A Unified Framework for the Evaluation of LLM Agentic Capabilities

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.27898v1
• Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 03:20:45 GMT
• Title: A Unified Framework for the Evaluation of LLM Agentic Capabilities
• Abstract summary: We present a unified framework for the fair evaluation of LLM agentic capabilities.<n> Driven by a unified configuration system, the framework integrates diverse benchmarks into a standardized instruction--tool--environment format.<n>We conduct a large-scale empirical analysis over 400K rollouts and 5B tokens on 15 models.
• Score: 36.43241368835721
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As LLMs are increasingly deployed as agents, reliable assessment of their agentic capabilities has become essential. However, reported benchmark scores often jointly reflect model capability and the implementation choices each benchmark is packaged with, making cross-benchmark results difficult to interpret as clean measurements of the underlying model. In this work, we present a unified framework for the fair evaluation of LLM agentic capabilities. Driven by a unified configuration system, the framework integrates diverse benchmarks into a standardized instruction--tool--environment format, executes agents through a fixed ReAct-style architecture within a controllable sandbox, and provides an optional offline setting that replaces volatile live environments with curated snapshots, so that framework effects and environment effects can be analyzed separately. Building on this, we unify the evaluation methodology under each benchmark's original task-success criteria, while introducing unified metrics for resource consumption and a taxonomy for decision- and execution-level failure attribution. Within this framework, we adapt 7 widely used benchmarks spanning 24 domains across single-agent, multi-agent, and safety-critical scenarios, and conduct a large-scale empirical analysis over 400K rollouts and 5B tokens on 15 models. The results show that scaffold choice and environmental volatility materially shift benchmark outcomes in both directions, allowing our framework to disentangle intrinsic LLM capabilities from framework- and environment-induced artifacts. We further demonstrate its extensibility as a secure testbed for safety-critical domains. Codes and benchmarks at are available at https://github.com/whfeLingYu/A-Unified-Framework-for-the-Evaluation-of-LLM-Agentic-Capabilities, https://huggingface.co/AgentFramework/Unified_Farmework.

Related papers

• DuMateBench: Evaluating Autonomous Agents in Complex Real-World Workflows [69.12339622053588]
  We introduce DuMateBench, a real-session benchmark reconstructed from anonymized and privacy-screened user sessions.<n>The resulting benchmark comprises 200 tasks spanning 8 broad scenarios and 17 fine-grained capability categories.<n>We execute these tasks in isolated Docker containers injected with three forms of real-world environmental complexity: Insufficient, Unstable, and Noisy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-27T02:36:23Z)
• 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)
• Latent Performance Profiling of Large Language Models [47.009623327601226]
  We introduce Latent Performance Profiling (LPP) -- a framework that derives task-agnostic diagnostics from hidden activations and output distributions.<n>Unlike static accuracy scores, LPP provides stable, architecture-sensitive signatures across models of similar size.<n>We show that models with similar benchmark scores can exhibit contrasting latent profiles, such as differences in entropy or adaptability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T14:41:26Z)
• RPA-Check: A Multi-Stage Automated Framework for Evaluating Dynamic LLM-based Role-Playing Agents [4.07447364754644]
  This paper introduces RPA-Check, a multi-stage automated evaluation framework designed to objectively assess the performance of LLM-based RPAs.<n>We validate this framework by applying it to LLM Court, a serious game for forensic training involving several quantized local models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T16:08:03Z)
• DEP: A Decentralized Large Language Model Evaluation Protocol [51.3646001384887]
  Decentralized Evaluation Protocol (DEP) is a decentralized yet unified and standardized evaluation framework.<n>By decoupling users, LLMs, and benchmarks, DEP enables modular, plug-and-play evaluation.<n>We develop DEP Toolkit, a protocol-compatible toolkit that supports features such as breakpoint resume, concurrent requests, and congestion control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-01T16:10:16Z)
• AgentNoiseBench: Benchmarking Robustness of Tool-Using LLM Agents Under Noisy Condition [72.24180896265192]
  We introduce AgentNoiseBench, a framework for evaluating robustness of agentic models under noisy environments.<n>We first conduct an in-depth analysis of biases and uncertainties in real-world scenarios.<n>We then categorize environmental noise into two primary types: user-noise and tool-noise.<n>Building on this analysis, we develop an automated pipeline that injects controllable noise into existing agent-centric benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T20:33:10Z)
• Structured Prompting Enables More Robust Evaluation of Language Models [38.53918044830268]
  We present a DSPy+HELM framework that introduces structured prompting methods which elicit reasoning.<n>We find that without structured prompting, HELM underestimates LM performance (by 4% average) and performance estimates vary more across benchmarks.<n>This is the first benchmarking study to systematically integrate structured prompting into an established evaluation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T20:37:59Z)
• MSC-Bench: A Rigorous Benchmark for Multi-Server Tool Orchestration [0.0]
  MSC-Bench is a large-scale benchmark for evaluating multi-hop, end-to-end tool orchestration by LLM agents.<n>It addresses gaps by constructing ground truth through 'equal function sets', allowing objective metrics such as F1 score.<n>It systematically tests agent capabilities from single-tool orchestration to complex cross-server planning, and robustness to out-of-scope requests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-22T09:45:11Z)
• MCPEval: Automatic MCP-based Deep Evaluation for AI Agent Models [76.72220653705679]
  We introduce MCPEval, an open-source framework that automates end-to-end task generation and deep evaluation of intelligent agents.<n> MCPEval standardizes metrics, seamlessly integrates with native agent tools, and eliminates manual effort in building evaluation pipelines.<n> Empirical results across five real-world domains show its effectiveness in revealing nuanced, domain-specific performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-17T05:46:27Z)
• REAL: Benchmarking Autonomous Agents on Deterministic Simulations of Real Websites [9.58858258192147]
  We introduce REAL, a benchmark and framework for multi-turn agent evaluations on deterministic simulations of real-world websites.<n>We also release a benchmark consisting of 112 practical tasks that mirror everyday complex user interactions.<n>Our framework supports easy integration of new tasks, reproducible evaluation, and scalable post-training data generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T18:22:55Z)
• TestAgent: Automatic Benchmarking and Exploratory Interaction for Evaluating LLMs in Vertical Domains [19.492393243160244]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in highly specialized vertical domains.<n>Existing evaluations for vertical domains typically rely on the labor-intensive construction of static single-turn datasets.<n>We propose TestAgent, a framework for automatic benchmarking and exploratory dynamic evaluation in vertical domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T11:20:42Z)
• Benchmark Self-Evolving: A Multi-Agent Framework for Dynamic LLM Evaluation [51.99752147380505]
  This paper presents a benchmark self-evolving framework to dynamically evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) We utilize a multi-agent system to manipulate the context or question of original instances, reframing new evolving instances with high confidence. Our framework widens performance discrepancies both between different models and within the same model across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T03:40:06Z)

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.