AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents

Open-source models at or below 70B fall far behind commercial APIs when asked to act as agents in interactive environments, and the dominant failure is running out of interaction turns rather than getting the answer wrong. AgentBench puts 29 LLMs into 8 environments across 3 groundings: operating system, database, and knowledge graph; digital card game, lateral thinking puzzles, and ALFWorld house-holding; WebShop and Mind2Web. All models are evaluated with plain CoT-plus-action prompting at temperature=0, no reflection, search, or repeated sampling, on 1,014 test instances (269 dev), roughly 11k inference calls.

gpt-4 leads on 6 of 8 datasets with an overall score of 4.01, including 78.0 success on house-holding, versus 2.32 for gpt-3.5-turbo. The best OSS model, codellama-34b, scores 0.96; OSS average is 0.51 against 2.32 for API models. Failure attribution across all models shows Task Limit Exceeded dominating (82.5 on lateral thinking puzzles, 67.9 on knowledge graph), with Invalid Format at 53.3 on database and Invalid Action at 64.1 on house-holding.

The cross-model claims are correlational, not controlled. Code training helps procedural tasks and hurts others based on codellama versus llama-2 comparison; alignment data quality is argued from vicuna-13b beating llama-2-13b at the same base. llama-2-13b and llama-2-70b score similarly (0.77 vs 0.78), which the authors attribute to under-training or weak instruction following without a direct test.

Use this to calibrate how far unaided prompting gets an agent, not to rank current frontier models.