Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 25 references

An End-to-End Agent Auditing Engine

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Agent harnesses are not interchangeable: the same model behaves differently depending on the harness that wraps it, and accuracy alone misses most of the difference.

desk verdict A genuinely useful harness-evaluation substrate whose empirical claims are weakened by the admitted instrumentation confound. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07346 v1 pith:FU6KBTTD submitted 2026-08-07 cs.AI

Haoning Wang , Mingxun Zhang , Chenyue Yu , Yingjun Shang , Xia Hu , Guanchu Wang , Na Zou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords agentharnessesLLMevaluationTaskProtocollifecycle-alignedexecutiontracesharness-modelinteractionbenchmarkinfrastructure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that agent harnesses, the software layer that turns a language model into an acting agent, are not interchangeable and that endpoint accuracy cannot tell them apart. It introduces A2E, an evaluation engine that normalizes tasks through an Agent Task Protocol, captures every run as a standardized span-based trace, and scores each run with metrics aligned to stages of the agent lifecycle. Its experiments with nine harnesses across 23 benchmarks show that no harness-model combination wins everywhere and that process metrics such as token cost, tool calls, planning alignment, and recovery behavior vary far more than final correctness. A sympathetic reader should take away that harness evaluations need to be task-specific, process-aware, and jointly reported with model identity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Agent Task Protocol, an internal software boundary that packages each task's instruction, state, tools, expected outputs, metadata, and optional sandbox specification into objects any harness can consume through a unified agent runner. Around this, the Monitor layer instruments the reasoning-action-observation loop into span-based traces with parent-child structure, preserving when operations happen and which preceding operation caused them. The Evaluation layer registers every metric under one of four lifecycle stages, Reasoning, Action, Final Answer, and Runtime Quality, so that each run yields a profile of process and outcome signals rather than a single correctness score. These three mechanisms jointly turn a run into a comparable record whose process-level metrics can separate harnesses that look identical on final answers.

What would settle it

Run the nine harnesses on a fixed task set natively and again through A2E, matching tasks and seeds; if success rates, turn counts, or token totals differ beyond sampling noise on the same tasks, the cross-harness rankings are contaminated by the instrumentation itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that there is no universally dominant harness-model configuration and that endpoint correctness alone has limited resolution for distinguishing harnesses. To support this, it runs a matched campaign in which one backbone model is executed through nine harnesses across 23 benchmarks, with identical inference settings, tool setup, step limits, and timeout budgets; correctness means across harnesses sit in a narrow 0.57–0.68 band, while mean token cost spans about 3.5× and harness rankings flip from one benchmark to another. A second set of runs on three representative benchmarks shows that the harnesses landing on the best success-efficiency frontier differ by task, and a case study shows two harnesses on the same task both score full task completion while one consumes 9.6× the tokens and fails the underlying goal. The paper concludes that harness design choices such as prompt construction, tool representation, context management, execution loops, error handling, and termination policies substantially affect agent behavior even when the model is fixed.

Load-bearing premise

The measured differences are treated as harness behavior, which assumes that A2E's monitor and routing layer do not alter how each harness plans, calls tools, or terminates, and the paper presents no check of instrumented versus uninstrumented runs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Agent system rankings should report the harness and model jointly, because a leaderboard built on one harness may not transfer to another.
  • Process-level metrics such as token cost, planning alignment, tool-use quality, and recovery behavior should be reported alongside accuracy, since correctness alone understates real differences.
  • Practitioners choosing a harness should match it to task type rather than any global best, since a harness can lead on one benchmark and trail on another.
  • A2E's database-backed incremental design means newly defined metrics can be computed on stored traces without rerunning agents, making longitudinal audits of harness behavior feasible.
  • Because harness design choices visibly change behavior even with the same model, model-card reporting alone is insufficient for describing deployed agent performance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the no-dominance result holds across backbone models, harness tuning should be treated as at least as consequential as model selection for deployment cost and reliability, and practical audits should sweep both dimensions together.
  • A direct test of the instrumentation assumption would run each harness natively and again through A2E on identical tasks; if success rates, turn counts, or token totals shift beyond sampling noise, the measured rankings would need correction factors.
  • The same ATP boundary could host non-LLM agents or traditional planners, extending the evaluation engine beyond language-model runners without changing the monitoring or metric layers.
  • The lifecycle taxonomy could serve as a common format for agent traces, allowing benchmarks to be re-scored under different metric suites without re-execution if adopted widely.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents A2E, an end-to-end agent auditing engine with three layers: a Task Layer built on a proposed Agent Task Protocol (ATP) that decouples benchmarks from harnesses; a Monitor Layer that instruments agent frameworks via OpenTelemetry-compatible spans; and an Evaluation Layer that organizes metrics by lifecycle stage and stores trajectories and results in a database. The empirical study runs nine agent harnesses across 23 benchmarks with a common backbone model (DeepSeek-V4-pro) on five aligned tasks per cell, plus a three-benchmark comparison using GLM-5.2, reporting a correctness matrix, trajectory-level metrics, a token-efficiency score Q_h, and a two-trajectory case study. The paper claims that no single harness–model configuration dominates across tasks and that endpoint correctness alone has limited resolution for distinguishing harnesses.

