LiveMACEBench is introduced, a process-aware benchmark that uses live financial markets as a naturally evolving testbed for persistent LLM agents, demonstrating that mechanism access, effective mechanism use, and downstream performance are not interchangeable measures of agent capability.
Abstract
Evaluating agents by outcomes alone can obscure the capabilities that produce them. This problem is especially pronounced in evolving environments, where outcomes reflect a closed-loop interaction between agent behavior and changing external conditions. We introduce LiveMACEBench, a process-aware benchmark that uses live financial markets as a naturally evolving testbed for persistent LLM agents. Five frontier LLMs operate along continuous trajectories under matched Tool Use, Persistent Memory, Rule Following, and Multi-Agent Collaboration configurations. We evaluate them through both realized outcomes and mechanism-specific diagnostics derived from complete decision traces. Across 30 days of live evaluation, we find a pronounced outcome-capability gap: realized returns often diverge from capability-specific measurements, and similar outcomes can arise from markedly different patterns of mechanism use. Trace-level diagnostics further expose distinct bottlenecks across capabilities, demonstrating that mechanism access, effective mechanism use, and downstream performance are not interchangeable measures of agent capability. LiveMACEBench makes this distinction measurable, turning live markets from a performance leaderboard into a diagnostic environment for agent capability
Evaluating autonomous agents requires examining whether they can translate goals into coherent action across extended interactions. In persistent environments, this requires coordinating interdependent actions under incomplete observations, accounting for delayed effects, and adapting as earlier decisions shape subsequ...
Jian-Feng Lin, Run-Ze Wang, Hao-Rong Hong et al.· 0 citations
EvoHarnessBench is introduced, a benchmark for evaluating agents under controlled harness evolution across three axes (tools, skills, and agents), and establishes harness evolution as a distinct challenge for building agents that can keep pace with an evolving harness while preserving previously effective behavior.
Zi-Xuan Ke, Vaidehi Patil, Hai-Zhou Shi et al.· 5 citations· ⚡1
Large language models (LLMs) and multi-agent systems (MAS) have shown promise in financial decision-making, yet existing evaluations focus on equity trading and primarily assess directional prediction, overlooking the structural complexity of derivative markets. Option trading introduces fundamentally different challen...
Hao-Chen Luo, Yi-Fan Li, Binh Minh An et al.· 0 citations
Agent-to-agent protocols allow LLM agents to discover peers, exchange results, and coordinate tool use. A locally successful protocol attack, however, may be rejected by a later agent or propagated into a consequential task decision. Measuring local exploitability alone leaves this difference unresolved and provides li...
Xiu-Ming Liu, Le Gai, Zhi-Yuan Chang et al.· 0 citations
The results show that skill transfer must be assessed through the actions agents take, the tasks those actions reach, and the quality and cost of the final deployment.
EvoPathBench establishes capability-level process evaluation as a foundation for analyzing self-evolution, identifying candidate evaluation and selection as key targets for improvement.
Hong-Qiang Lin, Chao Liu, Xiao-Fan Bai et al.· 2 citations