AI Agent Benchmarks

We propose BrickBench, a benchmark for agentic text-conditioned LEGO-set design. Given a prompt, an agent is tasked with producing an assembly that not only satisfies semantic and design criteria, but that can also be physically built. To do so, it must select parts from a discrete library and reason jointly about local and global constraints. We score validity, alignment, and design across three settings that vary in scale and part availability. We provide BrickAgent, an environment for coding agents to construct, inspect, and validate their designs. We find that leading agents largely satisfy verifiable physical and semantic requirements, but fall short of human designs. We release our benchmark and environment at http://www.brickben.ch

Adversarial games have driven advances from heuristic search to reinforcement learning, yet learning and adapting strategies from limited samples remain challenging. AI agents offer an alternative by turning game experience into revisions of executable policies. Building on heuristic learning (HL), we formalize Adversarial Heuristic Learning (AHL), a paradigm that uses AI agents as learning engines to refine game policies and supporting software while keeping model weights fixed. We introduce AAArena, a benchmark comprising 12 authentic adversarial games and 1,920 archived human programs, with an evaluation protocol modeled on real-world game competitions. Agents interpret rules, choose opponents, analyze replays, and revise game agents to achieve their highest ranking within fixed match and evaluation budgets. We evaluate \val{completedmodels} model and harness configurations: Opus5.5 with Claude Code earns 6 gold medals, while no evaluated configuration tops the remaining 6 human ladders. Performance is generally weaker in games with more complex rule specifications. Further experiments show that opponent selection and dense feedback support policy improvement, and that agents learn from both on-policy replays of their own matches and off-policy replays of other players' matches. These results highlight HL's potential in adversarial games and identify persistent challenges in game understanding, strategy implementation, and long-horizon policy development.

As claims about recursive self-improvement (RSI) and artificial general intelligence (AGI) proliferate, we ask a simple question: do frontier AI models have a sense of data, i.e., can they reliably select the right data for training? We introduce DataSense-Bench to study this capability through the fundamental problem of data selection and performance forecasting in machine learning. We ask AI agents to select and rank candidate training subsets that can be used to fine-tune a small LLM model. Agents are allowed to inspect the data, write and execute analysis code, and run model forward passes, but can not train the model or access the actual evaluation tasks. We then fine-tune the base model on each selected subset and evaluate its post-training performance under a standardized protocol. We instantiate the benchmark in terminal problem solving and tool use, selecting trajectories from OpenThoughts-Agent and EnvScaler and evaluating on TBLite and BFCL, respectively. We then evaluate the agents along two complementary dimensions: the post-training performance of the top-ranked subset, reflecting the ability to identify high-value training data, and ranking accuracy, reflecting the ability to predict the relative performance of the selected subsets. In our experiments, selection gains over random selection are limited; agents do not reliably rank their selected groups, and ranking ability does not hold consistently across tasks: Astra identifies the best group in all three tool-use runs but in only one of three terminal runs. Analysis of execution traces on both tasks shows that agents often use similar data signals while interpreting their training value differently.

Black-box optimization (BBO) arises in many scientific and engineering problems where objective evaluations are expensive and limited. Recent large language model (LLM) agents offer a new way to approach BBO by combining task semantics, computation, optimization tools, and feedback-driven decision making, showing great potential due to the integration with mathematically rigorous tools. However, existing agentic BBO studies use different task domains and system configurations, making their results difficult to compare and the effects of individual design choices hard to isolate. We therefore introduce AgenticBBO-Bench, a cross-domain benchmark for agentic BBO spanning synthetic functions, hyperparameter optimization, database tuning, chip design, and molecular design under a unified finite-budget evaluation protocol. In our experiments, agentic BBO achieves higher family-averaged scores than direct LLM-based methods in all five domains and outperforms the best numerical optimizers in four. We further study three factors shaping agent performance: optimization tools, task information and prior knowledge, and the role of the LLM during search. Our results show that additional numerical tools do not consistently improve performance, task semantics are broadly useful while more specific priors are less reliable, and numerical optimizers can effectively absorb gains from search trajectories established by the agent. Finally, we introduce a five-task frontier challenge within AgenticBBO-Bench and evaluate seven LLMs under the Codex agent harness, where GPT-6 Astra and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash lie on the Pareto frontier of performance and cost among the evaluated models. Our code is available at https://github.com/lamda-bbo/agentic-bbo.

