AgencyBench: Benchmarking the Frontiers of Autonomous Agents in 1M-Token Real-World Contexts (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Keyu Li, Junhao Shi, Yang Xiao, Mohan Jiang, Jie Sun, Yunze Wu, Dayuan Fu, Shijie Xia, Xiaojie Cai, Tianze Xu, Weiye Si, Wenjie Li, Dequan Wang, Pengfei Liu
| Challenge: | Existing benchmarks focus on single agentic capability, failing to capture long-horizon real-world scenarios. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark that evaluates 6 agentic capabilities across 32 real-world scenarios. |
| Outcome: | Experiments show that closed-source models outperform open-source model (48.4% vs 32.1%) integrating models with advanced scaffolds to form autonomous agents is a paradigm shift. |
Similar Papers
TelAgentBench: A Multi-faceted Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Agents in Telecommunications (2025.emnlp-industry)
Copied to clipboard
Sunwoo Lee, Daseong Jang, Dhammiko Arya, Gyoung-eun Han, Injee Song, SaeRom Kim, Sangjin Kim, Seojin Lee, Seokyoung Hong, Sereimony Sek, Seung-Mo Cho, Sohee Park, Sungbin Yoon, Wonbeom Jang, Eric Davis
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming powerful agentic systems . generic benchmarks fail to assess realistic, non-English performance . |
| Approach: | They propose to evaluate five core agentic capabilities: Reasoning, Planning, Action (tool-use), Retrieval-Augmented Generation, and Instruction Following. |
| Outcome: | The evaluations reveal significant performance disparities between models that employ explicit reasoning and those that do not. |
Can LLMs Help You at Work? A Sandbox for Evaluating LLM Agents in Enterprise Environments (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Enterprise systems are crucial for enhancing productivity and strategic growth, but data is fragmented across multiple sources and access controls are complex. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark that simulates enterprise settings with 500 diverse tasks . they show that even the most capable models achieve only 41.8% task completion . |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark shows that even the most capable models achieve only 41.8% task completion. |
MMAU: A Holistic Benchmark of Agent Capabilities Across Diverse Domains (2025.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
Guoli Yin, Haoping Bai, Shuang Ma, Feng Nan, Yanchao Sun, Zhaoyang Xu, Shen Ma, Jiarui Lu, Xiang Kong, Aonan Zhang, Dian Ang Yap, Yizhe Zhang, Karsten Ahnert, Vik Kamath, Mathias Berglund, Dominic Walsh, Tobias Gindele, Juergen Wiest, Zhengfeng Lai, Xiaoming Simon Wang, Jiulong Shan, Meng Cao, Ruoming Pang, Zirui Wang
| Challenge: | Existing benchmarks focus on specific application scenarios, emphasizing task completion but failing to dissect the underlying skills that drive these outcomes. |
| Approach: | They propose a Massive Multitask Agent Understanding benchmark that evaluates LLMs across five domains and offline tasks. |
| Outcome: | The Massive Multitask Agent Understanding (MMAU) benchmark evaluates models across five domains including Tool-use, Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) QA, Data Science and Machine Learning coding, Contest-level programming and Mathematics. |
AgentGym2: Benchmarking Large Language Model Agents in De-Idealized Real-World Environments (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Zhiheng Xi, Dingwen Yang, Jiaqi Liu, Jixuan Huang, Honglin Guo, Baodai Huang, Tinggang Chen, Qi Zhang, Zhonghang Lu, Chenyu Liu, Jiajun Sun, Jiazheng Zhang, Dingwei Zhu, Xin Guo, Junzhe Wang, Zhihao Zhang, Yuming Yang, Junjie Ye, Minghe Gao, Dongrui Liu, Jiaming Ji, Guohao Li, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, Xuanjing Huang
| Challenge: | Existing benchmarks evaluate agents in simplified, idealized settings, relying on pre-packaged tool interfaces, overlooking critical steps, and assume inputs are clean and fully specified. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that evaluates language agents in simplified, idealized settings . they show that even SOTA systems like Gemini and GPT-5 struggle on AgentGym2 . |
| Outcome: | Experiments on 15 proprietary and open-source models show that even SOTA systems like Gemini and GPT-5 struggle on AgentGym2 . |
AutoPenBench: A Vulnerability Testing Benchmark for Generative Agents (2025.emnlp-industry)
Copied to clipboard
