DAREBench: Deployment-Aware and Reliable Evaluation of Models as Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.06059v1
• Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2026 12:36:59 GMT
• Title: DAREBench: Deployment-Aware and Reliable Evaluation of Models as Agents
• Abstract summary: DAREBench is a benchmark designed to capture workload variation and support reliable agent evaluation.<n>No single model dominates all workload groups, text and multimodal tasks exhibit distinct accuracy--cost trade-offs.<n>These findings suggest that agent deployment and model selection should consider workload profiles, deployment mode, and accuracy--cost trade-offs.
• Score: 16.576661790025668
• License: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
• Abstract: As large language models evolve from question-answering systems into general-purpose agents, evaluation must move beyond static answer correctness to assess multimodal perception, multi-step execution, tool use, and artifact delivery. However, existing benchmarks are often tied to specific task types, execution environments, or scoring protocols, limiting their comparability, interpretability, and reliability for deployment decisions. We introduce DAREBench (Deployment-Aware and Reliable Evaluation of Models as Agents), a benchmark designed to capture workload variation and support reliable agent evaluation. Built on a shared OpenClaw execution environment, DAREBench organizes 233 tasks selected and adapted from 22 source benchmarks into a $2\times3$ workload matrix defined by input modality and execution form, and evaluates them under a unified contract-based protocol with evidence-based score auditing. We evaluate 23 commercial API models and 12 locally deployed open-weight models over 7,587 model--task runs, reporting accuracy and token consumption alongside reference costs for API models. Results show that no single model dominates all workload groups, text and multimodal tasks exhibit distinct accuracy--cost trade-offs, and local open-weight models are competitive in several groups but still trail frontier commercial models overall. These findings suggest that agent deployment and model selection should consider workload profiles, deployment mode, and accuracy--cost trade-offs rather than rely on a single aggregate score.

Related papers

• MADE: Belief-Driven Dual-Agent Coordination for Autonomous Model Deployment [19.126846876843356]
  LLM-based agents struggle with domain-specific tasks, motivating the integration of external tools.<n>Open-source community offers vast array of AI models typically released as heterogeneous research artifacts.<n>Transforming these into ready-to-call APIs is costly and labor-intensive.<n>We introduce Model Automated Deployment Engine (MADE), a dual-agent coordination system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-02T12:14:43Z)
• 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)
• DualEval: Joint Model-Item Calibration for Unified LLM Evaluation [67.99119926012686]
  DualEval is a latent model-item calibration framework that represents models and evaluation items in a shared space.<n>We apply DualEval across four domains: coding, math, miscellaneous domain-knowledge tasks, and generic everyday user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-24T22:40:46Z)
• Post-Selection Distributional Model Evaluation [31.006941545235396]
  Post-selection distributional model evaluation (PS-DME)<n>PS-DME is a framework for statistically valid distributional model assessment after arbitrary data-dependent model pre-selection.<n>Results: PS-DME enables reliable comparison of candidate configurations across a range of reliability levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T10:51:30Z)
• CreditAudit: 2$^\text{nd}$ Dimension for LLM Evaluation and Selection [44.251742023911135]
  CreditAudit is a deployment oriented credit audit framework that evaluates models under a family of semantically aligned and non adversarial system prompt templates.<n>We show that models with similar mean ability can exhibit substantially different fluctuation, and stability risk can overturn prioritization decisions in agentic or high failure cost regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T07:53:25Z)
• ARM-Thinker: Reinforcing Multimodal Generative Reward Models with Agentic Tool Use and Visual Reasoning [103.7657839292775]
  ARM-Thinker is an Agentic multimodal Reward Model that autonomously invokes external tools to ground judgments in verifiable evidence.<n>We train ARM-Thinker with multi-stage reinforcement learning, jointly optimizing tool-calling decisions and judgment accuracy.<n>Our results demonstrate that agentic capabilities significantly enhance both accuracy and interpretability of reward models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-04T18:59:52Z)
• SpecEval: Evaluating Model Adherence to Behavior Specifications [63.13000010340958]
  We introduce an automated framework that audits models against their providers specifications.<n>Our central focus is on three way consistency between a provider specification, its model outputs, and its own models as judges.<n>We apply our framework to 16 models from six developers across more than 100 behavioral statements, finding systematic inconsistencies including compliance gaps of up to 20 percent across providers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T16:18:40Z)
• Ranked from Within: Ranking Large Multimodal Models Without Labels [73.96543593298426]
  We show that uncertainty scores derived from softmax distributions provide a robust basis for ranking models across various tasks.<n>This facilitates the ranking of LMMs on unlabeled data, providing a practical approach for selecting models for diverse target domains without requiring manual annotation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-09T13:05:43Z)
• UniMatch: A Unified User-Item Matching Framework for the Multi-purpose Merchant Marketing [27.459774494479227]
  We present a unified user-item matching framework to simultaneously conduct item recommendation and user targeting with just one model. Our framework results in significant performance gains in comparison with the state-of-the-art methods, with greatly reduced cost on computing resources and daily maintenance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-19T13:49:35Z)
• How Faithful is your Synthetic Data? Sample-level Metrics for Evaluating and Auditing Generative Models [95.8037674226622]
  We introduce a 3-dimensional evaluation metric that characterizes the fidelity, diversity and generalization performance of any generative model in a domain-agnostic fashion. Our metric unifies statistical divergence measures with precision-recall analysis, enabling sample- and distribution-level diagnoses of model fidelity and diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-17T18:25:30Z)

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.