LiveMACE
Agents trade in live financial markets, and the benchmark scores the process capabilities behind their decisions, not only returns.
57 upvotes on Hugging Face papers.
In the authors’ words
Evaluating agents by outcomes alone can obscure the capabilities that produce them. This problem is especially pronounced in evolving environments, where outcomes reflect a closed-loop interaction between agent behavior and changing external conditions. We introduce LiveMACEBench, a process-aware benchmark that uses live financial markets as a naturally evolving testbed for persistent LLM agents. Five frontier LLMs operate along continuous trajectories under matched Tool Use, Persistent Memory, Rule Following, and Multi-Agent Collaboration configurations. We evaluate them through both realized outcomes and mechanism-specific diagnostics derived from complete decision traces. Across 30 days of live evaluation, we find a pronounced outcome-capability gap: realized returns often diverge from capability-specific measurements, and similar outcomes can arise from markedly different patterns of mechanism use. Trace-level diagnostics further expose distinct bottlenecks across capabilities, demonstrating that mechanism access, effective mechanism use, and downstream performance are not interchangeable measures of agent capability. LiveMACEBench makes this distinction measurable, turning live markets from a performance leaderboard into a diagnostic environment for agent capability
- Level
- Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
No scores here yet
No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for LiveMACE yet.
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
More in Law, finance and medicine
- HealthBench Professional In use 525 physician-authored tasks from real clinician chats (care consult, documentation, research) with physician-adjudicated rubrics. Claude Sonnet 5.5 69.2%
- MedXpertQA-MM In use Models answer expert-level medical exam questions that combine images with clinical records and test results. Scoring is accuracy.
Qwen 3.8 Max 80.4% - HealthBench In use 5,000 realistic health conversations graded against physician-written rubrics. A length-adjusted variant penalizes verbosity. GPT-5 67.2%
- KBL In use Models answer Korean legal knowledge and reasoning tasks and Korean bar exam questions. It has 7 knowledge tasks, 4 reasoning tasks and 2,510 bar exam items.
Solar Pro 4 77.5% - KorMedMCQA In use Models answer 7,469 multiple-choice questions from Korean licensing exams for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and dentists, held from 2012 to 2024. Solar Pro 4 93.2%
- PRBench In use Model answers 1,100 expert-written law and finance questions. LLM judge grades against weighted expert rubrics of 10-30 criteria each.
Muse Spark 1.3 61.6%