5arXiv cs.AI (Artificial Intelligence)·
OmegaUse-OfficeVal: Benchmark for LLM Agents on Long-Horizon Office Tasks with Economic Cost Grounding
A new arXiv preprint introduces OmegaUse-OfficeVal, a 100-task benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on long-horizon office-suite workflows derived from real practitioner requests. Each task is paired with economic signals — human labor time (averaging 2.32 hours per task) and a task price proxy — enabling direct cost comparisons between human workers and LLM inference. Frontier LLMs evaluated against a human baseline are found to be substantially cheaper and faster but have not yet reached human-level deliverable quality. Code and dataset are fully open-sourced.
Related guides (4)
Enterprise Deployment PatternsTopic guide
Enterprise Deployment Patterns: How Organizations Are Moving LLMs from Demo to Production
Read asIn-depth
Related events (8)
NCRE-based benchmark reveals frontier LLMs top out at 68.8% on professional Office automation tasks
Researchers introduce an evaluation suite derived from China's National Computer Rank Examination (NCRE), comprising 200 practical tasks across Word, Excel, and PowerPoint scored via 7,118 machine-gradable criteria. Seven frontier LLMs are benchmarked: single-turn models peak at 36.6% Score Rate, while a full agentic system with execution feedback and iterative repair reaches 68.8%, still well below the 95.5% community-reference score. The results demonstrate that fine-grained, long-horizon Office document automation remains a significant unsolved challenge for current LLM and agent systems despite strong code-generation capabilities.
Paper challenges LLM expert-level claims by measuring variance and error magnitude in code-based data analysis tasks
A new arXiv paper argues that standard LLM benchmarks overstate model capabilities by focusing on average performance on training-data-adjacent tasks while ignoring response variance and error magnitude. The authors introduce a novel benchmark requiring frontier LLMs to write code for data analysis tasks, comparing results against human expert submissions. Human experts outperformed the frontier LLM on average across multiple metrics and showed lower performance variability. The findings challenge the prevailing narrative that LLMs perform at human-expert level on knowledge economy tasks.
PlanBench-XL: Benchmark for LLM Agent Planning in Large-Scale Tool Ecosystems
Researchers introduce PlanBench-XL, an interactive benchmark of 327 retail tasks spanning 1,665 tools designed to evaluate LLM agents on long-horizon planning under retrieval-limited tool visibility. The benchmark includes a blocking mechanism simulating real-world disruptions such as missing or failing tools, forcing agents to detect and recover from broken execution paths. Experiments on ten leading LLMs reveal severe performance degradation: GPT-5.4 drops from 51.90% accuracy in unblocked settings to 11.36% under the most severe blocking condition, highlighting fragility in adaptive planning for large, imperfect tool environments.
Benchmark and study of LLM agents in deliberative multi-agent collaboration under partial observability
Researchers introduce a scalable benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on cooperative joint decision-making tasks where agents must exchange information under partial and asymmetric observations to reach a shared decision. A systematic evaluation of representative LLMs finds that state-of-the-art models still struggle with complex deliberative collaboration, failing in either information alignment or downstream reasoning even with external mathematical tools. Diagnostic analysis also reveals that deliberation can enable reflection and error correction, sometimes outperforming centralized baselines, offering a nuanced picture of multi-agent LLM capabilities.
CM-LRS: A capital markets reliability benchmark for LLM workflow outputs
Researchers introduce CM-LRS (Capital Markets LLM Reliability Score), a seven-dimension evaluation framework assessing LLM outputs at the workflow level rather than the question-answer layer, targeting regulated capital-markets use cases such as DCM/ECM term extraction, M&A comparables, and issuer profiling. The benchmark is demonstrated on five workflows using public SEC EDGAR and UK takeover filings, scoring four models across four LLM judges. Key findings: frontier closed-source models cluster tightly (Sonnet 4.6 = 4.31, Opus 4.7 = 4.30, GPT-5.5 = 4.09) while Llama 3.3 70B lags at 3.15, with the gap concentrated in retrieval and synthesis tasks rather than extraction. The work advances domain-specific evaluation methodology for high-stakes financial workflows where regulatory defensibility matters.
DataGovBench: Benchmarking LLMs on Real-World Governmental Data Analysis Tasks
Researchers introduce DataGovBench, a benchmark derived from governmental open data designed to evaluate LLMs on practical data analysis tasks beyond simple fact retrieval from small tables. The benchmark covers two tasks: Table QA (complex decomposable questions with textual or visualization outputs) and Table Insight (exploratory data analysis for expert-level findings). Experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs, with and without agentic frameworks, reveal significant performance gaps, suggesting current systems fall well short of real-world data analytics demands.
LLM vs. first-year PhD student on EconCS research: workflow study using stable menus of public goods
A preprint uses an open problem from EC 2025 as a testbed to evaluate AI-assisted research workflows in economics and computer science. The study examines whether human intuition in prompts, multi-turn interaction, and LLM capability compare favorably to a first-year PhD student's contributions. Key findings: human intuition in prompts improves LLM 'taste', multi-turn workflows help when encouraging ambitious steps, and the LLM performs slightly below the first-year PhD student on the same problem. The work contributes empirical evidence on the practical utility and limits of LLMs as research collaborators in formal theory domains.
RRBench: evaluating open-weight LLMs on longitudinal data preparation tasks in governance-restricted settings
Researchers from UCL introduce RRBench, an open-source benchmark and evaluation framework for assessing open-weight LLMs on data preparation tasks in longitudinal population studies, where cloud-based models are prohibited by data governance rules. The benchmark uses ground-truth cleaning scripts from six sweeps of a British cohort study, covering tasks like category harmonization and multi-wave merging, with automated evaluation of LLM-generated R code. Current 31–35B parameter open-weight models achieve up to 87.9% average task completion on consumer-grade hardware, suggesting a viable path for AI-assisted data preparation in privacy-sensitive research contexts.