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
DuMateBench, a real-session benchmark reconstructed from anonymized and privacy-screened user sessions collected from a large-scale production agent platform, is introduced, showing that performance under environmental perturbations is jointly shaped by the capabilities of the LLM and the surrounding agent framework.
Zechun Niu, Yu-Kun 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.· 1 citation
This work formalizes minimum-sufficient execution and the Agent Cognitive Redundancy Ratio (ACRR), and proposes E3 (Estimate, Execute, Expand): the agent estimates an initial operating point, executes a minimum viable path, and expands scope only when verification fails.
J. Yin, Xinyu Feng· arXiv.org· 1 citation
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.