Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.29128

APIFlow-Bench: Measuring Whether Agents Survive Long, Dependent API Workflows

Zelin Wan·Arash Nourian·Xiaoxiao Li·Nihar Nandan·Kamalakannan Nandagopal
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Tool-using agents are commonly evaluated by a single bit: whether an end-to-end workflow completed. This metric fails to distinguish failures that matter in production, such as expired credentials, malformed payloads, or correct execution followed by incorrect final delivery. We introduce APIFlow-Bench, a fully auditable benchmark for long-horizon, dependent REST-API workflows that decomposes performance into seven engineering capabilities and requires agents to produce answers supported by the actual call path. We generate synthetic API worlds forward, subtask by subtask; each subtask is admitted only after a zero-LLM self-test triad verifies its grader and an oracle establishes solvability, and an adversarial audit identified and fixed six grader exploits. Grading is deterministic and provenance-sensitive: a state check traces a mock-minted canary through the API data flow to the response the answer must originate from, and a typed answer card is verified field by field. We release all answer keys and 44,362 unredacted execution transcripts. Across 19 frontier and open-weight models under one neutral scaffold, we find: (1) longer dependency chains degrade success, from 93% on individual subtasks to 74% on clean 20-subtask chains and 61% when including the 8% of chain trials that a model-consensus screen flags as passed by no model; (2) reliability separates models more than best-case capability, with best-of-five spanning seven points but all-five-of-five reliability spanning 44 points; (3) the independent-error account of compounding failure does not fit the data: pass rates on 20-subtask chains are 33 percentage points above the product of subtask-level rates, and on the clean slice 77% of failing runs reached the correct final state and failed only at delivery.

Explore related subjects

cs.AIcs.LGcs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Zelin Wan, Arash Nourian, Xiaoxiao Li, Nihar Nandan, Kamalakannan Nandagopal. 2026-08-29. APIFlow-Bench: Measuring Whether Agents Survive Long, Dependent API Workflows. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29128

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.AI subjectcs.LG subjectcs.SE subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