Verifier scores now serve as both benchmark metrics and training rewards for large language model (LLM) agents, and a change in score is routinely read as a change in capability. It may instead reflect a change in the evaluation. We introduce TRACE, a protocol that turns a score change from a verdict into a testable diagnosis: it applies a targeted change to one part of an evaluation, compares paired runs, checks whether the agent's behavior changed, and rescores unchanged trajectories to test whether the scoring rule is responsible. In a controlled suite of 25 synthetic tasks, renaming tools lowers a scripted agent's score by 0.250 even though it performs exactly the same operations; restoring the original names at scoring time closes the entire gap, while the same mutation exposes a genuine behavioral failure in a second agent. On public $τ^2$-bench tasks with four LLM agents, an initial 30-task study finds mixed reward changes whose one clear effect does not replicate. In a larger follow-up on 88 new tasks with repeated runs per condition, renaming tools or reformatting tool outputs leaves reward unchanged to within $\pm$0.10 for seven of eight agent-change pairs, whereas tool names that deliberately mislead lower every agent's reward by 0.20-0.44, showing that the setup can detect real effects. Identical reruns flip 15-36% of task outcomes, so single-run comparisons cannot separate presentation effects from run-to-run variation. Two frontier LLM judges give consistent verdicts when a fixed trajectory is presented differently, yet disagree with each other on 57% of the same records, largely because one grades procedure rather than outcome. TRACE thus separates what a score change says about the agent from what it says about the measurement.

Coding assistants such as Claude Code and Codex have become a major application of LLM agents, yet existing benchmarks remain far from real-world use, particularly in task horizon and interaction length. Code assistants require completing long chains of development work in continuously evolving repositories, while repeatedly clarifying requirements and adapting implementations through multi-turn interaction. To address these gaps, we introduce SWE-Journey, a benchmark for more realistic evaluation of coding assistants. To address the task-horizon gap, we propose a weak-to-strong synthesis pipeline that automatically constructs long-horizon coding tasks. To address the interaction gap, we mine four representative user personas from real interaction data and build a user-simulation agent to reproduce realistic code-assistance interactions. On average, models pass over 75% of tests for requested functionality with software architects, but fewer than 25% with non-coders. These results show that current coding assistants still fall short of enabling reliable coding for non-coders. We further analyze the reasons for this gap and identify asking right, finding right, and fixing right as key capabilities during interaction.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as coding agents that edit files, run builds and tests, inspect execution results, and repair software iteratively. Embedded firmware is a demanding target because correctness depends on closed-loop behavior under sensing, timing, and safety constraints, not only on static source quality. Yet embedded-agent evaluation remains limited and often emphasizes one-shot synthesis or offline correctness. We present a benchmark for closed-loop evaluation of embedded coding agents. Each task provides a plain-text engineering description, constrained workspace, and visible build-and-runtime surface. The agent must translate requirements into implementation and self-verification steps, then iterate until the required device behavior is achieved. The suite contains five embedded-control tasks and four feedback scenarios: one-shot generation, realistic self-verification, CI-style red/green feedback, and oracle-style detailed feedback. The implementation targets simulated ESP32 firmware for reproducibility. We evaluate seven GPT-family and Qwen-family configurations across five tasks and four scenarios, with three repetitions per condition for 420 runs. gpt-5.4 has the highest pass rate among evaluated configurations but does not saturate the benchmark; qwen3.5-27B is the strongest observed local model; and smaller local models degrade sharply in pass rate and search efficiency. These results suggest that capable local embedded coding agents are emerging.

