ClawTrack is presented, a dual-assessment benchmark that simultaneously measures what an agent achieves (Task Score) and how it achieves it (Process Score) and finds that process scores effectively attribute success and failure to specific reasoning dimensions, filtering lucky passes invisible to outcome-only evaluation.
Abstract
As LLM-based agents are deployed in complex, multi-step workflows, a critical evaluation gap has emerged: most existing benchmarks judge only final outcomes, unable to distinguish reliable reasoning from lucky success or attribute failures to specific process deficiencies, hindering attribution in long-horizon tasks. In this work, we present ClawTrack, a dual-assessment benchmark that simultaneously measures what an agent achieves (Task Score) and how it achieves it (Process Score). ClawTrack comprises 320 tasks across 8 domains with 25+ deterministic mock services. A Process Grader scores each reasoning turn along four dimensions (goal alignment, efficiency, information utilization, and result verification), anchored by 12,541 task-specific rubric items. Evaluating 21 models over 16,000+ trials, we find that: (1) process scores effectively attribute success and failure to specific reasoning dimensions, filtering lucky passes invisible to outcome-only evaluation; (2) the four dimensions are complementary, with result verification as the systematic bottleneck; (3) the framework is robust to evaluator choice across different judge LLMs; and (4) process-based trajectory filtering yields consistent post-training improvements across model scales.
Experiments reveal that models with similar end-to-end accuracy can exhibit markedly different agentic capability profiles, demonstrating that process-level evaluation is crucial for interpreting the true potential of LLMs and guiding the development of next-generation mathematical agents.
Jiayi Kuang, Yinghui Li, Yun-Ze Song et al.· 0 citations
Autonomous agents are increasingly adopted to complete complex, multi-tool workflows in real-world settings. However, existing benchmarks typically separate tasks by application or capability and evaluate agents in environments that are cleaner and more stable than those encountered in practice. We introduce DuMateBench, a real-session benchmark reconstructed from anonymized and privacy-screened user sessions collected from a large-scale production agent platform. Each task preserves the relevant pre-solution interaction history, persistent configurations, and workspace state, and is then validated through human verification. The resulting benchmark comprises 200 tasks spanning 8 broad scenarios and 17 fine-grained capability categories, with most tasks requiring multiple capability coordination. We execute these tasks in isolated Docker containers injected with three forms of real-world environmental complexity: Insufficient, Unstable, and Noisy, and assess performance using a hybrid deterministic and LLM-as-Judge evaluation protocol. Experiments across five representative autonomous-agent frameworks paired with four state-of-the-art LLMs reveal substantial gaps in strict task completion. Complementary robustness, efficiency, and diagnostic analyses further show that performance under environmental perturbations is jointly shaped by the capabilities of the LLM and the surrounding agent framework. The code and data are publicly available at https://dumatebench.com/.
Zechun Niu, Yukun Zhao, Jia-Xin Zhang et al.· 0 citations
This paper synthesizes 27 benchmark, taxonomy, and audit papers (2023-2026), spanning 19 distinct benchmarks, into a cross-cutting taxonomy of agent limitations, the first synthesis that integrates evidence across tool use, planning, long-horizon reasoning, multi-agent coordination, safety, and measurement validity into a single, unified taxonomy of LLM agent limitations.
Wael S. Albayaydh, Rui Zhao, Ivan Flechais· 1 citation
Experimental results show that AgentLocate consistently outperforms existing failure localization methods in identifying both responsible agents and failure steps, while remaining efficient in terms of token usage and running time.
Yu Xia, Anjun Gao, Yueyang Quan et al.· 0 citations
AFANet is introduced, a lightweight graph-based framework that models interaction trajectories through step-level semantic signals and agent-level relationships and suggests that effective agent failure attribution does not require heavy LLM reasoning and a lightweight, structured approach can achieve strong performance.
Ting-Wei Li, Yuanchen Bei, Xiao Lin et al.· 0 citations
Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly automate multi-step engineering and informatics workflows, yet they rarely ask how much effort a task actually requires. They often follow a maximum-context-first strategy--re-reading files and dependencies they have already seen--turning a one-line edit into a small code-base audit. We argue the missing capability is task-aware execution-scope estimation: judging a task's difficulty, the information it truly needs, and the shortest reliable path before committing budget. We formalize minimum-sufficient execution and the Agent Cognitive Redundancy Ratio (ACRR), and propose E3 (Estimate, Execute, Expand): the agent estimates an initial operating point, executes a minimum viable path, and expands scope only when verification fails. On MSE-Bench--a deterministic benchmark of 121 edits in a capability-controlled simulator--E3 matches the strongest baseline's 100% success while cutting cost by 85%, tokens by 91%, and inspected files by 92%, and further beats a strong adaptive retrieval baseline by 16%; the gains survive held-out instruction wording and essentially every cost weighting. A companion real-model harness (LLM-Case) corroborates the effect on a live gpt-4o agent editing a real open-source library, with every candidate patch graded by actually running the project's real pytest suite against a measured oracle: the over-reading is milder but real, and E3 is the leanest and fastest policy at comparable task success--its one shortfall a provider rate-limit, not a wrong edit. We frame this as a controlled probe of execution redundancy, not a measurement of any deployed agent, and position task-aware execution as a step toward engineering-grounded AI (EGAI)--agents whose effort is anchored in the engineering reality of the task. We release the framework and benchmark.