Significance. If the measurement layer is valid, the contribution is substantial: the ATP abstraction, the span-based monitor, the lifecycle-aligned metric taxonomy, and the database-backed persistent evaluation are useful engineering contributions, and the code release makes the system reproducible. The use of identical task IDs across harnesses and the matched model/tool/timeout configuration is a good experimental design choice. However, the central empirical claims currently rest on measurements whose validity is not established: the instrumentation itself is admitted to set some metric values, the LLM-judge metrics are unvalidated, and the headline comparisons use five-task samples without error bars. The paper is therefore best viewed as a promising systems demonstration whose empirical conclusions require additional validation before they can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, §4.2, §6.1 (Fig. 6 caption)] The manuscript says the monitor 'observes the natural execution points exposed by the underlying framework' (§3.1), but §6.1's Figure 6 caption admits that tool_invocation and hallucination are 'set by the instrumentation rather than the agent and should not be read as harness behaviour.' Section 4.2 also states that the AgentRunner 'converts ATP tool schemas into native framework objects,' which can alter prompt formatting, tool representations, and control flow differently per harness. No experiment checks that instrumented runs are behaviorally identical to uninstrumented runs. Because every cross-harness comparison in Table 1, Figures 6 and 7 is measured through this layer, the claim that 'any remaining difference is attributable to the harness rather than to the model or the decoding parameters' is not yet supported. Please add an instrumentation-invariance check (e.g., run a subset of tasks both natively and through A2E and compare prompts, tool schemas, termination policies, and outputs), or explicitly restrict all conclusions to the instrumented configuration.
  2. [§6.1, Eq. (1)] All headline comparisons rest on five tasks per benchmark. Table 1 itself notes that per-cell score resolution is 0.20 and 'per-cell variance is high,' yet no confidence intervals, bootstrap estimates, or significance tests accompany the claims. In addition, Eq. (1) defines Q_h using normalized ^T_h and ^S_h but does not specify the normalization (e.g., min-max, z-score) or the set over which normalization is computed. As a result, the 'no single harness dominates' and 'discriminative capability' claims cannot currently be distinguished from sampling noise. Please report per-cell error bars or bootstrap intervals, specify the normalization in Eq. (1), and show the sensitivity of Q_h rankings to the sample size and seed.
  3. [§5.1, §6.1 (Fig. 6 caption)] The 13 trajectory metrics in Figure 6 include subjective process dimensions such as plan_goal_alignment, plan_completeness, plan_grade, hallucination, and conciseness, but the paper provides no validation of the LLM-as-judge evaluators: no judge model is identified, no human-agreement study is reported, and no correlation with outcome metrics is given. The Figure 6 caption also states that 'correctness is re-scored on the 44 runs where the multiple-choice Extractor returned an empty prediction (§6.1),' but Section 6.1 does not describe that re-scoring method. Without these details, the process-level diagnosis and the case-study interpretations are not auditable. Please add evaluator specifications, a human-annotation agreement study or a strong justification for trusting the judge scores, and a precise description of the re-scoring rule.
  4. [§6.1] Trajectory-level analysis covers only 19 of the 23 benchmarks; the four sandbox benchmarks (the three swe-bench variants and terminal-bench-2) are scored only on correctness, and Section 6.1 shows that these four determine whether llama-index or agno leads the average. The abstract's claim that A2E provides 'a more fine-grained characterization of differences among harnesses in execution efficiency, tool use, task planning, and error recovery' is therefore demonstrated only on the non-sandbox subset, while the overall ranking that motivates the no-dominance finding depends on the non-trajectory cells. Please state this coverage limitation when presenting the aggregate findings, or provide trajectory-level coverage for the sandbox runs.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§6.1] The sentence 'one thousand thirty-five scored runs at full two hundred seven over two hundred seven coverage' is garbled and should be rewritten as '1,035 scored runs, i.e., full 207/207 coverage.'
  2. [Table 1 caption] The abbreviations AutoGenA, Claude AS, and OpenAI Age are nonstandard and easy to misread; please use full names with clearly defined acronyms, or expand them in every caption where they appear.
  3. [Fig. 6 / §5.1] Metric names are inconsistent: Figure 6 uses lowercase names with underscores (plan_goal_alignment, plan_constraint) while Section 5.1 describes dimensions with different capitalization and phrasing (Goal Alignment, Planning Completeness, Reasoning Coherence). Use a single naming convention throughout.
  4. [Table 2] The case study reports tool_invocation=1.0 for both trajectories, but Figure 6's caption says tool_invocation is 'set by the instrumentation rather than the agent.' Please clarify whether these values are meaningful harness behaviors or artifacts of the instrumentation, and reconcile the two statements.
  5. [§6.2 vs. §6.1] Section 6.2 states that all experiments there use GLM-5.2, while Section 6.1 uses DeepSeek-V4-pro; please state explicitly which model/campaign backs the abstract's headline claims and Figure 1, and whether the Figure 7 benchmarks also use five tasks per cell.
  6. [§4.3, §6.1] Section 4.3 says the CLI samples 40 tasks by default, while Section 6.1 reports five tasks per cell; please clarify that the sample size was overridden and state whether the same override applies to the Figure 7 comparisons.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: central findings are empirical, and the instrumentation caveats are methodological rather than definitional.

