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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.13618 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.13618/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 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.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Causal Parrots: Large Language Models May Talk Causality But Are Not Causal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.13067/) (2023)
- [CLadder: Assessing Causal Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.04350/) (2023)
- [Vending-Bench: A Benchmark for Long-Term Coherence of Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.15840/) (2025)
- [LLMs are Greedy Agents: Effects of RL Fine-tuning on Decision-Making Abilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.16078/) (2025)
- [InvAgent: A Large Language Model based Multi-Agent System for Inventory Management in Supply Chains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.11384/) (2024)
- [Model-Adaptive Tool Necessity Reveals the Knowing-Doing Gap in LLM Tool Use](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.14038/) (2026)
- [BayesBench: Evaluating LLM Belief Trajectories Under Multi-Turn Evidence Accumulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.30850/) (2026)
- [AIM-Bench: Evaluating Decision-making Biases of Agentic LLM as Inventory Manager](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.11416/) (2025)
- [RetailBench: Benchmarking long horizon reasoning and coherent decision making of LLM agents in realistic retail environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.15862/) (2026)
- [Why Do LLMs Struggle in Strategic Play? Broken Links Between Observations, Beliefs, and Actions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.00226/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Reading Right, Acting Wrong: Diagnosing Decision Failures of System One Models in Agent Loops](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.18579/) (2026)

## 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.