Luca Gioacchini, Alexander Delsanto, Idilio Drago, Marco Mellia, Giuseppe Siracusano, Roberto Bifulco
| Challenge: | LLM agents are promising for vulnerability testing, but lack benchmarks to evaluate and compare them. |
| Approach: | They propose an open-source benchmark for the evaluation of vulnerability testing agents that includes 33 tasks ranging from introductory exercises to actual vulnerable systems. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark includes 33 tasks ranging from introductory exercises to actual vulnerable systems. |
Mobile-Bench: An Evaluation Benchmark for LLM-based Mobile Agents (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Shihan Deng, Weikai Xu, Hongda Sun, Wei Liu, Tao Tan, Liujianfeng Liujianfeng, Ang Li, Jian Luan, Bin Wang, Rui Yan, Shuo Shang
| Challenge: | Existing benchmarks for LLM-based mobile agents are insufficient to evaluate their capabilities. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to evaluate LLM-based mobile agents' planning capabilities . they expand UI operations by incorporating 103 APIs to accelerate task completion . |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmarks are based on 103 collected APIs and real user queries . the data is categorized into three distinct groups: SAST, SAMT, and MAMT . |
INVESTORBENCH: A Benchmark for Financial Decision-Making Tasks with LLM-based Agent (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Haohang Li, Yupeng Cao, Yangyang Yu, Shashidhar Reddy Javaji, Zhiyang Deng, Yueru He, Yuechen Jiang, Zining Zhu, K.p. Subbalakshmi, Jimin Huang, Lingfei Qian, Xueqing Peng, Jordan W. Suchow, Qianqian Xie
| Challenge: | Recent advances have underscored the potential of large language model (LLM)-based agents in financial decision-making. |
| Approach: | They propose to evaluate LLM agents using 13 different LLMs as backbone models across various market environments and tasks. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework assesses the reasoning and decision-making capabilities of 13 different LLMs across various market environments and tasks. |
LongCLI-Bench: A Preliminary Benchmark and Study for Long-horizon Agentic Programming in Command-Line Interfaces (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Yukang Feng, Jianwen Sun, Zelai Yang, Jiaxin Ai, Chuanhao Li, Zizhen Li, Fanrui Zhang, Kang He, Rui Ma, Jifan Lin, Jie Sun, Yang Xiao, Sizhuo Zhou, Wenxiao Wu, Yiming Liu, Pengfei Liu, Shenglin Zhang, Kaipeng Zhang
| Challenge: | Existing benchmarks for agentic programming in long-horizon command-line interface tasks are limited by short task horizons, data contamination from GitHub scraping, and a lack of fine-grained evaluation metrics. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to evaluate agentic capabilities across long-horizon command-line interface tasks. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmarks cover four engineering categories: from scratch, feature addition, bug fixing, and refactoring. |
ABC-Bench: Benchmarking Agentic Backend Coding in Real-World Development (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Jie Yang, Honglin Guo, Li Ji, Jiazheng Zhou, Rui Zheng, Zhikai Lei, Shuo Zhang, Zhiheng Xi, Shichun Liu, Yuxin Wang, Bo Wang, Yining Zheng, Tao Gui, Xipeng Qiu
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have redefined the role of AI in software engineering . current benchmarks focus on localized code generation, but neglect dynamic, full-process requirements of real-world engineering. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to evaluate agentic backend coding within a realistic, executable workflow. |
| Outcome: | The ABC-Bench benchmark evaluates agentic backend coding within a realistic, executable workflow. |
A Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Asaf Yehudai, Lilach Eden, Alan Li, Guy Uziel, Yilun Zhao, Roy Bar-Haim, Arman Cohan, Michal Shmueli-Scheuer
| Challenge: | This paper provides the first comprehensive survey of evaluation methods for LLM-based agents . LLMs are static, having fixed knowledge, and confined to text-to-text interaction. |
| Approach: | They analyze the evaluation of LLM-based agents across five perspectives . they identify current trends and key gaps in evaluation methods . |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation frameworks and tools are based on five perspectives . the results highlight current trends and identify gaps in future research . |