full rationale

No equation-level circularity is present. The paper's central claims—that no single harness–model configuration dominates and that endpoint correctness alone has limited resolution—are empirical summaries of Table 1, Figure 6, and Figure 7, computed from recorded traces, correctness scores, and token counts; no parameter is fitted to these conclusions, and no cited result is load-bearing. The self-referential demonstration in §6.2 ('the clear separation among harnesses demonstrates the discriminative capability of our agent evaluation engine') uses the engine's own metrics as evidence for the engine, which is methodologically weak but is not a circular reduction: 'discriminative capability' is not defined as 'separation' in the framework, and no equation makes the claim equivalent to its input. The manuscript itself flags the main confound in §6.1, Figure 6 caption: 'Rows in grey italic (tool_invocation, hallucination) are set by the instrumentation rather than the agent and should not be read as harness behaviour.' That is an instrumentation caveat, not a circular step. Likewise, the exclusion of CrewAI from token-cost analysis because 'its LLM spans carry no token counts' is a missing-data limitation, not an input–output equivalence. The references contain no self-citations by the present authors, so there is no self-citation burden. The evaluation is anchored to external benchmarks and external harnesses, and the variance findings are empirical. Overall circularity score: 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper contains no fitted derivation: Qh is a defined metric, not a fitted prediction. The load-bearing assumptions are empirical: instrumentation fidelity, LLM-judge validity, the 5-task sample, and the Qh sweet-spot definition. No exotic entities are postulated beyond the ATP software protocol.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Attaching the A2E Monitor and executing through the ATP AgentRunner preserves the harness's native behavior.
    Section 3.1 says the monitor 'observes the natural execution points exposed by the underlying framework'; if instrumentation changes prompts, tool schemas, or control flow, all harness comparisons are confounded.
  • domain assumption The LLM-as-judge evaluators produce valid scores for reasoning, planning, tool-use quality, and safety.
    Section 5.1 registers metrics under these dimensions, but no human validation, inter-rater agreement, or calibration is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper A fixed sample of five tasks per benchmark is sufficient to support benchmark-level comparison.
    Section 6.1 uses five tasks per cell, acknowledges score resolution 0.20 and high variance, yet uses the resulting means to describe harness spans and rankings.
  • ad hoc to paper The Qh score in Eq. 1 correctly captures the effectiveness-efficiency tradeoff.
    Section 6.2 defines Qh as normalized distance to the sweet spot; the normalization and the equal weighting of tokens and success are arbitrary design choices.
invented entities (1)
  • Agent Task Protocol (ATP) independent evidence
    purpose: Shared software interface so any of 23 benchmarks can run on any of 9 agent harnesses without per-combination adapter code.
    ATP is implemented in the public A2E repository and exercised in the reported 207-cell matrix; it is a software protocol rather than a postulated theoretical entity, so it can be inspected and reused independently.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An End-to-End Agent Auditing Engine." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FU6KBTTD

@misc{pith2026260807346,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An End-to-End Agent Auditing Engine},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FU6KBTTD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07346}
}
abstract

