mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

TraceDance: An Automated System for Building Agent Behavior Benchmarks from Real-World Agent Deployment Traces

arXiv 2609.33295 ↗First posted 27 Sep 2026cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

An agent can complete a task while exhibiting undesirable behavior during execution. Developers need tests for the specific behaviors encountered in deployment, beyond fixed benchmark suites. We present TraceDance, an agent system that constructs targeted benchmarks from deployment traces for user-specified undesirable behaviors. For efficient construction, Anchor-and-Confirm combines programmable retrieval with candidate-level confirmation by a Flash large language model (LLM), while the Anchor Synthesis Loop generates and revises specifications for custom behaviors. The benchmarks use decision-point continuation to evaluate an LLM's next turn at a recorded decision point with a behavior-specific rubric, without a reference answer or environment replay. Experiments in coding and general tool use draw on 252,557 sessions and produce 107 benchmarks with 4,125 instances, fulfilling 95.3% of build-target requests. Both human annotators confirm the requested behavior in 84% of sampled instances, and the automated grader's agreement with human pass/fail judgments is comparable to that between the annotators. Nine frontier LLMs achieve a mean pass rate of only 26.7%, showing that they still struggle to respond appropriately at the evaluated decision points. Analysis across behavior-specific benchmarks further reveals weaknesses in how current LLMs behave as agents. By turning deployment problems into targeted benchmarks, TraceDance could serve as a key component of the recursive self-improvement (RSI) loop.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 53 of its 69 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Sep 2026.

Builds on

53 of 69 references.

Closest ancestors · 6

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Who&When Pro: Can LLMs Really Attribute Failures in AI Agents?10 Jul
  2. 2026SWE-Together: Evaluating Coding Agents in Interactive User Sessions29 Jun
  3. 2026Insights Generator: Systematic Corpus-Level Trace Diagnostics for LLM Agents20 May
  4. 2026ProcCtrlBench: Evaluating Process-Level Defects and Control Preservation in LLM Coding Agents18 May
  5. 2026SWE-chat: Coding Agent Interactions From Real Users in the Wild22 Apr
  6. 2026REAP: Automatic Curation of Coding Agent Benchmarks from Interactive Production Usage2 Apr

Other references · 47

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  2. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  3. 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 1,908
  4. 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,280
  5. 2024OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environmentscited by 1,134
  6. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,050
  7. 2026DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligencecited by 877
  8. 2022Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluationscited by 805
  9. 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 651
  10. 2026Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfacescited by 515
  11. 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandboxcited by 514
  12. 2024MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineeringcited by 429
35 more
  1. 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agentscited by 406
  2. 2025Seed1.5-VL Technical Reportcited by 367
  3. 2024Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Modelscited by 301
  4. 2025PaperBench: Evaluating AI's Ability to Replicate AI Researchcited by 286
  5. 2025Model Context Protocol (MCP): Landscape, Security Threats, and Future Research Directionscited by 257
  6. 2024WildBench: Benchmarking LLMs with Challenging Tasks from Real Users in the Wildcited by 211
  7. 2024RE-Bench: Evaluating frontier AI R&D capabilities of language model agents against human expertscited by 153
  8. 2024Clio: Privacy-Preserving Insights into Real-World AI Usecited by 66
  9. 2025SHADE-Arena: Evaluating Sabotage and Monitoring in LLM Agentscited by 58
  10. 2026Seed2.0 Model Card: Towards Intelligence Frontier for Real-World Complexitycited by 48
  11. 2026MiniMax Sparse Attentioncited by 34
  12. 2026WildClawBench: A Benchmark for Real-World, Long-Horizon Agent Evaluationcited by 29
  13. 2026AgentProcessBench: Diagnosing Step-Level Process Quality in Tool-Using Agentscited by 28
  14. 2025MIRAGE-Bench: LLM Agent is Hallucinating and Where to Find Themcited by 16
  15. 2026Benchmarking LLM Tool-Use in the Wildcited by 15
  16. 2026ToolPRMBench: Evaluating and Advancing Process Reward Models for Tool-using Agentscited by 13
  17. 2026Detecting Safety Violations Across Many Agent Tracescited by 11
  18. 2026Log analysis is necessary for credible evaluation of AI agentscited by 8
  19. 2026Evaluating whether AI models would sabotage AI safety researchcited by 7
  20. 2026Safety Testing LLM Agents at Scale: From Risk Discovery to Evidence-Grounded Verificationcited by 6
  21. 2026Model or Harness? An Interaction-Centric Taxonomy for Localizing Agent Failurescited by 6
  22. 2026Seven simple steps for log analysis in AI systemscited by 5
  23. 2026Benchmark Everything Everywhere All at Oncecited by 5
  24. 2026Predicting LLM Safety Before Release by Simulating Deploymentcited by 5
  25. 2026RSIAgent: Autonomous Exploration for Recursive Self-improvement in New Environmentscited by 5
  26. 2026OpenClawBench: Benchmarking Process-side Anomalies in Real-world Agent Execution Trajectoriescited by 4
  27. 2026BenchTrace: A Benchmark for Testing Reflection Ability and Controlled Evolution in LLM Agentscited by 3
  28. 2026Efficient Agent Evaluation via Diversity-Guided User Simulationcited by 2
  29. 2026LURE: Live-Usage Replay Evaluations for Reducing Evaluation Awarenesscited by 2
  30. 2026RealClawBench: Live OpenClaw Benchmarks from Real Developer-Agent Sessionscited by 2
  31. 2026Agent trajectories as programs: fingerprinting and programming coding-agent behaviorcited by 2
  32. 2026EnterpriseClawBench: Benchmarking Agents from Real Workplace Sessionscited by 2
  33. 2026CatchBench: When Can an Agent Failure Be Caught?cited by 2
  34. 2026From Trajectories to Prefixes: Reusing Teacher Trajectories via Replayed Prefixes and Online Continuationcited by 1
  35. 2026ClawTrack: Towards Trace-Level Evaluation and Improvement of Real-World Autonomous Agentscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Agentic CLEAR: Automating Multi-Level Evaluation of LLM Agents
  2. 2026TraceCompiler: Skill-Guided Mining and Compilation of LLM Agent Traces into Mostly Deterministic Workflows
  3. 2026Evidence-Calibrated Runtime Reconstruction for Agent Skills Across Heterogeneous Coding Agents
  4. 2026TraceSIR: A Multi-Agent Framework for Structured Analysis and Reporting of Agentic Execution Traces
  5. 2025TRAIL: Trace Reasoning and Agentic Issue Localization
  6. 2026A2E : An End-to-End Agent Auditing Engine
  7. 2026Automata from Agent Traces: Failure and Next-Step Prediction
  8. 2026Auto: The AGI Compiler