EnterpriseOps-Gym: Environments and Evaluations for Stateful Agentic Planning and Tool Use in Enterprise Settings

Large language models are shifting from passive information providers to active agents intended for complex workflows. However, their deployment as reliable AI workers in enterprise is stalled by benchmarks that fail to capture the intricacies of professional environments, specifically, the need for long-horizon planning amidst persistent state changes and strict access protocols. In this work, we introduce EnterpriseOps-Gym, a benchmark designed to evaluate agentic planning in realistic enterprise settings. Specifically, EnterpriseOps-Gym features a containerized sandbox with 164 database tables and 512 functional tools to mimic real-world search friction. Within this environment, agents are evaluated on 1,150 expert-curated tasks across eight mission-critical verticals (including Customer Service, HR, and IT). Our evaluation of 14 frontier models reveals critical limitations in state-of-the-art models: the top-performing Claude Opus 4.5 achieves only 37.4% success. Further analysis shows that providing oracle human plans improves performance by 14-35 percentage points, pinpointing strategic reasoning as the primary bottleneck. Additionally, agents frequently fail to refuse infeasible tasks (best model achieves 53.9%), leading to unintended and potentially harmful side effects. Our findings underscore that current agents are not yet ready for autonomous enterprise deployment. More broadly, EnterpriseOps-Gym provides a concrete testbed to advance the robustness of agentic planning in professional workflows.

Revitalizing Saturated Benchmarks: A Weighted Metric Approach for Differentiating Large Language Model Performance

Existing benchmarks are becoming saturated and struggle to separate model performances due to factors like data contamination and advancing LLM capabilities. This paper introduces EMDM (Enhanced Model Differentiation Metric), a novel weighted metric that revitalizes benchmarks by enhancing model separation. EMDM integrates final answer and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning correctness, assigning weights based on the complexity and reasoning depth required to solve a given sample in the evaluation data. Using a baseline LLM in two setups-Unguided, where the model has no prior exposure to test samples, and Guided, where the model has prior knowledge of the desired answer-EMDM distinguishes instances of varying difficulty. The CoT and answer correctness from these setups inform an optimization objective for weight assignment, resulting in a more nuanced evaluation of model performance. Compared to the exact match (EM) metric, which achieves 17% separation on ARC-Challenge, EMDM achieves 46%, demonstrating its effectiveness in differentiating models based on reasoning and knowledge requirements.