ClawArena: Benchmarking AI Agents in Evolving Information Environments

TL;DR

ClawArena is a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate AI agents' ability to maintain accurate beliefs in complex, evolving information environments with conflicting and partial data sources.

Contribution

It introduces a novel benchmark with multi-source conflict reasoning, dynamic belief revision, and implicit personalization challenges, along with diverse scenarios and evaluation formats.

Findings

Model capability explains 29-point score variation.

Framework design influences up to 24-point score variation.

Belief revision difficulty depends on update strategy, not volume.

Abstract

AI agents deployed as persistent assistants must maintain correct beliefs as their information environment evolves. In practice, evidence is scattered across heterogeneous sources that often contradict one another, new information can invalidate earlier conclusions, and user preferences surface through corrections rather than explicit instructions. Existing benchmarks largely assume static, single-authority settings and do not evaluate whether agents can keep up with this complexity. We introduce ClawArena, a benchmark for evaluating AI agents in evolving information environments. Each scenario maintains a complete hidden ground truth while exposing the agent only to noisy, partial, and sometimes contradictory traces across multi-channel sessions, workspace files, and staged updates. Evaluation is organized around three coupled challenges: multi-source conflict reasoning, dynamic belief revision, and implicit personalization, whose interactions yield a 14-category question taxonomy. Two question formats, multi-choice (set-selection) and shell-based executable checks, test both reasoning and workspace grounding. ClawArena comprises 12 multi-turn scenarios spanning 337 evaluation rounds with 45 dynamic updates, evaluated across five agent frameworks and 18 language models from proprietary, community-accessible, and self-hosted sources. Experiments show that model capability accounts for a 29-point score range across models while framework design accounts for up to a 24-point range, that MetaClaw's skill overlay reliably improves score without degrading accuracy, and that belief revision difficulty is determined by update design strategy rather than update volume. Code is available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/ClawArena.