analiza aiqbench
EcoAgent-Bench introduces a critical evaluation metric for LLM agents by treating resource allocation and tool selection as core task components rather than secondary statistics. The benchmark reveals that current models struggle to balance accuracy with cost-efficiency, often failing either under-spend on necessary escalations or overspending on simple queries. This work provides essential infrastructure for developers aiming to deploy economically viable autonomous agents in real-world scenarios where budget constraints are inherent.
EcoAgent-Bench: Evaluating Economic Decision-Making in Budget-Constrained LLM Agents
arXiv:2608.05519v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agent benchmarks usually measure task completion and treat resource use as an auxiliary statistic. In deployment, however, the choice among a local lookup, broad search, composite research tool, stronger model, or human escalation is part of the task itself. We introduce EcoAgent-Bench, in which every task specifies priced actions and an explicit budget. Its 304 real-derived tasks span five families adapted from GAIA, HotpotQA, and MuSiQue, and test four decisions: avoiding unnecessary escalation, escalating when local evidence is insufficient, selecting a model tier, and stopping on unsupported premises. We evaluate seven LLM agents in tool-API and workspace-CLI settings, together with four oracle scripted controls. Micro-averaged accuracy rewards one-sided policies: always-escalate controls achieve high micro success while failing save-oriented tasks. We therefore also report an economic-consistency score (the worse of accuracy on upgrade-oriented and save-oriented family groups) which exposes this failure. Tool-API agents attain only 3.9-24.0% micro strict success (at most 7.3% economic consistency), often either stopping before warranted escalation or overspending on cheap tasks. A threshold-crossing budget sweep changes GPT-5.4's escalation rate from 0% to only 3%. These results show that completion under a budget and economical action selection are distinct properties. We release the task bundle, transformation pipeline, frozen evaluation environments, and integrity-bound result artifacts needed to study both.
Abstract:Agent benchmarks usually measure task completion and treat resource use as an auxiliary statistic. In deployment, however, the choice among a local lookup, broad search, composite research tool, stronger model, or human escalation is part of the task itself. We introduce EcoAgent-Bench, in which every task specifies priced actions and an explicit budget. Its 304 real-derived tasks span five families adapted from GAIA, HotpotQA, and MuSiQue, and test four decisions: avoiding unnecessary escalation, escalating when local evidence is insufficient, selecting a model tier, and stopping on unsupported premises. We evaluate seven LLM agents in tool-API and workspace-CLI settings, together with four oracle scripted controls. Micro-averaged accuracy rewards one-sided policies: always-escalate controls achieve high micro success while failing save-oriented tasks. We therefore also report an economic-consistency score (the worse of accuracy on upgrade-oriented and save-oriented family groups) which exposes this failure. Tool-API agents attain only 3.9-24.0% micro strict success (at most 7.3% economic consistency), often either stopping before warranted escalation or overspending on cheap tasks. A threshold-crossing budget sweep changes GPT-5.4's escalation rate from 0% to only 3%. These results show that completion under a budget and economical action selection are distinct properties. We release the task bundle, transformation pipeline, frozen evaluation environments, and integrity-bound result artifacts needed to study both.
8 pages, 3 figures, 4 tables. Benchmark, dataset (304 budget-conditioned agent tasks), and evaluation harness; artifacts to be released
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2608.05519 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.05519v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.05519 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 330 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 3 oct. 2026
[AINews] High Taste Testers Ep. 1
Latent Space · 17 oct. 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 18 sept. 2026

Expenditure Horizon: Measuring Optimization Ability, with an Application to NanoGPT
METR · 21 iul. 2026