# RideWay: Benchmarking Efficient Task Completion for Tool-Using Language Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.17985 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.17985/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 26 of its 36 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 26 of 26)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13854/) (2023)
- [ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16789/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [WebShop: Towards Scalable Real-World Web Interaction with Grounded Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.01206/) (2022)
- [Mind2Web: Towards a Generalist Agent for the Web](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.06070/) (2023)
- [ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.03768/) (2020)
- [A General Theoretical Paradigm to Understand Learning from Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12036/) (2023)
- [FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.05176/) (2023)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07982/) (2025)
- [On Evaluation of Embodied Navigation Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.06757/) (2018)
- [WorkArena: How Capable Are Web Agents at Solving Common Knowledge Work Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07718/) (2024)
- [AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.13178/) (2024)
- [Unlocking Efficiency in Large Language Model Inference: A Comprehensive Survey of Speculative Decoding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.07851/) (2024)
- [AssistantBench: Can Web Agents Solve Realistic and Time-Consuming Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.15711/) (2024)
- [Reward Model Learning vs. Direct Policy Optimization: A Comparative Analysis of Learning from Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.01857/) (2024)
- [AgentAtlas: Beyond Outcome Leaderboards for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.20530/) (2026)
- [T1-Bench: Benchmarking Multi-Scenario Agents in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.11070/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [WorkBorne: Discovering Agentic Tasks from Real-World Artifact Transitions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.14915/) (2026)
- [SkillForgeBench: Evaluating Agent Reliability Grounded in Agent Skill Specifications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.14918/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

AI agents are usually evaluated by whether they complete a task. In interactive service settings, a successful agent can still frustrate users by asking repeated questions, performing redundant searches, or making avoidable revisions. We introduce RideWay, an efficiency-centered benchmark for ridehailing agents in a stateful tool-calling environment, together with Efficiency Utility, a success-gated metric that discounts successful trajectories for excess tool calls and user-facing turns relative to task-specific reference effort. Human paired preferences calibrate the relative penalties, reflecting an aggregate service-workflow trade-off: extra dialogue often creates visible friction, whereas extra tool use can sometimes verify constraints or preserve user intent. Across 58 tasks and 24 models, the fitted penalty for excess turns is about twice that for excess tool calls. On task-disjoint held-out preferences, Efficiency Utility achieves 78.7% accuracy overall: 90.6% when trajectories differ in turns, but chance-level accuracy when they differ solely in tool calls - the axis on which human annotators agree least. RideWay therefore makes interaction efficiency measurable alongside task success, while exposing the boundary of count-based tool-use evaluation.