Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2605.30434

LongDS-Bench: On the Failure of Long-Horizon Agentic Data Analysis

Abstract

Real-world data analysis is inherently iterative, yet existing benchmarks mostly evaluate isolated or short interactive tasks, leaving agents' ability to track evolving analytical context over long horizons untested. We introduce LongDS, a benchmark for long-horizon, multi-turn data analysis where agents must maintain, update, restore, and compose evolving analytical states. LongDS comprises 68 tasks constructed from real-world Kaggle notebooks, spanning 2,225 turns across six domains including Geoscience, Business, and Education. Tasks are designed around state-evolution patterns (e.g., counterfactual perturbation, rollback, multi-state composition), with an average dependency span of 11.3 turns. Evaluating five state-of-the-art models, we find that the best model reaches only 48.45% average accuracy, performance drops nearly 47 points from early to late turns, and long-horizon errors account for 52%--69% of failures. Further analysis shows that additional agent steps do not necessarily improve performance, suggesting that the key bottleneck is maintaining a correct analytical state rather than increasing interaction budget. We release LongDS to support research on reliable long-horizon agentic data analysis. Code and data are released at https://github.com/zjunlp/DataMind.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Kewei Xu, Xiaoben Lu, Shuofei Qiao, Zihan Ding, Haoming Xu, Lei Liang, Ningyu Zhang. 2026-09-05. LongDS-Bench: On the Failure of Long-Horizon Agentic Data Analysis. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.30434

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

CyrillicQA: The Influence of Phonetically Encoded Secret Language on LLM Performance

Due to the selection of their training data, large language models (LLMs) perform best on standard-language inputs from languages using the Latin alphabet with large speaker populations, while disadvantaging other language varieties. Nevertheless, they can also be a versatile tool for preserving precisely such endangered languages. But do they also possess the necessary creativity and capacity for abstraction to decode phonetically encoded language the same way humans do?

cs.CL

KARMA: Knowledge graph-based Automated Reasoning Materialization and Alignment

Template-based contrastive synthesis is scalable, but its candidates often differ only in a few entity-slots while sequence-level optimization spreads supervision over mostly shared templates. We formalize this as the Resolution Mismatch Problem and propose KARMA, which enumerates schema-constrained paths over domain knowledge graphs and verbalizes them into slot-aligned contrastive candidates. Slot-Parallel Alignment (SPA) then applies a decoupled slot-level objective to route preference supervision to discriminative entity-slots, with slot-aware masked attention serving as an optional packed-evaluation implementation. Across biomedical, computer-science, and chemistry benchmarks, KARMA outperforms base LLM and same-data SFT baselines, and compares favorably with sequence- and token-level preference methods.

cs.CL

MOLE: Detecting Insider Threats in AI Agents

Model misalignment, prompt injection, or operator misuse could lead AI agents operating frontier-lab accounts to exfiltrate model weights, poison training data, or weaken release gates. Existing benchmarks do not test whether defenders can detect this activity among routine work under a limited review budget. We introduce MOLE, an open benchmark of 150 AI-operated accounts sharing 9 stateful services over 30 workdays, with 12 threats and 8 corpora from four models totaling roughly 20 billion tokens. Of 39 agent models, 72% complete most assigned harmful objectives and agent refusal does not predict completion. MOLE enables comparison of 40 monitors across corpus generators, observability levels, and threats; even the best evaluated monitor in our single-day audit-event comparison misses nearly half of completed harm. MOLE also enables monitor development: benchmark-guided search improves a mid-tier monitor by 49-64%, while selective use of a stronger monitor improves budget-AUC by 10% over applying it to every account-day at comparable modeled cost.

cs.LG