Pith. sign in

REVIEW 13 cited by

BattleAgentBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Cooperation and Competition Capabilities of Language Models in Multi-Agent Systems

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2408.15971 v1 pith:4RWVWVFE submitted 2024-08-28 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords modelscapabilitiescollaborativemulti-agentlanguagetasksabilitiessystems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly powerful and capable of handling complex tasks, e.g., building single agents and multi-agent systems. Compared to single agents, multi-agent systems have higher requirements for the collaboration capabilities of language models. Many benchmarks are proposed to evaluate their collaborative abilities. However, these benchmarks lack fine-grained evaluations of LLM collaborative capabilities. Additionally, multi-agent collaborative and competitive scenarios are ignored in existing works. To address these two problems, we propose a benchmark, called BattleAgentBench, which defines seven sub-stages of three varying difficulty levels and conducts a fine-grained evaluation of language models in terms of single-agent scenario navigation capabilities, paired-agent task execution abilities, and multi-agent collaboration and competition capabilities. We conducted extensive evaluations on leading four closed-source and seven open-source models. Experimental results indicate that API-based models perform excellently on simple tasks but open-source small models struggle with simple tasks. Regarding difficult tasks that require collaborative and competitive abilities, although API-based models have demonstrated some collaborative capabilities, there is still enormous room for improvement.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 13 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?

    cs.AI 2025-03 unverdicted novelty 8.0 of 10

    The authors create the first large-scale dataset and taxonomy of failure modes in multi-agent LLM systems to explain their limited performance gains.

  2. Benchmarking Open-Ended Multi-Agent Coordination in Language Agents

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    ALEM benchmark reveals LLM agents achieve only ~6% normalized return in open-ended multi-agent settings, with communication as the main driver of coordination and individual task competence not implying coordination c...

  3. CollabSim: A CSCW-Grounded Methodology for Investigating Collaborative Competence of LLM Agents through Controlled Multi-Agent Experiments

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    CollabSim is a new CSCW-grounded simulation framework that enables controlled multi-agent experiments to measure collaborative competence in LLM agents.

  4. Beyond Individual Intelligence: Surveying Collaboration, Failure Attribution, and Self-Evolution in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A survey that unifies prior work on multi-agent LLM systems via the LIFE framework, mapping dependencies across collaboration, failure attribution, and autonomous self-evolution while identifying cross-stage challenges.

  5. When Does Hierarchy Help? Benchmarking Agent Coordination in Event-Driven Industrial Scheduling

    cs.MA 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    DESBench reveals structural trade-offs among centralized, hierarchical, heterarchical, and holonic coordination in dynamic industrial scheduling that outcome metrics alone miss.

  6. Cooperate to Compete: Strategic Coordination in Multi-Agent Conquest

    cs.AI 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    C2C is a new testbed where LM agents negotiate differently from humans and targeted prompting raises their win rate from 22.2% to 32.7% across 1,100+ games.

  7. Evo-Memory: Benchmarking LLM Agent Test-time Learning with Self-Evolving Memory

    cs.CL 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Evo-Memory is a new benchmark for self-evolving memory in LLM agents across task streams, with baseline ExpRAG and proposed ReMem method that integrates reasoning, actions, and memory updates for continual improvement.

  8. CivBench: Progress-Based Evaluation for LLMs' Strategic Decision-Making in Civilization V

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    CivBench trains models on turn-level states in Civilization V to predict victory probabilities, providing a progress-based evaluation of LLM strategic capabilities across 307 games with 7 models.

  9. Evo-Memory: Benchmarking LLM Agent Test-time Learning with Self-Evolving Memory

    cs.CL 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Evo-Memory is a new streaming benchmark and evaluation framework for self-evolving memory in LLM agents, unifying over ten memory modules and introducing the ReMem pipeline for continual improvement on multi-turn and ...

  10. RAILS: Verification-Native Clearing For Agentic Commerce

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    RAILS specifies a verification-native clearing protocol for agentic commerce built on seven primitives and a formal model that enforces a soundness property on evidence quality.

  11. Interactive Evaluation Requires a Design Science

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Interactive evaluation of AI must be reframed as a distinct paradigm that maps interaction trajectories to judgments on process, recoverability, coordination, robustness, and system performance, supported by a two-axi...

  12. Beyond Individual Intelligence: Surveying Collaboration, Failure Attribution, and Self-Evolution in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems

    cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The survey proposes the LIFE framework to unify fragmented research on collaboration, failure attribution, and self-evolution in LLM multi-agent systems into a progression toward self-organizing intelligence.

  13. Agentic Reasoning for Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    The survey structures agentic reasoning for LLMs into foundational, self-evolving, and collective multi-agent layers while distinguishing in-context orchestration from post-training optimization and reviewing applicat...

Pith tools