EconEvals: Benchmarks and Litmus Tests for LLM Agents in Unknown Environments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.18825v1
• Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 16:06:04 GMT
• Title: EconEvals: Benchmarks and Litmus Tests for LLM Agents in Unknown Environments
• Authors: Sara Fish, Julia Shephard, Minkai Li, Ran I. Shorrer, Yannai A. Gonczarowski,
• Abstract summary: We develop benchmarks for LLM agents that act in, learn from, and strategize in unknown environments.<n>We also propose litmus tests, a new kind of quantitative measure for LLMs and LLM agents.
• Score: 0.0699049312989311
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We develop benchmarks for LLM agents that act in, learn from, and strategize in unknown environments, the specifications of which the LLM agent must learn over time from deliberate exploration. Our benchmarks consist of decision-making tasks derived from key problems in economics. To forestall saturation, the benchmark tasks are synthetically generated with scalable difficulty levels. Additionally, we propose litmus tests, a new kind of quantitative measure for LLMs and LLM agents. Unlike benchmarks, litmus tests quantify differences in character, values, and tendencies of LLMs and LLM agents, by considering their behavior when faced with tradeoffs (e.g., efficiency versus equality) where there is no objectively right or wrong behavior. Overall, our benchmarks and litmus tests assess the abilities and tendencies of LLM agents in tackling complex economic problems in diverse settings spanning procurement, scheduling, task allocation, and pricing -- applications that should grow in importance as such agents are further integrated into the economy.

Related papers

• ARIES: Autonomous Reasoning with LLMs on Interactive Thought Graph Environments [7.508204100423766]
  We introduce ARIES, a multi-agent architecture for reasoning with LLMs. We observe that using off-the-shelf LLMs as policy agents with no supervised fine-tuning (SFT) can yield up to $29%$ higher accuracy on HumanEval. We also conduct a thorough analysis of observed failure modes, highlighting that limitations on LLM sizes and the depth of problem decomposition can be seen as challenges to scaling LLM-guided reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T16:28:13Z)
• Distributive Fairness in Large Language Models: Evaluating Alignment with Human Values [13.798198972161657]
  A number of societal problems involve the distribution of resources, where fairness, along with economic efficiency, play a critical role in the desirability of outcomes.<n>This paper examines whether large language models (LLMs) adhere to fundamental fairness concepts and investigate their alignment with human preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T04:24:47Z)
• Beyond Binary: Towards Fine-Grained LLM-Generated Text Detection via Role Recognition and Involvement Measurement [51.601916604301685]
  Large language models (LLMs) generate content that can undermine trust in online discourse. Current methods often focus on binary classification, failing to address the complexities of real-world scenarios like human-LLM collaboration. To move beyond binary classification and address these challenges, we propose a new paradigm for detecting LLM-generated content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T08:14:10Z)
• A Survey of Useful LLM Evaluation [20.048914787813263]
  Two-stage framework: from core ability'' to agent'' In the "core ability" stage, we discussed the reasoning ability, societal impact, and domain knowledge of LLMs. In the agent'' stage, we demonstrated embodied action, planning, and tool learning of LLMs agent applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-03T02:20:03Z)
• CLAMBER: A Benchmark of Identifying and Clarifying Ambiguous Information Needs in Large Language Models [60.59638232596912]
  We introduce CLAMBER, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) Building upon the taxonomy, we construct 12K high-quality data to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and potential risks of various off-the-shelf LLMs. Our findings indicate the limited practical utility of current LLMs in identifying and clarifying ambiguous user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T14:34:01Z)
• Benchmarking LLMs via Uncertainty Quantification [91.72588235407379]
  The proliferation of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) has highlighted the urgent need for comprehensive evaluation methods. We introduce a new benchmarking approach for LLMs that integrates uncertainty quantification. Our findings reveal that: I) LLMs with higher accuracy may exhibit lower certainty; II) Larger-scale LLMs may display greater uncertainty compared to their smaller counterparts; and III) Instruction-finetuning tends to increase the uncertainty of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T14:29:17Z)
• Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
  This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs) As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z)
• TRACE: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Continual Learning in Large Language Models [52.734140807634624]
  Aligned large language models (LLMs) demonstrate exceptional capabilities in task-solving, following instructions, and ensuring safety. Existing continual learning benchmarks lack sufficient challenge for leading aligned LLMs. We introduce TRACE, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate continual learning in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T16:38:49Z)
• Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is: Evaluating Strategic Planning and Execution of LLM Agents in an Auction Arena [25.865825113847404]
  We introduce AucArena, a novel evaluation suite that simulates auctions. We conduct controlled experiments using state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) to power bidding agents to benchmark their planning and execution skills.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T14:22:09Z)
• AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents [88.45506148281379]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly smart and autonomous, targeting real-world pragmatic missions beyond traditional NLP tasks. We present AgentBench, a benchmark that currently consists of 8 distinct environments to assess LLM-as-Agent's reasoning and decision-making abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-07T16:08:11Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.