LATTICE: Evaluating Decision Support Utility of Crypto Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
We introduce LATTICE, a benchmark for evaluating the decision support utility of crypto agents in realistic user-facing scenarios. Prior crypto agent benchmarks mainly focus on reasoning-based or outcome-based evaluation, but do not assess agents' ability to assist user decision-making. LATTICE addresses this gap by: (1) defining six evaluation dimensions that capture key decision support properties; (2) proposing 16 task types that span the end-to-end crypto copilot workflow; and (3) using LLM judges to automatically score agent outputs based on these dimensions and tasks. Crucially, the dimensions and tasks are designed to be evaluable at scale using LLM judges, without relying on ground truth from expert annotators or external data sources. In lieu of these dependencies, LATTICE's LLM judge rubrics can be continually audited and updated given new dimensions, tasks, criteria, and human feedback, thus promoting reliable and extensible evaluation. While other benchmarks often compare foundation models sharing a generic agent framework, we use LATTICE to assess production-level agents used in actual crypto copilot products, reflecting the importance of orchestration and UI/UX design in determining agent quality. In this paper, we evaluate six real-world crypto copilots on 1,200 diverse queries and report breakdowns across dimensions, tasks, and query categories. Our experiments show that most of the tested copilots achieve comparable aggregate scores, but differ more significantly on dimension-level and task-level performance. This pattern suggests meaningful trade-offs in decision support quality: users with different priorities may be better served by different copilots than the aggregate rankings alone would indicate. To support reproducible research, we open-source all LATTICE code and data used in this paper.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 28 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Apr 2026.
Builds on
28 of 33 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 27
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,267
- 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,184
- 2024From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judgecited by 494
- 2024JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judgescited by 318
- 2023FinanceBench: A New Benchmark for Financial Question Answeringcited by 270
- 2025DeepResearch Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Deep Research Agentscited by 248
- 2025Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Surveycited by 152
- 2025From LLM Reasoning to Autonomous AI Agents: A Comprehensive Reviewcited by 149
- 2024FinBen: A Holistic Financial Benchmark for Large Language Modelscited by 141
- 2024FinCon: A Synthesized LLM Multi-Agent System with Conceptual Verbal Reinforcement for Enhanced Financial Decision Makingcited by 113
- 2023T-Eval: Evaluating the Tool Utilization Capability of Large Language Models Step by Stepcited by 93
15 more
- 2025Finance Agent Benchmark: Benchmarking LLMs on Real-world Financial Research Taskscited by 65
- 2024INVESTORBENCH: A Benchmark for Financial Decision-Making Tasks with LLM-based Agentcited by 64
- 2025FutureX: An Advanced Live Benchmark for LLM Agents in Future Predictioncited by 59
- 2025StockBench: Can LLM Agents Trade Stocks Profitably In Real-world Markets?cited by 44
- 2024MIRAI: Evaluating LLM Agents for Event Forecastingcited by 41
- 2025AI-Trader: Benchmarking Autonomous Agents in Real-Time Financial Marketscited by 25
- 2025DSGBench: A Diverse Strategic Game Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Agents in Complex Decision-Making Environmentscited by 23
- 2025BizFinBench: A Business-Driven Real-World Financial Benchmark for Evaluating LLMscited by 22
- 2025LLM-Powered Multi-Agent System for Automated Crypto Portfolio Managementcited by 20
- 2025FinanceQA: A Benchmark for Evaluating Financial Analysis Capabilities of Large Language Modelscited by 19
- 2025When Agents Trade: Live Multi-Market Trading Benchmark for LLM Agentscited by 16
- 2025LiveTradeBench: Seeking Real-World Alpha with Large Language Modelscited by 13
- 2025When Hallucination Costs Millions: Benchmarking AI Agents in High-Stakes Adversarial Financial Marketscited by 5
- 2025CryptoBench: A Dynamic Benchmark for Expert-Level Evaluation of LLM Agents in Cryptocurrencycited by 5
- 2026PredictionMarketBench: A SWE-bench-Style Framework for Backtesting Trading Agents on Prediction Marketscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Improving LLM Agents with Reinforcement Learning on Cryptographic CTF Challenges
- 2026BekchiAI: Measuring, Observing, and Controlling LLM Agents in One Click
- 2026BenchShield: Formal Model-Backed Instrumentation for Reward Integrity in LLM-Agent Evaluation Infrastructure
- 2026AgentAudit: An Open, Extensible Framework for Full-Lifecycle Trust Evaluation of AI Agents
- 2026SINGED: Correct Outputs Do Not Certify Safe Execution in LLM Agents
- 2026CyberChainBench: Can AI Agents Secure Smart Contracts Against Real-World On-Chain Vulnerabilities?
- 2026SeClaw: Spec-Driven Security Task Synthesis for Evaluating Autonomous Agents
- 2024AgentDojo: A Dynamic Environment to Evaluate Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for LLM Agents