构建首个全流程图分析评估基准,测试大模型代理真实操作能力
GABench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Agents on Graph Analysis Tasks

- 设计可执行工具链,支持真实图数据操作与多步规划
- 覆盖3类图、4类任务,生成10400个带真值的任务
- 揭示工具调用质量比数量更重要,现有框架仍有明显短板
大型语言模型代理在规划、使用工具和与外部环境交互方面日益成熟,通常依赖代理框架管理状态并协调多步骤执行。图分析为评估其代理能力提供了理想场景,因其要求代理在图环境中访问数据并执行操作。然而,现有的图基准对任务和图类型的覆盖有限,且通常将图分析简化为文本问答,将图信息直接嵌入提示,限制了对端到端代理能力的评估。为此,我们提出GABench,一个全面的代理式图分析评估基准。GABench涵盖三种图类型,覆盖四类图分析任务:图检索、图论、图机器学习和图开放式问答。同时提供84个可执行工具,用于访问图数据和执行多样化的图操作。基于这些工具,我们构建了代理式图分析任务生成流水线,并生成10400个具有可验证真值的任务。利用GABench,我们评估了一系列前沿大模型与代理框架。实验揭示三个关键发现:(1) 现有大模型代理仍难以应对复杂图分析任务;(2) 框架选择显著影响性能,但现有框架在复杂图任务上仍受限;(3) 图分析更依赖工具调用质量而非数量。这些发现为大模型代理在图分析领域的开发与评估提供了实践指导。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly capable of planning, using tools, and interacting with external environments. They are typically supported by harnesses, which manage state and coordinate multi-step execution. Graph analysis provides a promising setting for evaluating their agentic capabilities, because it requires agents to access data and execute operations in a graph environment. However, existing graph benchmarks for LLMs provide limited coverage of graph tasks and graph types, making it difficult to comprehensively evaluate LLM agents. Moreover, they typically formulate graph analysis as text-based question answering, where graph information is directly provided in the prompt, limiting the evaluation of end-to-end agentic capabilities. To address these limitations, we introduce GABench, a comprehensive benchmark for agentic graph analysis. GABench spans three graph types and covers four graph analysis task categories: graph retrieval, graph theory, graph machine learning, and graph open-ended question answering. GABench also provides 84 executable tools for accessing graph data and performing diverse graph operations. Building on these tools, we develop an agentic graph analysis task generation pipeline and construct 10,400 tasks with verifiable ground truth.Using GABench, we evaluate a range of frontier LLMs and agent harnesses. Our experiments reveal three key findings: (1) Existing LLM agents still struggle with complex graph analysis tasks. (2) Harness choice significantly affects performance, yet existing harnesses remain limited on complex graph tasks. (3) Graph analysis depends more on tool-call quality than quantity. Our findings provide practical insights into the development and evaluation of LLM agents for graph analysis.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。