AutoGym: Blueprint-First Generation of Verifiable Agent Gyms
Organizations: Amazon AGI
Abstract
Training agents with reinforcement learning requires a gym, comprising a task, an executable environment in which the task can be attempted, and a verifier that reliably distinguishes success from failure. Constructing such gyms remains manual, expensive, and static. Task sets saturate as models improve and are increasingly exposed to contamination. Synthetic generation offers scale, but single-pass synthesis produces tasks whose difficulty is largely cosmetic. Models comparable in capability solve them despite convoluted phrasing, and correctness must be adjudicated post-hoc by unreliable LLM judges. We present AutoGym, a framework that generates complete gyms (tasks, executable environments, and verifiers) from a minimal domain seed or prior model trajectories. AutoGym introduces three mechanisms. (1) Blueprint-first generation specifies the valid solution space, environment requirements, and verification criteria before the environment is materialized, making solvability a construction prerequisite rather than a property verified after the fact. (2) Explicit generation parameters control task topology, interaction depth, capability axes, question obfuscation, and distractor composition, enabling fine-grained difficulty steering. (3) Active curriculum synthesis uses performance-informed calibration to adjust the distribution over these parameters as model capabilities evolve. Across productivity and temporal-reasoning settings, AutoGym generates gyms spanning the capability spectrum, including instances that challenge frontier models.
Figures & tables
| Claude Opus 4.6 | gpt-oss-120b | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gym | Hard (%) | Med (%) | Easy (%) | Hard (%) | Med (%) | Easy (%) |
| Human expert-authored, N = 300 | 21.5 | 12.4 | 66.1 | 40.0 | 20.0 | 40.0 |
| Agent World Model, N = 217 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 90.0 | 9.0 | 13.0 | 78.0 |
| AutoGym, C1 (low), N = 297 | 10.0 | 34.7 | 55.3 | 33.4 | 40.5 | 26.1 |
| AutoGym, C2 (mid-to-hard), N = 280 | 39.0 | 10.0 | 51.0 | 70.0 | 17.0 | 13.0 |
| Hard (%) | Medium (%) | Easy (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before iterative repair (350 tasks) | 57.0 | 13.0 | 30.0 |
| After iterative repair (280 retained) | 39.0 | 10.0 | 51.0 |
| Scope compliance | Groundedness | Scalability | Task realism | Environment realism | Diversity | Interface realism | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 92.7 | 91.4 | 90.0 | 89.0 | 86.0 | 80.0 | 78.0 |
| Claude Opus 4.6 | gpt-oss-120b | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hard (%) | Med (%) | Easy (%) | Hard (%) | Med (%) | Easy (%) | |
| Temporal-reasoning suite | 6.5 | 4.3 | 89.2 | 20.7 | 20.6 | 58.7 |
| Scope compliance | Groundedness | Scalability | Task realism | Environment realism | Diversity | Interface realism | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score | 96.7 | 93.4 | 97.0 | 98.0 | 96.3 | 85.0 | 99.0 |
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Tier | Pattern | Description | Configurable | Default Range |
| 1 | Direct Retrieval | Locate one entity, extract a value or subset | – | – |
| 2 | Multi-hop | Output of query A is the filter for query B | No of hops | 2–4 |
| 2 | Multi-constraint | Multiple filter criteria applied simultaneously | No of constraints | 2–5 |
| 2 | List Aggregation | Collect all matching items exhaustively | No of list elements | 3–20 |
| 3 | Cross-source Comparison | Same metric from 2+ independent sources, compare or rank | No of sources | 2–4 |
| 3 | Parallel Synthesis | N entities, different dimensions of same subject, combine into unified answer | No of entities to merge | 3–5 |
| Axis | Description |
|---|---|
| Quantitative computation | Answer requires arithmetic (count, sum, ratio, percentage, weighted average), not just extraction |
| Exhaustive aggregation | Must collect all matching items across paginated results without stopping early |
| Ranking / comparison | Find max/min/top-N/outlier across a set, or compare entities on multiple dimensions |
| Temporal reasoning | Filter by time window, compare across periods, or handle versioned/dated records |
| Negative verification | Correct answer may be “none” / “zero” / “not found”; agent must report absence honestly |
| Implicit criteria | The question does not state the threshold or rule; the agent must discover it from a reference resource |
| Score | Level | What the request contains |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0–0.3 | Moderate | May name the general domain area, time scope, and regulatory frameworks. Specific entities and thresholds still omitted. |
| 0.4–0.6 | Vague | States only the goal. No scope hints, time references, or specific entities. |
| 0.7–0.9 | Very vague | 1–2 sentences of business-intent language only. |
| 1.0 | Maximally vague | Contains zero nouns from the blueprint’s entity names. Agent must discover data sources entirely on its own. |
| Parameter | C1 | C2 |
|---|---|---|
| Scenario and persona | ||
| No of scenarios | 5 | 5 |
| No of personas per scenario | 5 | 5 |
| Task topology weights | ||
| Tier 1 | 0.50 | 0.10 |
| Tier 2 | 0.30 | 0.40 |
| Expert authoring | AutoGym (mid-tier) | AutoGym (frontier) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost | 1000 | $2-5 | $3-8 |
| Wall-clock time | 1-1.5 hours | 15.6 min | 15.6 min |
| Expert authoring | AutoGym (mid-tier) | AutoGym (frontier) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost | 50K | $100–150 | $150–200 |
| Wall-clock time | 2–4 weeks | 54 minutes | 54 minutes |
Synthetic Benchmark Generation
Synthetic benchmark generation creates controlled, verifiable evaluation tasks and datasets to test models across diverse settings.
See all 287 papers