Establishing Best Practices for Building Rigorous Agentic Benchmarks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02825v5
• Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2025 06:58:08 GMT
• Title: Establishing Best Practices for Building Rigorous Agentic Benchmarks
• Abstract summary: We show that many agentic benchmarks have issues in task setup or reward design.<n>Such issues can lead to under- or overestimation of agents' performance by up to 100% in relative terms.<n>We introduce the Agentic Benchmark Checklist (ABC), a set of guidelines that we synthesized from our benchmark-building experience.
• Score: 94.69724201080155
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Benchmarks are essential for quantitatively tracking progress in AI. As AI agents become increasingly capable, researchers and practitioners have introduced agentic benchmarks to evaluate agents on complex, real-world tasks. These benchmarks typically measure agent capabilities by evaluating task outcomes via specific reward designs. However, we show that many agentic benchmarks have issues in task setup or reward design. For example, SWE-bench Verified uses insufficient test cases, while TAU-bench counts empty responses as successful. Such issues can lead to under- or overestimation of agents' performance by up to 100% in relative terms. To make agentic evaluation rigorous, we introduce the Agentic Benchmark Checklist (ABC), a set of guidelines that we synthesized from our benchmark-building experience, a survey of best practices, and previously reported issues. When applied to CVE-Bench, a benchmark with a particularly complex evaluation design, ABC reduces the performance overestimation by 33%.