Advances in foundation models are driving efforts to introduce agents to assist people in the physical world. Such agents require agentic spatial intelligence: exploring unfamiliar environments, updating spatial understanding through interaction, and adapting actions based on feedback to sustain progress toward a sequence of goals. Existing benchmarks cover only a limited range of spatial layouts, scales, and traversal requirements. We introduce Mine Odyssey, a benchmark for evaluating agentic spatial intelligence using Minecraft reconstructions of real-world locations. It comprises 180 tasks covering 30 such locations across 20 countries and regions on five continents, including 20 outdoor and 10 indoor settings. These settings span diverse spatial scales, layouts, terrains, and connectivity patterns, from Midtown Manhattan and rural Entrup to Santa Lucía Hill and Buckingham Palace. We select meaningful waypoints, such as landmarks, buildings, and rooms, and manually verify their accessibility. Each task provides a natural-language instruction specifying which waypoints to visit and in what order. Completing these tasks requires agents to find accessible routes and entrances, open doors, and move between levels using stairs and ladders, while monitoring their progress and recovering from navigation errors. Across eight evaluated state-of-the-art models, GPT-6 Astra achieves the highest success rate of 85.6%. However, the second-best model, Claude Opus 5.5, completes 73.9% of tasks, while the strongest evaluated open-weight model, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash, reaches 23.9%, highlighting substantial room for improvement in the agentic spatial intelligence of current models. Comprehensive analyses and ablation studies on Mine Odyssey reveal current models' limitations and provide insights for advancing agentic spatial intelligence.

Most human-agent interaction today remains text-based. Natural language can impose cognitive overload, ambiguity, information chaos, and slow input for complex tasks; ephemeral generative UIs can present structured information and guide users toward task completion. We propose GenUI-Harness, a multi-agent harness pairing a Tool Agent for information retrieval and task execution with a GUI Coder Agent that identifies ambiguities and generates front-end code for structured interfaces. Training the coder with reinforcement learning is challenging: verifiable rewards for interactive UI generation require costly execution, while LLM-as-a-Judge rewards are prone to reward hacking. We address the first challenge with Dynamic UX, a lightweight package for dynamic interaction and reward collection in a single sandbox, and the second with Reward Auditor, a meta-reward mechanism that monitors reward distributions and distills diagnostic patterns into a shared rubric and scoring specification. We introduce UI-TAU Bench, a benchmark for active human-agent interaction through generated UI code, built on 10 real-world domain databases constructed from public data sources and based on Tau-Bench tool-use settings, with Lite (300 tasks) and Full (1,000 tasks) splits. GenUI-Harness achieves an average Pass@3 gain of 4.48 percentage points over smolagents on Lite. Training with GenUI-Harness improves a 4B backbone from 9.33% to 58.00% Pass@3, outperforming larger frontier models such as Claude Opus 5 (46.67%). GenUI-Harness also remains robust on ambiguous and non-ambiguous queries. In a reviewer survey comparing communication channels, generated UIs reduce average dialogue rounds from 3.4 to 1.2. These results show that data-aware generative interfaces can support effective task completion and reduce dialogue rounds in evaluated database-backed workflows.

