arXiv AI By Yaxing Lyu, Shengjie Zhou, Binbin Toh, Pengyu Zhu, Lijun Li

KC-Bench: A Dynamic Interactive Benchmark for Evaluating Knowledge Conflicts in LLM Agents

Read the original on arXiv AI →

KC-Bench is a dynamic interactive benchmark designed to evaluate how large language model agents reconcile user instructions, internal knowledge, and real‑time environmental observations. It contains 238 manually curated multi‑turn tasks that test world‑knowledge conflicts, input inconsistencies, and multi‑source temporal conflicts, using a user simulator, stateful tools, deterministic environment assertions, an open‑source natural‑language evaluator, and human trajectory verification. Evaluation of nine models—including DeepSeek‑V4‑Flash, GLM‑5.2, and MiniMax‑M3—reveals significant cross‑domain variation, with no model reliably handling factual correction, identity consistency checking, and temporal conflict resolution across all settings, and shows that missed conflicts can propagate to tool calls or synthetic protected‑data flows.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 3

KC-Bench: A Dynamic Interactive Benchmark for Evaluating Knowledge Conflicts in LLM Agents

KC-Bench is a dynamic interactive benchmark designed to evaluate how large language model agents reconcile user instructions, internal knowledge, and real‑time environmental observations. It consists of 238 manually curated multi‑turn tasks that test world‑knowledge conflicts, input inconsistencies, and multi‑source temporal conflicts, using a user simulator, stateful tools, deterministic environment assertions, an open‑source natural‑language evaluator, and human trajectory verification. Evaluation of nine models—including DeepSeek‑V4‑Flash, GLM‑5.2, and MiniMax‑M3—reveals significant cross‑domain variation, with no model reliably handling factual correction, identity consistency, and temporal conflict resolution across all settings, and shows that missed conflicts can propagate to tool calls or synthetic protected‑data flows.

arXiv AI
Jul 14

AgentAbstain: Do LLM Agents Know When Not to Act?

arXiv:2607. 10059v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent systems based on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for autonomous tasks, yet existing evaluations mostly focus on task success rather than whether agents know when to abstain.

By Xun Liu, Yi Evie Zhang, Vira Kasprova, Parisa Rabbani, Pardis Sadat Zahraei, Tianyu Zhang, Ali Ebrahimpour-Boroojeny, Varun Chandrasekaran
arXiv AI
Aug 18

From Sequence to Structure: Relational Uncertainty Propagation for LLM Agents

The paper introduces RUPA, a trajectory‑level uncertainty quantification framework for large language model agents. RUPA models an agent’s execution as a directed graph of reasoning states, tool interactions, and environment feedback, then propagates uncertainty across this graph to capture long‑range dependencies. Experiments on benchmarks such as τ‑2, Terminal‑Bench‑2, and GAIA show that RUPA outperforms existing methods, enabling earlier failure detection and more reliable agent execution.

By Zhengzhao Ma. Boxi Cao, Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, Le Sun
arXiv Computer Vision
Aug 26

DoublesEval: Diagnosing Multi-Agent Tactical Reasoning in Vision-Language Models via Professional Doubles Badminton

The paper introduces DoublesEval, a diagnostic framework that uses professional doubles badminton to test visual‑language models’ ability to reason about dynamic multi‑agent interactions. It decomposes rallies into key moments and evaluates models across four dimensions—atomic recognition, intra‑segment composite understanding, cross‑segment causal reasoning, and high‑level tactical abstraction—highlighting specific reasoning failures. The authors also propose TacticCheck, a lightweight consistency checker that improves performance without retraining the models, yet significant gaps remain in tactical reasoning.

By Jintao Cheng, Weibin Li