With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), harnesses have become essential infrastructure for deploying agents across a wide range of domains. The fast-evolving harness ecosystem has also made rigorous capability evaluation increasingly important. However, efficiently building an end-to-end, systematic, and comprehensive evaluation pipeline remains a significant challenge. To address this challenge, we introduce $A^2E$ (Agent Auditing Engine), an end-to-end evaluation engine designed for agent harnesses. $A^2E$ leverages our newly proposed Agent Task Protocol (ATP) to enable the rapid integration of evaluation tasks with different harnesses. Through an automatically instrumented Monitor, it captures and generates standardized execution traces during experiments. In the Evaluation stage, $A^2E$ systematically assesses harness capabilities using a suite of multidimensional metrics. Compared with correctness alone, these metrics provide a more fine-grained characterization of differences among harnesses in execution efficiency, tool use, task planning, and error recovery. Experiments conducted with $A^2E$ further reveal that model-harness combinations exhibit substantial performance variation across different types of tasks, and that no single combination consistently outperforms all others across every task. These findings not only demonstrate the necessity of systematic evaluation but also provide useful guidance for the co-evolving of models and harnesses. Our code is available at https://github.com/datamllab/A2E.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07346 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A2E provides end-to-end evaluation over an m × n benchmark–harness grid. (a) An Agent Task Protocol lets each of the 23 benchmarks be paired with each of the 9 agent frameworks, so no per-combination integration code is written. (b)Each petal shows, for one metric, the span from the worst to the best of the nine harnesses after averaging over the 23 benchmarks. Petals are grouped by Reasoning, Action, Answer, and Ru… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System overview. Task integrates benchmark management and execution support, Monitor provides unified agent access and instruments the runtime loop, and Evaluation performs multi-dimensional assessment with centralized result storage. 2.1 Framework Task Layer. The benchmark management block provides a unified mechanism for organizing diverse agent benchmarks. Benchmarks are maintained in a hierarchical benchmark tre… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Runtime workflow and data flow. The monitored task runner writes experiment runs and traces to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: task but their relationships place them within the wider execution process. The trace therefore records both the sequence of actions and their causal organization. Span-based tracing provides information that cannot be recovered from the final response alone. Span dura…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of the execution-aligned agent evaluation framework. Process-level evaluation examines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The 855 runs of the 19 non-sandbox benchmarks of Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of nine agent harnesses across three benchmarks using GLM-5.2 as the common API [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde De Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al

    URL https://sierra.ai/blog/ bench-advancing-agent-benchmarking-to-knowledge-and-voice. Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde De Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. Evaluating large language models trained on code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374,

    arXiv

  2. [7]

    Swe-bench pro: Can ai agents solve long-horizon software engineering tasks?arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.16941,

    Xiang Deng, Jeff Da, Edwin Pan, Yannis Yiming He, Charles Ide, Kanak Garg, Niklas Lauffer, Andrew Park, Nitin Pasari, Chetan Rane, et al. Swe-bench pro: Can ai agents solve long-horizon software engineering tasks?arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.16941,

    arXiv

  3. [8]

    Exploration of llm multi-agent application implementation based on langgraph+ crewai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18241,

    Zhihua Duan and Jialin Wang. Exploration of llm multi-agent application implementation based on langgraph+ crewai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18241,

    arXiv

  4. [9]

    AgentQuest: A modular benchmark framework to measure progress and improve LLM agents

    Luca Gioacchini, Giuseppe Siracusano, Davide Sanvito, Kiril Gashteovski, David Friede, Roberto Bifulco, and Carolin Lawrence. AgentQuest: A modular benchmark framework to measure progress and improve LLM agents. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies ...

    work page 2024

  5. [10]

    doi: 10.18653/v1/ 2024.naacl-demo.19

    Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/ 2024.naacl-demo.19. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2024.naacl-demo.19/. Pengfei He, Zhenwei Dai, Bing He, Hui Liu, Xianfeng Tang, Hanqing Lu, Juanhui Li, Jiayuan Ding, Subhabrata Mukherjee, Suhang Wang, Yue Xing, Jiliang Tang, and Benoit Dumoulin. Traject-bench: A trajectory-aware benchmark for eva...

    arXiv 2024

  6. [11]

    Measuring massive multitask language understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300,

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300,

    arXiv 2009

  7. [14]

    Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, et al

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15798. Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, et al. Holistic evaluation of language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09110,

