Abstract:Conversational agents are increasingly deployed in knowledge-intensive settings, where correct behavior depends on retrieving and applying domain-specific knowledge from large, proprietary, and unstructured corpora during live interactions with users. Yet most existing benchmarks evaluate retrieval or tool use independently of each other, creating a gap in realistic, fully agentic evaluation over unstructured data in long-horizon interactions. We introduce $τ$-Knowledge, an extension of $τ$-Bench for evaluating agents in environments where success depends on coordinating external, natural-language knowledge with tool outputs to produce verifiable, policy-compliant state changes. Our new domain, $τ$-Banking, models realistic fintech customer support workflows in which agents must navigate roughly 700 interconnected knowledge documents while executing tool-mediated account updates. Across embedding-based retrieval and terminal-based search, even frontier models with high reasoning budgets achieve only $\sim$25.5% pass^1, with reliability degrading sharply over repeated trials. Agents struggle to retrieve the correct documents from densely interlinked knowledge bases and to reason accurately over complex internal policies. Overall, $τ$-Knowledge provides a realistic testbed for developing agents that integrate unstructured knowledge in human-facing deployments.
Abstract:Existing benchmarks do not test language agents on their interaction with human users or ability to follow domain-specific rules, both of which are vital for deploying them in real world applications. We propose $\tau$-bench, a benchmark emulating dynamic conversations between a user (simulated by language models) and a language agent provided with domain-specific API tools and policy guidelines. We employ an efficient and faithful evaluation process that compares the database state at the end of a conversation with the annotated goal state. We also propose a new metric (pass^k) to evaluate the reliability of agent behavior over multiple trials. Our experiments show that even state-of-the-art function calling agents (like gpt-4o) succeed on <50% of the tasks, and are quite inconsistent (pass^8 <25% in retail). Our findings point to the need for methods that can improve the ability of agents to act consistently and follow rules reliably.