Identical Runs, Different Results: Benchmarking AI Coding Agents on Open-Weight Models

Autonomous AI coding agents are becoming a core tool for ML practitioners in industry and research alike. Despite this growing adoption, no standardized benchmark exists to evaluate their ability to design, implement, and train models from scratch across diverse domains. We introduce 1GC-7RC (Single Graphic Card: Seven Research Challenges), a benchmark comprising seven ML tasks spanning language modeling, image classification, semantic segmentation, graph learning, tabular prediction, time-series forecasting, and text classification. Each task provides a locked data-preparation and evaluation script together with a baseline training script; the agent may only modify the training code, has no access to pretrained weights (with one controlled exception for semantic segmentation), no internet access, and must complete each task within a task-specific wall-clock budget (40-120 minutes) on a single GPU. We evaluate seven coding agents: five proprietary (Claude Code with Sonnet 4.6, Opus 4.6, and Opus 4.7; Codex CLI with GPT 5.5; and OpenCode with Qwen 3.6+) and two open-source (OpenCode with Kimi K2.5, Kimi K2.6). Across 5 runs per agent-task pair, we report substantial performance differences that reveal varying levels of implicit ML knowledge, planning ability, and time-budget management. The benchmark, harness, and all evaluation artifacts are publicly available on GitHub at https://github.com/Strolchii/1GC-7RC-Benchmark to facilitate reproducible comparison of future agents. Because our benchmark design is modular, the benchmark can be extended to new tasks and domains, adapted to different GPU budgets, and used to study multi-agent settings, making it a flexible platform for future research on autonomous research agents.

We introduce StaminaBench, a benchmark that measures the stamina of coding agents: how many consecutive interaction turns (change requests) they can handle before failing. Unlike the prevailing fraction-of-tasks-solved metric, this matches real vibe-coding where sessions run dozens or hundreds of turns. In StaminaBench, agents implement a REST API server and modify it across a tunable number of procedurally generated follow-up change requests - 100 in our experiments, resulting in codebases of up to 6,000 lines. Tests are generated fully programmatically without LLM involvement, ensuring reproducibility and reliability; change sequences are drawn from either a hardcoded or LLM-driven sampler, both constrained to a structured action space to ensure changes are valid. The agent and the server run in an isolated environment and communicate with the benchmark through HTTP, making testing fully black-box and language-agnostic. We evaluate six agent harnesses paired with seven open-source LLMs across 20 scenarios of 100 turns each and find that: (1) all the tested models fail within 5-6 turns, confirming that vibe-coding-style programming without thorough testing produces bugs; (2) passing test feedback back to the agent and allowing it to retry improves passed turn count by up to 12x; and (3) a good harness is required for strong performance: stronger models exhibit up to a 6x gap between their best and worst harness, while weaker models fail with any harness. We release the benchmark and the generated tasks to enable further research into multi-turn coding agent behavior. Benchmark code and data: github.com/amazon-science/StaminaBench.

Reproducing a machine learning paper involves most research steps, from installing software and debugging to running experiments, work that AI agents increasingly do. We introduce RECLAIM, a benchmark of 100 NeurIPS 2025 papers that can be rebuilt yearly from new conferences. For each paper we fix in advance the result to reproduce, what counts as a successful reproduction, and a GPU-hour budget. An agent must reproduce that result using the paper and whatever its authors released. What the authors released decides the difficulty tier. Run-tier releases include code, data, and weights; Retrain-tier releases lack weights, so the agent trains the model; Reimplement-tier releases lack code, so the agent writes it. A separate language model grades runs from logs and outputs rather than agents' reports. We run four agents once per paper; the best agent in each tier reproduces only 41% of Run-tier papers, 27% at Retrain, and 15% at Reimplement, where every agent does worst. Failed attempts use on average 29% of their budget, so most stop with budget left. The most common agent error is writing the method without checking any part against the paper's numbers, in 63 of 400 runs.