arxiv: 2604.13072 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-20 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI· cs.LG

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

LiveClawBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Complex, Real-World Assistant Tasks

Xiang Long , Li Du , Yilong Xu , Fangcheng Liu , Haoqing Wang , Ning Ding , Ziheng Li , Jianyuan Guo

show 1 more author

Yehui Tang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 08:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

keywords LLM agentsbenchmarkreal-world taskscomplexity frameworkassistant tasksevaluationruntime adaptabilitycognitive demand

0 comments

The pith

LiveClawBench introduces a benchmark and Triple-Axis Complexity Framework to test LLM agents on compositional real-world assistant tasks drawn from actual usage cases.

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

Current benchmarks for LLM agents typically isolate single sources of difficulty such as one environment or fully specified instructions. The paper addresses the resulting gap by analyzing real OpenClaw usage cases and deriving the Triple-Axis Complexity Framework. This framework rates tasks along Environment Complexity, Cognitive Demand, and Runtime Adaptability. Guided by the framework, the authors build LiveClawBench as a pilot collection of annotated real-world assistant tasks. The result supplies a structured way to measure how agents handle the mixed challenges that appear in practical deployment.

Core claim

LiveClawBench is a benchmark for LLM agents on real-world assistant tasks. It is constructed from real OpenClaw usage cases and annotated according to the Triple-Axis Complexity Framework, which measures task difficulty along the three dimensions of Environment Complexity, Cognitive Demand, and Runtime Adaptability. The benchmark and framework together close the gap between isolated evaluation settings and the compositional challenges of actual assistant work, while providing an expandable foundation for further domain and axis coverage.

What carries the argument

The Triple-Axis Complexity Framework, which rates task difficulty along the dimensions of Environment Complexity, Cognitive Demand, and Runtime Adaptability to guide construction of annotated real-world tasks.

If this is right

Agents can be evaluated under realistic mixtures of difficulty rather than isolated factors.
Explicit complexity annotations enable targeted diagnosis of where current models succeed or fail.
The pilot set supplies a starting collection that can be expanded across additional domains.
The framework offers a repeatable structure for designing future benchmarks in assistant settings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Developers could prioritize training objectives that improve runtime adaptability once the three axes are measured separately.
The same annotation approach might transfer to other agent domains such as web navigation or data analysis workflows.
Expanding the case collection could reveal whether certain combinations of the three axes create disproportionately hard problems.

Load-bearing premise

Analysis of OpenClaw usage cases captures the main compositional challenges that arise when LLM agents are deployed as practical assistants.

What would settle it

A controlled study in which agents that score highly on LiveClawBench still show frequent, unrecoverable failures when given equivalent tasks drawn from live user sessions outside the collected cases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13072 by Fangcheng Liu, Haoqing Wang, Jianyuan Guo, Li Du, Ning Ding, Xiang Long, Yehui Tang, Yilong Xu, Ziheng Li.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Comparison with representative agent benchmarks along the three complexity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: A case about flight cancellation claim in LiveClawBench. This task requires [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Distribution of LiveClawBench cases across complexity factors, task domains, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

LLM-based agents are increasingly expected to handle real-world assistant tasks, yet existing benchmarks typically evaluate them under isolated sources of difficulty, such as a single environment or fully specified instructions. This leaves a substantial gap between current evaluation settings and the compositional challenges that arise in practical deployment. To address this gap, we introduce LiveClawBench, a benchmark to evaluate LLM agents on real-world assistant tasks. Based on an analysis of various real OpenClaw usage cases, we derive a Triple-Axis Complexity Framework that characterizes task difficulty along three dimensions: Environment Complexity, Cognitive Demand, and Runtime Adaptability. Guided by this framework, we construct a pilot benchmark with explicit complexity-factor annotations, covering real-world assistant tasks with compositional difficulty. Together, the framework and benchmark provide a principled foundation for evaluating LLM agents in realistic assistant settings, and establish a basis for future expansion across task domains and complexity axes. We are continuing to enrich our case collections to achieve more comprehensive domain and complexity coverage. The project page is at https://github.com/Mosi-AI/LiveClawBench.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

LiveClawBench offers a new benchmark and three-axis framework pulled from real OpenClaw cases, but the paper stops short of any agent runs or checks that the axes actually track performance.

read the letter

The paper's core move is to build LiveClawBench from actual OpenClaw usage logs and then lay out a Triple-Axis Complexity Framework covering Environment Complexity, Cognitive Demand, and Runtime Adaptability. That is the new piece: a benchmark explicitly tied to real assistant tasks rather than hand-crafted single-difficulty items. The construction process described in the abstract looks reasonable on its face, and the decision to annotate tasks along those three dimensions gives future work a clearer way to compare results across papers. The project page and ongoing case collection also signal that the authors intend this as a living resource rather than a one-shot release. Those are the concrete positives. The soft spot is the missing link between the annotations and actual outcomes. The abstract and stress-test note both indicate no agent evaluations, no success-rate breakdowns by axis, and no regression or correlation checks showing that higher scores on any axis predict lower success. Without that step the framework remains a plausible organizing scheme rather than a validated predictor. Minor issues include the pilot scale and the reliance on one source of usage data, but those are normal for an early benchmark paper. This work is aimed at groups building or evaluating LLM agents who need more realistic testbeds. A reader already running agent experiments could pull the annotations and run their own models to test the axes. The paper is coherent and cites the right prior benchmarks, so it deserves a serious referee rather than a desk reject. I would send it out for review with the expectation that the authors add at least a small set of baseline runs and axis-level results before acceptance.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces LiveClawBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on real-world assistant tasks. Drawing from an analysis of real OpenClaw usage cases, the authors derive a Triple-Axis Complexity Framework (Environment Complexity, Cognitive Demand, and Runtime Adaptability) and construct a pilot benchmark with explicit annotations along these axes to address gaps in existing evaluations of compositional difficulty.

