/ Paper arXiv 2611.03412
In short
In shortReport a mistake
Key numbers
From the paperCopied from the abstract, not written by AI.
Abstract
From the paperThe authors' own words.
LLM agents are judged by what they deliver, and in professional work what gets delivered is a project, not a task. A project pays off only if the whole package holds, and one weak part can limit the value of the rest. Yet existing benchmarks mostly test agents on one task at a time, leaving a gap between the capability we measure and the outcome that makes agents useful. To address this gap, we introduce DeliverBench, which tests whether agents can carry a project from brief to final delivery. Its 11 projects, spanning financial due diligence, legal contract drafting, and drug safety reporting, are reconstructed with 13 domain experts from real materials and chain 150 subtasks through 2-15 rounds of new materials and client feedback. Because no reference outputs are injected, agents inherit their own errors from one task to the next. Expert rubrics then score every checkpoint as well as the final package. Across seven model-harness systems, even the best system scores only 65.0 out of 100 on final delivery and passes 50.0% of subtasks at a 90-point threshold. The failures are often failures of carrying work forward: in one audit project, all seven systems addressed the review findings, but only one preserved traceability. Together, these results suggest that task-level capability does not simply compose into delivery, which also depends on keeping the work coherent as it evolves.
From the full paper
From the paperCopied from the paper itself by our code.
Reading the paper on arXiv…
Try it
Code, models and demos that use this paper.
- Datasets:
- deliverbench/DeliverBench ↗1 dataset on Hugging Face
Ask this paper
/ Ask a questionAnswers come from the full paper and name the section
/ Your notes
Select text in the abstract to highlight it or add a note. They stay in this browser.