Related papers

• PACE: A Proxy for Agentic Capability Evaluation [60.3743414796937]
  We introduce PACE, a framework that constructs proxy benchmarks by selecting instances from existing non-agentic evaluations.<n>Experiments across 14 models, 4 agentic benchmarks, and 19 non-agentic benchmarks show that PACE-Bench predicts agentic scores with leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) mean absolute error (MAE) under 4%, Spearman correlation above 0.80, and pairwise model-ranking accuracy around 85%, all at much less than 1% of the full agentic evaluation cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T10:59:03Z)
• AgentBeats: Agentifying Agent Assessment for Openness, Standardization, and Reproducibility [104.46861849039357]
  Agent systems are advancing quickly across domains, but their evaluation remains fragmented.<n>The root problem is the lack of an open, agent-agnostic assessment interface.<n>We advocate Agentified Agent Assessment (AAA), where evaluation is performed by judge agents and all participants interact through standardized protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T17:23:54Z)
• Benchmark Everything Everywhere All at Once [28.30618112297148]
  We introduce Benchmark Agent, a fully autonomous agentic system designed for benchmark building.<n>Our framework orchestrates the complete benchmark construction pipeline, from user query analysis and subtask design to data annotation and quality control.<n>We produce 15 representative benchmarks, spanning diverse evaluation scenarios, including text understanding, multimodal understanding, and domain-specific reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T17:52:04Z)
• Automated Benchmark Auditing for AI Agents and Large Language Models [46.03841647776303]
  Auto Benchmark Audit (ABA) is an agentic framework that systematically audits individual benchmark tasks.<n>We run ABA on a collection of frontier LLM benchmarks and previous NeurIPS publications, totaling 168 benchmarks across nine domains.<n>ABA identifies critical issues including ambiguous task design, execution environment conflicts, and incorrect ground truths in over 25.7% of the evaluated tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-25T17:44:21Z)
• SWE Atlas: Benchmarking Coding Agents Beyond Issue Resolution [16.25554650122462]
  SWE Atlas is a benchmark suite for coding agents spanning three professional software engineering: Codebase Q&A (124 tasks), Test Writing (90 tasks), and Refactoring (70 tasks)<n>It targets underrepresented but practically important categories, uses comprehensive category-specific evaluation protocols, and adopts under-specified rubrics.<n>Overall, SWE Atlas provides a complementary evaluation suite for measuring both correctness and engineering quality in coding agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T18:21:44Z)
• The Necessity of a Unified Framework for LLM-Based Agent Evaluation [46.631678638677386]
  General-purpose agents have seen fundamental advancements.<n> evaluating these agents presents unique challenges that distinguish them from static QA benchmarks.<n>We propose that a unified evaluation framework is essential for the rigorous advancement of agent evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T08:18:37Z)
• Agentic Rubrics as Contextual Verifiers for SWE Agents [8.469998524915818]
  We show that Agentic rubrics provide an efficient, scalable, and granular verification signal for SWE agents.<n>Results show that Agentic rubrics are consistent with ground-truth tests while also flagging issues that tests do not capture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T18:38:23Z)
• Continuous Benchmark Generation for Evaluating Enterprise-scale LLM Agents [23.277131100190086]
  We propose a process of benchmark generation that helps evolve the benchmarks as the requirements change and perform robust evaluation of evolving AI agents.<n>Our approach relies on semi-structured documents where developers express the high-level intent, and uses state-of-the-art LLMs to generate benchmarks from just a small number of such documents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T07:48:22Z)
• Automatically Benchmarking LLM Code Agents through Agent-Driven Annotation and Evaluation [47.85891728056131]
  PRDBench is a novel benchmark comprising 50 real-world Python projects across 20 domains, each with structured Product Requirement Document (PRD) requirements, comprehensive evaluation criteria, and reference implementations.<n>We employ an Agent-as-a-Judge paradigm to score agent outputs, enabling the evaluation of various test types beyond unit tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-28T12:26:45Z)
• Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluation [87.47155146067962]
  We provide a standardized evaluation harness that orchestrates parallel evaluations across hundreds of tasks.<n>We conduct three-dimensional analysis spanning models, scaffolds, and benchmarks.<n>Our analysis reveals surprising insights, such as higher reasoning effort reducing accuracy in the majority of runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T22:22:28Z)
• Towards Self-Evolving Benchmarks: Synthesizing Agent Trajectories via Test-Time Exploration under Validate-by-Reproduce Paradigm [60.36837655498119]
  We propose a Trajectory-based validated-by-Reproducing Agent-benchmark Complexity Evolution framework.<n>This framework takes an original task from an existing benchmark and encourages agents to evolve it into a new task with higher difficulty.<n>Experiments on the GAIA benchmark demonstrate that the TRACE framework consistently enhances task complexity while improving the reliability of correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T01:52:52Z)
• AgentRewardBench: Evaluating Automatic Evaluations of Web Agent Trajectories [59.214178488091584]
  We propose AgentRewardBench, the first benchmark to assess the effectiveness of LLM judges for evaluating web agents.<n>Using our benchmark, we evaluate 12 LLM judges and find that no single LLM excels across all benchmarks.<n>We also find that the rule-based evaluation used by common benchmarks tends to underreport the success rate of web agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-11T19:49:22Z)
• More than Marketing? On the Information Value of AI Benchmarks for Practitioners [42.73526862595375]
  In academia, public benchmarks were generally viewed as suitable measures for capturing research progress.<n>In product and policy, benchmarks were often found to be inadequate for informing substantive decisions.<n>We conclude that effective benchmarks should provide meaningful, real-world evaluations, incorporate domain expertise, and maintain transparency in scope and goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-07T03:35:39Z)
• BetterBench: Assessing AI Benchmarks, Uncovering Issues, and Establishing Best Practices [28.70453947993952]
  We develop an assessment framework considering 46 best practices across an AI benchmark's lifecycle and evaluate 24 AI benchmarks against it. We find that there exist large quality differences and that commonly used benchmarks suffer from significant issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T02:38:24Z)
• CORE-Bench: Fostering the Credibility of Published Research Through a Computational Reproducibility Agent Benchmark [11.794931453828974]
  CORE-Bench is a benchmark consisting of 270 tasks based on 90 scientific papers across three disciplines (computer science, social science, and medicine) We provide an evaluation system to measure the accuracy of agents in a fast and parallelizable way. The best agent achieved an accuracy of 21% on the hardest task, showing the vast scope for improvement in automating routine scientific tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-17T17:13:19Z)
• AI Agents That Matter [11.794931453828974]
  AI agents are an exciting new research direction, and agent development is driven by benchmarks. There is a narrow focus on accuracy without attention to other metrics. benchmarking needs of model and downstream developers have been conflated. Many agent benchmarks have inadequate holdout sets, and sometimes none at all.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T17:48:14Z)
• Watch Every Step! LLM Agent Learning via Iterative Step-Level Process Refinement [50.481380478458945]
  Iterative step-level Process Refinement (IPR) framework provides detailed step-by-step guidance to enhance agent training. Our experiments on three complex agent tasks demonstrate that our framework outperforms a variety of strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T03:29:13Z)
• The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models [94.31327813151208]
  BiGGen Bench is a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks.<n>A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-09T12:30:30Z)
• 360$^\circ$REA: Towards A Reusable Experience Accumulation with 360° Assessment for Multi-Agent System [71.96888731208838]
  We argue that a comprehensive evaluation and accumulating experience from evaluation feedback is an effective approach to improving system performance.<n>We propose Reusable Experience Accumulation with 360$circ$ Assessment (360$circ$REA), a hierarchical multi-agent framework inspired by corporate organizational practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:43:13Z)
• AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agents [74.16170899755281]
  We introduce AgentBoard, a pioneering comprehensive benchmark and accompanied open-source evaluation framework tailored to analytical evaluation of LLM agents.<n>AgentBoard offers a fine-grained progress rate metric that captures incremental advancements as well as a comprehensive evaluation toolkit.<n>This not only sheds light on the capabilities and limitations of LLM agents but also propels the interpretability of their performance to the forefront.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T01:51:00Z)

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.