaluate them score the final answer or a fixed "ground-truth" list of tools, both of which are fragile once the underlying data is live and stateful.
The paper introduces prefix executability, a trajectory-level evaluation protocol for tool-using agents that checks whether every prefix of a predicted tool-call sequence remains executable under tool schemas, state preconditions, and data dependencies. It defines metrics such as Prefix Executability Curves, First-Error Depth, Trajectory Executability Rate, horizon-normalized AUC-PEC, and Recovery Rate to quantify reliability. Experiments on BFCL-v3, ToolSandbox, and $ au^3$-bench show that agents can achieve high final success while having low trajectory executability, revealing failure modes that final success metrics miss, and demonstrate that explicit pre-execution plan checking can improve prefix-level reliability without sacrificing terminal success.
The study compares two delivery architectures for a multi‑turn agent that uses a tool to retrieve structured records. In the SYNTHESIS architecture, all records are fed into the model’s context, leading to a dramatic drop in accuracy as the table grows beyond about 74 rows. The BYPASS architecture keeps records in session state and delivers them via a typed side channel, maintaining high accuracy (92.3%) regardless of table size across four large language models.
The paper evaluates hard‑gate candidacy for validators in a deployed generative‑agent system by measuring how well each validator’s firing separates successful from failed builds. Across 13 validators and thousands of builds, only a few checks show statistically significant separation, while many fail to distinguish or never fire. The study highlights that skipped checks are recorded as passes, limiting detectable failure rates and underscoring the need for clearer evaluation records.