LongHarness Bench: Stress-Testing Language Model Harnesses for Long-Context Reasoning

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated rapidly improving long-context capabilities, prompting a wave of benchmarks designed to evaluate them. However, existing long-context evaluations - from Needle-in-a-Haystack (NIAH) tests to more recent multi-hop reasoning and summarization tasks - predominantly measure average-case performance, and many are either saturated or lack robustness. Notably absent is a systematic way to probe how models perform as we scale up the difficulty of tasks along various axes. We address this gap by proposing PredicateLongBench, a benchmark that stress-tests long-context reasoning by asking models to identify the longest contiguous subsequence of words in a long input that satisfies given predicates/constraints (e.g., lexicographic ordering), drawn from a broader predicate class. The central innovation of our benchmark is the identification and systematic exploration of multiple different axes of difficulty which test multiple aspects of long context understanding. We provide two complementary generation pipelines - a fully synthetic setup using random word-like strings, and a real-world setup that samples words from natural documents while preserving their distributional properties. We find that frontier models struggle to perform well as we scale up the difficulty of tasks along our axes, demonstrating the utility of our benchmark in understanding the limitations of current long-context capabilities. Furthermore, the tasks in PredicateLongBench, though challenging, are conceptually simple and do not require LLM-based generations or judges.

As LLMs are increasingly deployed within agentic systems, their capabilities depend not only on the model weights but also on the harness: the prompts, tools, control flow, memory, and orchestration code surrounding them. This makes automated harness optimization -- the iterative and evaluation-guided improvement of a harness by an AI system -- both an important route to improving AI systems and a demanding capability for AI systems themselves. Yet the community lacks a common protocol for measuring how well frontier LLMs perform at this task. We introduce HarnessOpt-Bench, a benchmark for end-to-end harness optimization under expensive and stochastic evaluation. An optimizer, an LLM paired with a coding harness, receives a target agent's seed harness, graded evaluation feedback, and a fixed target-evaluation budget. It edits the harness and nominates a final candidate, which is scored by its normalized gain over the seed on a held-out test partition that remains inaccessible throughout search. A trusted execution environment enforces the evaluation boundary, meters target-agent resource use, and preserves candidate versions for audit. We evaluate 5 frontier LLMs as optimizers both under a shared coding harness and under their native harnesses across 4 downstream tasks, over 111 scored runs. Experiment results show that optimizer models separate more than the coding harnesses they act through, native harnesses are not consistently superior, and gains vary substantially across tasks and seed regimes. These results establish harness optimization as a measurable and discriminative capability with large space for improvement.

Long-context language models now advertise context windows up to millions of tokens, yet evaluations typically report a single length or a narrow task family, masking two failure modes: performance can collapse as length grows, and strong retrieval need not transfer to downstream use. We present ATLAS, a benchmarking framework that redefines long-context evaluation as length-dependent capability profiling. ATLAS contributes three methodological principles:(i) a layered taxonomy separating foundational operations from application workloads so failures can be attributed, (ii) length-aware AUC scoring that integrates score-length curves over a fixed 8K-1M grid, replacing single-point metrics with full degradation profiles, and (iii) ATLAScore, a harmonic-mean aggregate over taxonomy categories that penalizes imbalanced profiles, with end-to-end uncertainty propagation from subset scores through the nonlinear final aggregate. We instantiate the framework across eight capability dimensions with nine auditable components and 6,438 instances, and evaluate 26 models. Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview leads at 128K, Claude-Opus-4.6 leads at 1M. Rankings reshuffle substantially between ATLASscore@8K-128K and ATLASscore@8K-1M: 7 models move by at least two ranks, and the two taxonomy layers share only 61% of cross-model variance, with individual rank gaps up to 12 positions. These results support reporting long-context quality by capability and length, not by a single headline score.