Reinforcement learning environments are now a primary lever for improving large language model (LLM) capabilities in post-training, yet most agentic benchmarks remain static: the world moves only when the agent acts, the reward is a terminal verdict, and the pass bar is set arbitrarily. We introduce StoreBench, a live-commerce environment in which an agent runs a mid-size online apparel store on a production-grade commerce backend, testing long-horizon planning and economic judgment under uncertainty. Customers order around the clock, suppliers reprice and fail, and market shocks arrive with partial or no warning. The agent acts through the same 29 merchant tools a human operator would use, under a windowed operation budget that makes simulated time a function of actions taken, so model latency cannot influence simulated time. Pass thresholds are calibrated against scripted anchor policies, the reward is hardened against a catalogue of reward hacks, and every episode replays identically given a sequence of actions. We evaluate seven frontier LLMs on 11 scenarios of 30 to 45 days and a full simulated year, over three world seeds at matched reasoning effort. No model matches the scripted smart-triage policy on average: the best, DeepSeek-V4-Pro, passes 49% of task-seed cells against the heuristic's 97%. Human experts working through the same tools and budgets outscore every model (mean composite 0.708 vs. 0.700). Over a full simulated year under the Claude Code harness, most models show dramatic performance improvement. In a GRPO post-training run, Qwen3.5-27B trained on only five disjoint tasks raises its mean composite on the held-out evaluation tasks from 0.136 to 0.373. We release five example training-split tasks, ten sample trajectories, and the scoring and verification tooling; the full environment and evaluation suite are withheld to keep the benchmark uncontaminated.

We study whether small LLM agents can operate effectively under explicit wall-clock time budgets by both respecting the allocated runtime and using available time productively. We evaluate Qwen3.6-27B on five competitions from MLE-Bench Lite and Qwen3-4B on Zork I (Jericho), two agentic benchmarks where additional computational time can meaningfully improve performance. In the simplest setting, where the budget is stated only in the prompt, agents fail to translate the stated budget into controlled use of time. These failures arise from gaps in time awareness, since the harness provides no timing feedback, but also because they cannot reliably anticipate the duration of actions, and do not have a learned mapping from available time to an appropriate strategy. We investigate two complementary classes of interventions: harness-based mechanisms that expose timing information and enforce deadlines, and reinforcement learning with budget-aware rewards. Injecting timing information through the harness substantially improves budget adherence for Qwen3.6-27B without measurable loss in performance, while enforcement hooks tighten adherence further. RL with GRPO achieves near-perfect budget adherence on Zork I and generalizes to held-out budgets not seen during training, but does not improve task performance over the untrained harness on MLE-Bench. Once agents are made to respect the budget, they still fail to use additional time to improve task performance. RL-trained policies learn when to stop but often fill extra time with repeated actions, and GRPO training on multiple budgets tends to collapse toward the strategy learned for the shortest budget. Our results reveal a gap between time adherence and productive time allocation, which remains a central challenge for budget-conditioned agents.

Language-model agents are increasingly asked to carry out open-ended scientific research, yet their results are usually graded against a known answer, a rubric, or a language-model reviewer, none of which can tell whether a new scientific model is valid. The AI Science Exam for El Nino-Southern Oscillation (SciExam for ENSO) is a benchmark in which agents build low-order stochastic models of ENSO, the dominant mode of interannual climate variability, from real observations. Within a six-hour budget, agents process the observations, write their own diagnostics, which are then frozen, and develop a model using only these diagnostics as feedback. Hidden graders then test whether the model reproduces ENSO's statistics, recovers unobserved variables, and forecasts held-out years, and score a published model in the same way. Across twelve agent systems, six produce models that score higher than the published model, mainly through better reconstruction and forecasting. The simplified forms of the stronger models are each compatible with one of the two competing explanations of ENSO's warm-cold asymmetry, an open debate that the task never mentions. Controlled runs of the top system under varied information suggest that its scores do not come from recalling the dated observational record and that the information it receives shapes how it builds its model. SciExam for ENSO can thus evaluate agent research where no answer is known, and the results suggest that agents can already build competitive models whose structures bear on questions that scientists still debate.

