AgentAtlas: Beyond Outcome Leaderboards for LLM Agents
arXiv AIArchived May 22, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2605.20530v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model agents now act on codebases, browsers, operating systems, calendars, files, and tool ecosystems, but the benchmarks used to evaluate them are fragmented: each emphasizes a different unit of measurement (final task success, tool-call validity, repeated-pass consistency, trajectory safety, or attack robustness). A line of 2024-2025 work has converged on the diagnosis that a single accuracy column is no longer the right unit of co
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
[Submitted on 19 May 2026]
AgentAtlas: Beyond Outcome Leaderboards for LLM Agents
Parsa Mazaheri, Kasra Mazaheri
Large language model agents now act on codebases, browsers, operating systems, calendars, files, and tool ecosystems, but the benchmarks used to evaluate them are fragmented: each emphasizes a different unit of measurement (final task success, tool-call validity, repeated-pass consistency, trajectory safety, or attack robustness). A line of 2024-2025 work has converged on the diagnosis that a single accuracy column is no longer the right unit of comparison for deployable agents. AgentAtlas extends this line of work with four components: (i) a six-state control-decision taxonomy (Act / Ask / Refuse / Stop / Confirm / Recover); (ii) a nine-category trajectory-failure taxonomy with two orthogonal hierarchical labels (primary_error_source, impact); (iii) a taxonomy-aware vs. taxonomy-blind methodology that measures how much of a model's apparent capability comes from the supervision in the prompt; and (iv) a benchmark-coverage audit mapping fifteen agent benchmarks against six behavioral axes. To demonstrate the methodology we run a small fixed eight-model set (1,342 generated items, four frontier closed and four open-weight) under both prompt modes. Removing the explicit label menu drops every model's trajectory accuracy by 14-40 pp to a tight 0.54-0.62 floor regardless of family, and no single model wins on all three of control accuracy, trajectory diagnosis, and tool-context utility retention. We treat the synthetic run as a measurement-protocol demonstration, not a benchmark release.
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Software Engineering (cs.SE)
ACM classes: I.2.7; I.2.6; I.2.11
Cite as: arXiv:2605.20530 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2605.20530v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.20530
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Parsa Mazaheri [view email]
[v1] Tue, 19 May 2026 22:05:12 UTC (5,440 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-05
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.CL
cs.LG
cs.SE
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)