Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.11977v1
• Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 22:22:28 GMT
• Title: Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluation
• Authors: Sayash Kapoor, Benedikt Stroebl, Peter Kirgis, Nitya Nadgir, Zachary S Siegel, Boyi Wei, Tianci Xue, Ziru Chen, Felix Chen, Saiteja Utpala, Franck Ndzomga, Dheeraj Oruganty, Sophie Luskin, Kangheng Liu, Botao Yu, Amit Arora, Dongyoon Hahm, Harsh Trivedi, Huan Sun, Juyong Lee, Tengjun Jin, Yifan Mai, Yifei Zhou, Yuxuan Zhu, Rishi Bommasani, Daniel Kang, Dawn Song, Peter Henderson, Yu Su, Percy Liang, Arvind Narayanan,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 87.47155146067962
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: AI agents have been developed for complex real-world tasks from coding to customer service. But AI agent evaluations suffer from many challenges that undermine our understanding of how well agents really work. We introduce the Holistic Agent Leaderboard (HAL) to address these challenges. We make three main contributions. First, we provide a standardized evaluation harness that orchestrates parallel evaluations across hundreds of VMs, reducing evaluation time from weeks to hours while eliminating common implementation bugs. Second, we conduct three-dimensional analysis spanning models, scaffolds, and benchmarks. We validate the harness by conducting 21,730 agent rollouts across 9 models and 9 benchmarks in coding, web navigation, science, and customer service with a total cost of about $40,000. Our analysis reveals surprising insights, such as higher reasoning effort reducing accuracy in the majority of runs. Third, we use LLM-aided log inspection to uncover previously unreported behaviors, such as searching for the benchmark on HuggingFace instead of solving a task, or misusing credit cards in flight booking tasks. We share all agent logs, comprising 2.5B tokens of language model calls, to incentivize further research into agent behavior. By standardizing how the field evaluates agents and addressing common pitfalls in agent evaluation, we hope to shift the focus from agents that ace benchmarks to agents that work reliably in the real world.

Related papers

• AgentIF-OneDay: A Task-level Instruction-Following Benchmark for General AI Agents in Daily Scenarios [49.90735676070039]
  The capacity of AI agents to effectively handle tasks of increasing duration and complexity continues to grow.<n>We argue that current evaluations prioritize increasing task difficulty without sufficiently addressing the diversity of agentic tasks.<n>We propose AgentIF-OneDay, aimed at determining whether general users can utilize natural language instructions and AI agents to complete a diverse array of daily tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T13:49:18Z)
• Agent-Testing Agent: A Meta-Agent for Automated Testing and Evaluation of Conversational AI Agents [2.3429263075112288]
  We present the Agent-Testing Agent (ATA), a meta-agent that combines static code analysis, designer interrogation, literature mining, and persona-driven adversarial test generation.<n>Each dialogue is scored with an LLM-as-a-Judge (LAAJ) rubric and used to steer subsequent tests toward the agent's weakest capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-24T15:02:13Z)
• Code with Me or for Me? How Increasing AI Automation Transforms Developer Workflows [60.04362496037186]
  We present the first controlled study of developer interactions with coding agents.<n>We evaluate two leading copilot and agentic coding assistants.<n>Our results show agents can assist developers in ways that surpass copilots.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T20:12:54Z)
• Establishing Best Practices for Building Rigorous Agentic Benchmarks [94.69724201080155]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T17:35:31Z)
• AgentRewardBench: Evaluating Automatic Evaluations of Web Agent Trajectories [61.38499597241457]
  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)
• Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agents [61.33974108405561]
  We introduce the Agent-as-a-Judge framework, wherein agentic systems are used to evaluate agentic systems. This is an organic extension of the LLM-as-a-Judge framework, incorporating agentic features that enable intermediate feedback for the entire task-solving process. We present DevAI, a new benchmark of 55 realistic automated AI development tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T17:57:02Z)
• AutoPenBench: Benchmarking Generative Agents for Penetration Testing [42.681170697805726]
  This paper introduces AutoPenBench, an open benchmark for evaluating generative agents in automated penetration testing. We present a comprehensive framework that includes 33 tasks, each representing a vulnerable system that the agent has to attack. We show the benefits of AutoPenBench by testing two agent architectures: a fully autonomous and a semi-autonomous supporting human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T08:24:15Z)
• 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)

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.