Recursive self-improvement requires carrying accepted changes into later improvement cycles, while studying agent-proposed changes also requires substantial research infrastructure. Existing settings often leave agents to rebuild routine infrastructure or restrict exploration to individual components. We introduce RSIGym, an agent-native research environment based on Everything as a Service (EaaS). RSIGym exposes training, inference, rollout, evaluation, and sandbox execution through reusable services, with shared budget and permission controls supporting Data, Harness, and Joint improvement tracks. This design enables agents to investigate individual interventions and jointly optimize data, training settings, and execution harnesses within the same environment. We define RSI-Index as the mean fraction of the remaining performance gap closed across five benchmarks covering software engineering, terminal interaction, mathematics, scientific reasoning, and skill-based tasks. Comparing six frontier research models in independent Joint runs, Opus 5 achieves the highest RSI-Index of 0.4809 under a $500 platform-service budget per benchmark run. Its selected systems improve all five benchmarks, raising SWE-bench Verified from 17.67% to 50.33% and AIME from 31.67% to 97.78%. Additional experiments examine DSH-harness refinement, budget variation, and restricted network access, while recorded trajectories reveal how agents diagnose failures and select candidates. We open-source the full RSIGym codebase and results to support reproducibility and further research.

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.

Evaluating agents by outcomes alone can obscure the capabilities that produce them. This problem is especially pronounced in evolving environments, where outcomes reflect a closed-loop interaction between agent behavior and changing external conditions. We introduce LiveMACEBench, a process-aware benchmark that uses live financial markets as a naturally evolving testbed for persistent LLM agents. Five frontier LLMs operate along continuous trajectories under matched Tool Use, Persistent Memory, Rule Following, and Multi-Agent Collaboration configurations. We evaluate them through both realized outcomes and mechanism-specific diagnostics derived from complete decision traces. Across 30 days of live evaluation, we find a pronounced outcome-capability gap: realized returns often diverge from capability-specific measurements, and similar outcomes can arise from markedly different patterns of mechanism use. Trace-level diagnostics further expose distinct bottlenecks across capabilities, demonstrating that mechanism access, effective mechanism use, and downstream performance are not interchangeable measures of agent capability. LiveMACEBench makes this distinction measurable, turning live markets from a performance leaderboard into a diagnostic environment for agent capability

The evaluation of coding agents generally strives to be as realistic as possible. In our study, we collect 4,782 agent sessions of real software engineers in JetBrains IDEs, which we call Production Sessions. Since our subject is interactive agents, we study the sessions with at least three user messages (33% of the sample). These long sessions differ from issue-derived benchmark tasks in two ways: (i) user requests span a far wider mix of task types - questions about the project's code, planning, review, refactoring, execution - and (ii) users switch between types throughout a session. Long-session samples from three public interaction corpora exhibit markedly different Task Flows (the distributions of session lengths, task types, and type-to-type transitions), so no single interaction distribution is universally realistic: benchmarks should name a target use case and calibrate to measurements from it. We present SWE-TaskFlow, an approach for transforming any issue-derived benchmark: it preserves the verified tasks and tests while steering the interaction toward a target Task Flow through prompt splitting and verifiable repository QA, with a TaskFlow Alignment Score (TFAS) for selecting among generated trajectories. In a pilot on 700 SWE-Bench Pro tasks, solving the task sequentially in several steps approximately doubles agent cost without a stable change in resolve rate: the interaction protocol itself is an important dimension of evaluation.

Drug target discovery requires distinguishing molecules that causally drive disease from those that are merely associated with it. Training and evaluating AI agents to perform this workflow end-to-end is difficult because real world biobanks lack known causal ground truth and participant-level data is access controlled. We introduce DrugTargetWorld, a framework that procedurally generates simulated biobanks, or "worlds," with known but concealed causal structure. Each world contains genotypes, proteins, health records, outcomes, and synthetic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for 54,000 participants. Agents must construct a disease phenotype, identify causal driver proteins, infer the beneficial direction of modulation, and optionally conduct virtual 'wet lab' experiments. We evaluated nine agents in 540 episodes across 20 cardiovascular worlds and three experimental budgets. Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol achieved the highest mean composite scores, 39.98 and 35.38 of 100, respectively, and both recovered 64% of causal drivers on average. However, no agent reliably distinguished misleading non-causal proteins, and performance remained limited by the integrative judgments required to connect phenotype construction, causal evidence, and intervention decisions. By making each world's causal structure known to the evaluator but hidden from the agent, DrugTargetWorld turns end-to-end drug target discovery into a scalable training and evaluation problem with verifiable reward.

