Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

The Amazing Agent Race: Strong Tool Users, Weak Navigators

Zae Myung Kim, Dongseok Lee, Jaehyung Kim, Vipul Raheja, Dongyeop KangPublished Apr 11, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.

Existing tool-use benchmarks for LLM agents are overwhelmingly linear: our analysis of six benchmarks shows 55 to 100% of instances are simple chains of 2 to 5 steps. We introduce The Amazing Agent Race (AAR), a benchmark featuring directed acyclic graph (DAG) puzzles (or "legs") with fork-merge tool chains. We release 1,400 instances across two variants: sequential (800 legs) and compositional (600 DAG legs). Agents must navigate Wikipedia, execute multi-step tool chains, and aggregate results into a verifiable answer. Legs are procedurally generated from Wikipedia seeds across four difficulty levels with live-API validation. Three complementary metrics (finish-line accuracy, pit-stop visit rate, and roadblock completion rate) separately diagnose navigation, tool-use, and arithmetic failures. Evaluating three agent frameworks on 1,400 legs, the best achieves only 37.2% accuracy. Navigation errors dominate (27 to 52% of trials) while tool-use errors remain below 17%, and agent architecture matters as much as model scale (Claude Code matches Codex CLI at 37% with 6x fewer tokens). The compositional structure of AAR reveals that agents fail not at calling tools but at navigating to the right pages, a blind spot invisible to linear benchmarks. The project page can be accessed at: https://minnesotanlp.github.io/the-amazing-agent-race

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: warm
Existing tool-use benchmarks for LLM agents are overwhelmingly linear: our analysis of six benchmarks shows 55 to 100% of instances are simple chains of 2 to 5 steps.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Aug 24, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Tasks

Agentic tool use, Reasoning / puzzle solving

Methods

Transformer

Domains

Large Language Models, AI Agents

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.