mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

STOCKTAKE: Measuring the Gap Between Perception and Action in LLM Agents with a Fair Oracle

arXiv 2607.13618 ↗First posted 15 Jul 2026cs.AI cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

Abstract (arXiv)

LLM agents are increasingly evaluated on multi-week decision tasks in which the state that drives cost is never directly observed. On such tasks the final cost cannot say why an agent failed: it may have misread the world, or read it correctly and still failed to act (the knowing-doing gap). Existing evaluations cannot separate these two failures; their reference policies either read privileged information the agent never sees, or are missing altogether. We introduce STOCKTAKE, a 26-week supply-chain replenishment benchmark built as a factored partially observable Markov decision process with six hidden factor processes, designed so that a fair reference policy is computable: an exact Bayes filter per factor drives a rollout policy on the identical observation stream the agent receives. Scoring each run between a symptom-blind base-stock floor (0) and this oracle (1) yields a skill score, and grading each week's written rationale yields a stated-belief detection lag and a knowing-doing rate, so state estimation and control are measured separately. On fifty seeds with curated stress profiles, Claude Sonnet 5, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek-V4-Pro, and Grok 4.5 detect 84-88% of hidden failures, typically within a week of onset, yet span skill scores from 0.62 to -0.23: two of the four end below the symptom-blind floor while naming factors slightly faster than the two that beat it. The failure has two faces. Where stress persists, 34-43% of correctly diagnosed stress weeks still end in stockout for every model, a rate that partly reflects the severity of the weeks models notice. That rate also runs opposite to skill: the two models under the floor stock out least on diagnosed weeks, so under-response is only one face of the gap, and their traces point to the other, responses whose cost exceeds what they protect. STOCKTAKE measures both directions of that failure.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 10 of its 11 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Jul 2026.

Builds on

10 of 11 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Vending-Bench: A Benchmark for Long-Term Coherence of Autonomous Agents20 Feb

Other references · 9

  1. 2023Causal Parrots: Large Language Models May Talk Causality But Are Not Causalcited by 146
  2. 2023CLadder: Assessing Causal Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 102
  3. 2025LLMs are Greedy Agents: Effects of RL Fine-tuning on Decision-Making Abilitiescited by 36
  4. 2024InvAgent: A Large Language Model based Multi-Agent System for Inventory Management in Supply Chainscited by 20
  5. 2025AIM-Bench: Evaluating Decision-making Biases of Agentic LLM as Inventory Managercited by 6
  6. 2026RetailBench: Benchmarking long horizon reasoning and coherent decision making of LLM agents in realistic retail environmentscited by 6
  7. 2026Model-Adaptive Tool Necessity Reveals the Knowing-Doing Gap in LLM Tool Usecited by 5
  8. 2026BayesBench: Evaluating LLM Belief Trajectories Under Multi-Turn Evidence Accumulationcited by 5
  9. 2026Why Do LLMs Struggle in Strategic Play? Broken Links Between Observations, Beliefs, and Actionscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Multi-Dimensional Behavioral Evaluation of Agentic Stock Prediction Systems Using Large Language Model Judges with Closed-Loop Reinforcement Learning Feedback
  2. 2026Cost-Utility Alignment in LLM Agent Trajectories:Profiling,Attribution,Diagnosis,Adaptation,and Evaluation
  3. 2026EcoAgent-Bench: Evaluating Economic Decision-Making in Budget-Constrained LLM Agents
  4. 2026RetailBench: Evaluating Long-Horizon Autonomous Decision-Making and Strategy Stability of LLM Agents in Realistic Retail Environments
  5. 2026AI Agents for Inventory Control: Human-LLM-OR Complementarity
  6. 2026LiveMACE: Process-Aware Evaluation of LLM Agent Capabilities in Evolving Markets
  7. 2026Beyond Static Leaderboards: Predictive Validity for the Evaluation of LLM Agents
  8. 2026FinalityBench: An Effect-Level Benchmark for Agent Decisions Under Delayed and Conflicting Financial Finality