Environments are the foundation of recursive self-improvement: they provide the problems agents work on and the feedback used to evaluate progress. Yet constructing challenging research environments with reliable evaluation still depends on domain experts, limiting their scale and disciplinary coverage. We introduce RSI-Forge, a multi-agent pipeline that turns published papers into executable environments for self-improvement. Three agents coordinate construction, reproduction, and review to produce tasks with automated evaluators; each paper's method is independently reimplemented to establish a baseline score. We present 210 environments across 18 fields, including 90 reviewed by independent human domain experts. Both experts and agent judges give high ratings to the potential for improving the provided starting solutions and the evaluators' ability to distinguish solution quality, whereas experts are more critical of shortcut resistance, faithfulness to the source paper, and whether a single idea can exhaust a task. To validate their use for repeated improvement, we evaluate four models over 3 successive attempts on 120 environments, with each attempt inheriting prior code and notes while model weights remain fixed. At least one model improves after the first attempt in 84% of environments. Models also outperform the reproduced paper methods in 68 of the 120 environments, demonstrating room for gains beyond these baselines. Transcript analysis identifies work beyond parameter tuning in 95% of these successful attempts. Analysis of the resulting trajectories shows that models scoring lower on these tasks explore less, more often accept gains smaller than the reported standard error, and rely more heavily on tuning to the development set. RSI-Forge provides a scalable approach to constructing research environments for training and evaluating self-improving agents.

Urban diagnosis integrates heterogeneous observations to identify urban problems, localize affected areas, and investigate contributing factors, informing evidence-based urban planning and management. However, its reliance on labor-intensive, case-specific expert workflows limits scalability and reuse, motivating the exploration of agent-based execution. To evaluate this capability, we introduce DUDA-Bench, a hierarchical and interactive benchmark that formalizes data-driven urban diagnosis as a multi-stage agent workflow. It comprises 86 atomic and 22 workflow tasks spanning four analytical stages, grounded in multimodal data from 12 cities covering five urban problem types. Evaluations of seven backbone models and five agent systems reveal a substantial gap between isolated analytical competence and end-to-end diagnosis, with system benefits varying across backbones. Trajectory analysis shows that unresolved evidence gaps propagate across stages, while successful recovery involves revising assumptions and actions using feedback. These findings highlight limitations in coordinating analytical capabilities across stages, particularly adaptive planning, evidence integration, and verification. More broadly, DUDA-Bench provides a framework for translating expert analytical workflows into hierarchical agent tasks and process-aware evaluation, supporting systematic assessment of end-to-end analytical capabilities.

Task-oriented conversational agents remain fragile under real world conversation scenarios as they rarely follow a predictable script, especially when users exhibit non-cooperative behavior. Existing function-calling benchmarks often emphasize successful, cooperative interactions and underrepresent adversarial conversation trajectories, thereby limiting the training resources available for developing robust agents. We present ToolRACER, a synthetic data generation pipeline that coordinates user, assistant and tool emulation models to generate and validated multi-turn interactions between a user and an agent. Using \sysn, we construct ToolRACERBench a robust multi-turn conversation benchmark spanning six domains, ranging over 55 varied personas, generating a validated corpus of 5.6K conversation trajectories, with approximately 66% of conversations containing failure-prone conversation scenarios. We inject adversarial behaviors, producing validated conversational interaction trajectories that capture realistic, robust scenarios. We evaluate models trained on ToolRACERBench against internal benchmarks, as well as on function calling benchmarks such as $τ^2$-bench, BFCLv3 and ACEBench to evaluate agentic accuracy and robustness. Models trained on ToolRACERBench improve end to end agentic accuracy across $τ^2$-bench and ACEBench, demonstrating significant gains when mixed with in-domain dataset in small language models for agent capability tasks.

