🚀NEW COURSEVibe Coding AI Apps with Claude Code 🤖✨Enroll now
Agents · Evaluation · Memory

OdysseyBench

Free while signed in. Answers cite the passages they came from.

First page
OdysseyBench
The curator’s take

A new benchmark and data‑generation pipeline to test agents on realistic, multi‑day office tasks across Word, Excel, PDF, Email, and Calendar. It introduces OdysseyBench (two splits) and HOMERAGENTS (an automated multi‑agent generator), with evaluations showing large gaps between human and model performance and clear benefits from semantically compressed memory.

Key points
01

What’s new: OdysseyBench targets long‑horizon, context‑dependent workflows instead of atomic tasks. Two splits: OdysseyBench+ (300 tasks distilled from real OfficeBench cases) and OdysseyBench‑Neo (302 newly synthesized, more complex tasks). Tasks require retrieving key facts from multi‑day dialogues and coordinating actions across apps.

02

How it’s built: HOMERAGENTS has two paths. HOMERAGENTS+ iteratively turns atomic OfficeBench items into rich multi‑day dialogues via a generator‑verifier loop. HOMERAGENTS‑NEO plans, explores an app environment, generates tasks (intent, subtasks, eval criteria), and then synthesizes 5‑day dialogues. All agents use GPT‑4.1; at least five calendar days of dialogue are produced per task.

03

Data & evaluation: 602 total tasks: 153 single‑app, 166 two‑app, 283 three‑app. Neo conversations are longer and denser (≈49% more tokens) than Plus. Execution steps cluster around 3–15. Automated checks (exact/fuzzy/execution‑based) compute pass rate after running agents inside a Dockerized office stack; LLM‑judge and human curation raise data quality.

04

Main results: Performance drops as apps increase; even top models struggle on 3‑app tasks. Example: on OdysseyBench+, o3 goes 72.83%→30.36% from 1‑app to 3‑app; GPT‑4.1 goes 55.91%→12.50%. Humans exceed 90% across settings. RAG with semantic summaries beats raw retrieval at far lower token budgets; chunk‑level summaries reach ≈56% on Neo vs. 52% long‑context with ~20% tokens. Execution steps remain similar or shrink with summarized memory.

05

Where agents fail: Typical errors include missing referenced files, skipping required actions, wrong tool choice (e.g., trying to “create PDF” directly instead of writing in Word then converting), and poor planning order. File creation/editing in docx/xlsx is particularly error‑prone. The authors argue that semantic compression and coherent aggregation are essential for multi‑step reasoning in long contexts.

Every Monday
Get next week’s papers.

The same picks and the same summaries, in your inbox. Free, and 176 issues deep.

Subscribe on Substack