Significance. If the framework dimensions are empirically shown to predict agent performance, the work would provide a useful structured approach for assessing LLM agents on realistic, multi-factor tasks. The grounding in actual usage cases is a positive step toward ecological validity, though the current absence of validation data means the contribution remains primarily descriptive.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (Framework Derivation): The claim that the Triple-Axis Complexity Framework supplies a 'principled foundation' for evaluation is load-bearing but unsupported, as the manuscript reports no LLM agent runs, no success-rate breakdowns by axis, and no correlation or regression analysis linking the annotations to observed outcomes.
[§4] §4 (Pilot Benchmark Construction): The pilot benchmark is annotated for the three axes, yet without any baseline agent evaluations or ablation studies demonstrating that higher scores on Environment Complexity, Cognitive Demand, or Runtime Adaptability correspond to measurable drops in agent success, the predictive validity of the annotations remains an untested modeling assumption.

minor comments (2)

[Introduction] Introduction: The comparison to prior benchmarks would be strengthened by citing specific recent agent evaluation suites (e.g., those measuring multi-step tool use or long-horizon planning) rather than general references.
[Figure 2] Figure 2 (or equivalent diagram of the framework): Ensure axis definitions and example task mappings are visually distinct and include a legend clarifying how the three dimensions interact in a single task.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which correctly identify the current lack of empirical validation for the framework's predictive claims. We agree that this limits the strength of the contribution and will revise the manuscript to include preliminary agent evaluations and clarify the scope of our claims. Below we respond point by point.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (Framework Derivation): The claim that the Triple-Axis Complexity Framework supplies a 'principled foundation' for evaluation is load-bearing but unsupported, as the manuscript reports no LLM agent runs, no success-rate breakdowns by axis, and no correlation or regression analysis linking the annotations to observed outcomes.

Authors: We agree that the manuscript contains no agent runs, success-rate breakdowns, or correlation analyses, so the predictive validity of the framework is not demonstrated. The phrase 'principled foundation' was intended to refer to the systematic derivation from real OpenClaw usage logs and the explicit annotation protocol along the three axes. We will revise the abstract and §3 to remove or qualify this phrasing, explicitly state that the work is primarily descriptive at present, and add a new subsection reporting baseline evaluations of several LLM agents on the pilot tasks with initial per-axis success rates. revision: partial
Referee: [§4] §4 (Pilot Benchmark Construction): The pilot benchmark is annotated for the three axes, yet without any baseline agent evaluations or ablation studies demonstrating that higher scores on Environment Complexity, Cognitive Demand, or Runtime Adaptability correspond to measurable drops in agent success, the predictive validity of the annotations remains an untested modeling assumption.

Authors: We accept that the absence of baseline runs leaves the predictive relationship between the annotated scores and agent performance untested. The pilot benchmark was constructed to enable exactly these studies. In the revision we will add baseline results from at least two LLM agents, report success rates stratified by each axis, and include a brief correlation analysis where the data permit. This will directly address the modeling-assumption concern. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: framework derived from external usage cases, benchmark constructed independently

full rationale

The paper states that the Triple-Axis Complexity Framework is derived from an analysis of real OpenClaw usage cases (external data) and then used to guide construction of the pilot benchmark with annotations. No equations, fitted parameters, self-citations, or self-definitional steps appear in the derivation chain. The central claim that the framework and benchmark together supply a principled foundation does not reduce to its own inputs by construction; the usage cases and annotations remain independent inputs. This is a standard non-circular introduction of a new benchmark and taxonomy.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that OpenClaw usage cases capture representative real-world difficulties and on the newly introduced framework as the organizing structure.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Real OpenClaw usage cases represent the compositional challenges of practical LLM agent deployment.
The benchmark construction and framework derivation are explicitly based on analysis of these cases.

invented entities (1)

Triple-Axis Complexity Framework no independent evidence
purpose: To characterize task difficulty along Environment Complexity, Cognitive Demand, and Runtime Adaptability.
Newly derived framework introduced to guide benchmark construction.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5516 in / 1256 out tokens · 41589 ms · 2026-05-15T08:19:07.231587+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We derive a Triple-Axis Complexity Framework that characterizes task difficulty along three dimensions: Environment Complexity, Cognitive Demand, and Runtime Adaptability.
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

LiveClawBench... pilot benchmark with explicit complexity-factor annotations

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

AcademiClaw: When Students Set Challenges for AI Agents
cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

AcademiClaw is a new benchmark of 80 student-sourced academic tasks where the best frontier AI agents achieve only a 55% pass rate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

4 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

work page
[2]

@esa (Ref

\@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command n...

work page
[3]

\@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@first@sw \@firstoftwo \@ifundefined NAT@b*@#2 \@firstoftwo @num @NAT@ctr \@secondoft...

work page
[4]

""""""""r2 a

@open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibsetup #1 @NAT@ctr @ @openbib .11em \@plus.33em \@minus.07em 4000 4000 `\.\@m @bibit...

work page arXiv 2000