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2024/hash/ 877b40688e330a0e2a3fc24084208dfa-Abstract-Datasets_and_Benchmarks_Track.html

    doi: 10.52202/079017-2365. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2024/hash/ 877b40688e330a0e2a3fc24084208dfa-Abstract-Datasets_and_Benchmarks_Track.html. Adyasha Maharana, Dong-Ho Lee, Sergey Tulyakov, Mohit Bansal, Francesco Barbieri, and Yuwei Fang. Evaluating very long-term conversational memory of llm agents. InProceedings of the 62nd A...

    doi:10.52202/079017-2365 2024

Show all 25 references
  1. [18]

    Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal

    URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2601.11868. Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering.arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.02789,

    arXiv

  2. [20]

    Sidharth Pulipaka, Oliver Chen, Manas Sharma, Taaha S

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04374. Sidharth Pulipaka, Oliver Chen, Manas Sharma, Taaha S. Bajwa, Vyas Raina, and Ivaxi Sheth. Persistbench: When should long-term memories be forgotten by llms?arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.01146,

    arXiv

  3. [21]

    David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R. Bowman. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12022,

    arXiv

  4. [23]

    Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of- thought can solve them

    Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Schärli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc Le, Ed H Chi, Denny Zhou, et al. Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of- thought can solve them. InFindings of the Association for Computational Lin...

    2023

  5. [24]

    Commonsenseqa: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge

    17 A2E Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. Commonsenseqa: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human ...

    2019

  6. [25]

    Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation

    Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, et al. Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155,

    arXiv

  7. [26]

    URL https: //aclanthology.org/2025.acl-long.1355/

    doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1355. URL https: //aclanthology.org/2025.acl-long.1355/. Shunyu Yao, Noah Shinn, Pedram Razavi, and Karthik Narasimhan.τ-bench: A benchmark for tool-agent-user interaction in real-world domains,

    2025 doi

  8. [27]

    Matei Zaharia, Andrew Chen, Aaron Davidson, Ali Ghodsi, Sue Ann Hong, Andy Konwinski, Siddharth Murching, Tomas Nykodym, Paul Ogilvie, Mani Parkhe, et al

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2406.12045. Matei Zaharia, Andrew Chen, Aaron Davidson, Ali Ghodsi, Sue Ann Hong, Andy Konwinski, Siddharth Murching, Tomas Nykodym, Paul Ogilvie, Mani Parkhe, et al. Accelerating the machine learning lifecycle with mlflow.IEEE Data Eng. Bull., 41(4):39–45,

    arXiv

  9. [28]

    Agieval: A human-centric benchmark for evaluating foundation models

    Wanjun Zhong, Ruixiang Cui, Yiduo Guo, Yaobo Liang, Shuai Lu, Yanlin Wang, Amin Saied, Weizhu Chen, and Nan Duan. Agieval: A human-centric benchmark for evaluating foundation models. InFindings of the association for computational linguistics: NAACL 2024, pp. 2299–2314,

    2024

  10. [29]

    Webarena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents

    Shuyan Zhou, Frank F Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Tianyue Ou, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, et al. Webarena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pp....

    2024

  11. [2018]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168,

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168,

    arXiv

  12. [2020]

    Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874,

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874,

    arXiv

  13. [2021]

    Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge.arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457,

    Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge.arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457,

    arXiv

  14. [2022]

    Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods

    Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07958,

    arXiv

  15. [2023]

    Agent planning benchmark: A diagnostic framework for planning capabilities in llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.04874,

    Haoyu Sun, Wenxuan Wang, Mingyang Song, Jujie He, Weinan Zhang, Yang Liu, Yang Yang, and Yu Cheng. Agent planning benchmark: A diagnostic framework for planning capabilities in llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.04874,

    arXiv

  16. [2025]

    Victor Barres, Ben Shi, Ola Zytek, Soham Ray, Keshav Dhandhania, and Pedram Razavi.τ 3-Bench: Advancing agent evaluation to knowledge and voice

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.07982. Victor Barres, Ben Shi, Ola Zytek, Soham Ray, Keshav Dhandhania, and Pedram Razavi.τ 3-Bench: Advancing agent evaluation to knowledge and voice. Sierra,

    arXiv

  17. [2026]

    Presented at the ICLR 2026 Workshop on Agents in the Wild

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.22953. Presented at the ICLR 2026 Workshop on Agents in the Wild. Victor Barres, Honghua Dong, Soham Ray, Xujie Si, and Karthik Narasimhan.τ 2-bench: Evaluating conversational agents in a dual-control environment,

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.