mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AgentEscapeBench: Evaluating Out-of-Domain Tool-Grounded Reasoning in LLM Agents

arXiv 2605.07926 ↗First posted 8 May 2026cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

As LLM-based agents increasingly rely on external tools, it is important to evaluate their ability to sustain tool-grounded reasoning beyond familiar workflows and short-range interactions. We introduce AgentEscapeBench, an escape-room-style benchmark that tests whether agents can infer, execute, and revise novel tool-use procedures under explicit long-range dependency constraints. Each task defines a directed acyclic dependency graph over tools and items, requiring agents to invoke real external functions, track hidden state revealed incrementally, propagate intermediate results, and submit a deterministically verifiable final answer. AgentEscapeBench includes 270 instances across five difficulty tiers and supports fully automated evaluation. Experiments with sixteen LLM agents and human participants show that performance drops sharply as dependency depth increases: humans decline from 98.3% success at difficulty-5 to 80.0% at difficulty-25, while the best model drops from 90.0% to 60.0%. Trajectory analysis attributes model failures mainly to breakdowns in long-range state tracking, clue adherence, and intermediate-result propagation. These findings suggest that current agents can often handle local tool use but still struggle with deep contextual dependencies. We hope AgentEscapeBench can serve as a diagnostic testbed for measuring current agent capabilities and informing future training efforts toward more robust general-purpose reasoning, action, and adaptation.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 12 of its 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 May 2026.

Builds on

12 of 15 references.

References · 12

  1. 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,203
  2. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  3. 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,211
  4. 2025τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environmentcited by 558
  5. 2025MCP-Bench: Benchmarking Tool-Using LLM Agents with Complex Real-World Tasks via MCP Serverscited by 101
  6. 2023Making Language Models Better Tool Learners with Execution Feedbackcited by 69
  7. 2023Evaluating and Improving Tool-Augmented Computation-Intensive Math Reasoningcited by 49
  8. 2025VitaBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents with Versatile Interactive Tasks in Real-world Applicationscited by 45
  9. 2025UltraHorizon: Benchmarking Agent Capabilities in Ultra Long-Horizon Scenarioscited by 22
  10. 2026TRIP-Bench: A Benchmark for Long-Horizon Interactive Agents in Real-World Scenarioscited by 8
  11. 2025PuzzleWorld: A Benchmark for Multimodal, Open-Ended Reasoning in Puzzlehuntscited by 7
  12. 2025VisEscape: A Benchmark for Evaluating Exploration-driven Decision-making in Virtual Escape Roomscited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Are Tools All We Need? Unveiling the Tool-Use Tax in LLM Agents
  2. 2025Beyond the Final Answer: Evaluating the Reasoning Trajectories of Tool-Augmented Agents
  3. 2026AgentJudgeBench: A Multi-Difficulty Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Judges on Agentic Tool-Calling
  4. 2026AgentAbstain: Do LLM Agents Know When Not to Act?
  5. 2025GroundAct: Can LLM Agents Ground Actions in Environmental States?
  6. 2026Diagnosing Tool-Selection Reasoning in LLM Agents with Canary Tools
  7. 2026A Framework for Evaluating Agentic Skills at Scale
  8. 2026From Failure to Mastery: Generating Hard Samples for Tool-use Agents