AgentTime: Can Agents Estimate and Control Their Own Runtime?
cs.AI
Submitted: 2026-10-07
Updated: 2026-10-08
Comments: Website: https://agenttimebench.com Code: https://github.com/michaelofengenden/agenttimebench
Code: https://github.com/michaelofengenden/agenttimebench
Project page: https://agenttimebench.com
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: An essential control of AI agents is their ability to manage runtime.
Abstract
An essential control of AI agents is their ability to manage runtime. This ability requires a sense of time-awareness, to predict and estimate wall-clock time and to control their own actions. Prior work has focused on time-awareness, but duration-following and control in native agent harnesses remain unexplored. We present AgentTime, a benchmark for testing whether agents can work for a requested duration, predict their runtime, and estimate elapsed time afterward. It comprises 222 tasks from 18 sources spanning coding, computer use, agentic work, and automated research. Duration-following experiments append a single instruction specifying how long to work, with requests ranging from about a minute to multiple days. Accuracy on these instructions varies substantially: Fable 5.1 in Claude Code deviates from requested runtimes by a typical factor of 2.9 times, compared with only 1.2 times for GPT-6 Astra in Codex. However, matching the requested runtime does not, by itself, establish continued work on the task. Among 158 reviewed Astra runs with classifiable transcripts, 14 explicitly slept after appearing to finish. In forecasting experiments, predictions tend to overestimate natural runtimes. In retrospective experiments, removing temporal information more than doubles deviation for Sol and Astra and nearly doubles it for Fable. An agent's ability to complete a task does not guarantee that it can control its own time or work for the whole requested duration. For agents to run reliably, safely, and autonomously over long horizons, we require the evaluation of both.
Sources
- L1: Controlling How Long A Reasoning Model Thinks With Reinforcement Learning
- TUA-Bench: A Benchmark for General-Purpose Terminal-Use Agents
- Reasoning Models Struggle to Control their Chains of Thought
- Your LLM Agents are Temporally Blind: The Misalignment Between Tool Use Decisions and Human Time Perception
- TimeBench: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Temporal Reasoning Abilities in Large Language Models
- WildClawBench: A Benchmark for Real-World, Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation
- Calibrate-Then-Act: Cost-Aware Exploration in LLM Agents
- Test of Time: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Temporal Reasoning
- Can LLMs Perceive Time? An Empirical Investigation
- TReMu: Towards Neuro-Symbolic Temporal Reasoning for LLM-Agents with Memory in Multi-Session Dialogues
- Token-Budget-Aware LLM Reasoning
- $\texttt{YC-Bench}$: Benchmarking AI Agents for Long-Term Planning and Consistent Execution
- DeepSWE: Measuring Frontier Coding Agents on Original, Long-Horizon Engineering Tasks
- ALE-Bench: A Benchmark for Long-Horizon Objective-Driven Algorithm Engineering
- Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks
- Me, Myself, and AI: The Situational Awareness Dataset (SAD) for LLMs
- BAGEN: Are LLM Agents Budget-Aware?
- BRIDGE: Predicting Human Task Completion Time From Model Performance
- Budget-Aware Tool-Use Enables Effective Agent Scaling
- Timely Machine: Awareness of Time Makes Test-Time Scaling Agentic
Related papers
- MAVEN-T: Reinforced Heterogeneous Distillation for Real-Time Multi-Agent Trajectory Prediction
- Model Discovery Agent: LLM-assisted Bayesian experiment design for data-efficient discovery of mechanistic world models
- Agents' Last Exam
- The Clinician's Veto: Navigating Trust, Liability, and Uncertainty in Autonomous AI Prescribing
- MindHelper: Closed-Loop Embodied Mental-State Reasoning for Precision Intervention
- Incumbent Advantage: Brand Bias and Cognitive Manipulation Dynamics in LLM Recommendation Systems