AgentQuest: A Modular Benchmark Framework to Measure Progress and Improve LLM Agents
Open accessAbstract
The advances made by Large Language Models (LLMs) have led to the pursuit of LLM agents that can solve intricate, multi-step reasoning tasks. As with any research pursuit, benchmarking and evaluation are key corner stones to efficient and reliable progress. However, existing benchmarks are often narrow and simply compute overall task success. To face these issues, we propose AgentQuest -- a framework where (i) both benchmarks and metrics are modular and easily extensible through well documented and easy-to-use APIs; (ii) we offer two new evaluation metrics that can reliably track LLM agent progress while solving a task. We exemplify the utility of the metrics on two use cases wherein we identify common failure points and refine the agent architecture to obtain a significant performance increase. Together with the research community, we hope to extend AgentQuest further and therefore we make it available under https://github.com/nec-research/agentquest.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Gioacchini et al. propose AgentQuest, a modular agent evaluation framework designed for extensibility.
“Gioacchini et al. (2024) propose AgentQuest, a modular agent evaluation framework designed for extensibility”
From MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineering (2024) · cites this paper as Gioacchini et al., 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei- Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a Method for Automatic Eval- uation of Machine Translation. · DOI · Paper page
- Joon Sung Park, Joseph O'Brien, Carrie Jun Cai, Mered- ith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bern- stein. 2023. Generative Agents: Interactive Simu- lacra of Human Behavior. · DOI · Paper page
- Richard S Sutton and Andrew G Barto. 2018. Reinforce- ment Learning: An Introduction. MIT press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey
Mohammadi, M., Li, Y., Lo, J., & Yip, W. (2025) · Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V.2 · doi:10.1145/3711896.3736570 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
“Additionally, the Step Success Rate has been proposed to measure the percentage of steps in the generated plan that are successfully executed, providing a holistic view of planning quality during execution [28].”
MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineering
Chan, J. S., Chowdhury, N., Jaffe, O., Aung, J., Sherburn, D., Mays, E., Starace, G., Liu, K., Maksin, L., Patwardhan, T., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.07095 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Gabriel, A. G., Ahmad, A. A., & Jeyakumar, S. K. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.22457 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Zhang, Y., Liu, F., Shan, Y., Huang, X., Yang, X., Zhu, Y., Cheng, X., Liu, C., Zeng, K., Zhang, T. J., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.01045
“Furthermore, most benchmarks to date target specific tasks (Deng et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2024a; Gioacchini et al., 2024) and fail to address a significant gap in our understanding: whether logic-based models can autonomously discover and execute effective coordination strategies for distributed…”
- Authors
- Gioacchini, L., Siracusano, G., Sanvito, D., Gashteovski, K., Friede, D., Bifulco, R., & Lawrence, C.
- Affiliations
- Politecnico di Torino (IT)
- NEC (Germany) (DE)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2404.06411
- OpenAlex
- W4394710846
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- PORTO@Iris (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- European Commission (101139285)
- HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme (101139285)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- LLM agents, benchmarking, evaluation metrics, multi-step reasoning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