Before tool-using LLM agents are deployed in environmental and geospatial workflows, teams need evidence that an agent reliably selects the right operations against real APIs. We introduce GeoNatureAgent (GNA), a framework for pre-production evaluation of tool-using agents: a fixed sixteen-tool geospatial interface published as a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server, so the agent under test is the only variable, scored against an identical tool layer, task suite, and deterministic scorer. Its flagship instance is a 103-task benchmark (a 93-task main suite across 18 categories plus a ten-task comparison expansion) evaluated against an open, self-hostable geospatial API serving three environmental indicators across Spain and Portugal. We evaluate nine LLMs under three temperature-1.0 seeds, reporting capability and per-case cost as orthogonal axes. (1) Claude Sonnet 4 achieves the highest capability (61.7% +/- 0.7% on all 103 tasks; 60.8% on the main suite), followed closely by DeepSeek V3.2 (57.9%), while no other model exceeds 53%; (2) the cost-accuracy Pareto frontier is mostly open-weight, with DeepSeek V3.2 offering 93% of Claude's capability at 11.3x lower list-price cost; (3) under strict all-checks scoring the best model sits 24-36 points below the 85-97% reported on general-purpose GIS benchmarks, whereas per-check partial credit for the top four models (86-90%) is comparable, so much of that gap reflects scoring strictness rather than task difficulty alone. The MCP server, evaluation harness, benchmark, and API are publicly available; swapping the tool executors and task suite instantiates an equivalent benchmark for any geospatial domain.

As coding agents increasingly undertake real-world work autonomously, judging whether their risk treatments are warranted has become important. Existing work evaluates related agent behaviors from separate perspectives, but lacks a systematic framework for unifying these behaviors. To bridge this gap, we introduce ParanoiaEval, the first benchmark for unified evaluation of risk-treatment capabilities in coding agents. Grounded in the well-established Avoidance-Transfer-Mitigation-Acceptance framework in software engineering risk management, ParanoiaEval operationalizes its 4 fundamental treatments for coding-agent settings and contains 200 evidence-controlled repository-level task pairs, each differing only in treatment-defining evidence. We further introduce dedicated metrics for risk-treatment violations and evidence responsiveness, using a human-calibrated agentic judge for reliable evaluation. Large-scale experiments on 8 representative models and a post-hoc human study reveal that (I) unnecessary risk treatment occurs in 11.2%-58.7% of runs despite explicit evidence, with substantial variation across agent configurations; (II) stronger task capability does not ensure more appropriate risk treatment, while treatment violations substantially harm developers' experience, establishing risk treatment as an independent capability dimension; and (III) agents exhibit systematic patterns consistent with established risk-management findings, suggesting that knowledge from human practice can guide the diagnosis and improvement of this capability.

Learning from experience is essential for LLM agents to adapt to unfamiliar and dynmaic environments. Evaluating this ability is therefore important for understanding how effectively agents acquire and use new knowledge. Existing benchmarks have sought to evaluate this ability, but they primarily evaluate tasks whose rules are provided in the instructions or already familiar to pretrained models, making it difficult to distinguish learning from interactions from reasoning with existing knowledge. To address this, we introduce Learn2Play Bench, a benchmark of newly designed text-based games, whose rules are novel or counterintuitive, requiring agents to acquire knowledge through interaction rather than rely solely on pretrained knowledge. These games provide reproducible feedback and automatic scoring, enabling controlled evaluation of learning across repeated attempts. We also vary game instances to test whether agents can apply what they have learned to new situations. Therefore, we evaluate how backbone models, self-evolving methods, and agent harnesses affect agents' learning ability, revealing three findings: (1) Experience retention: Retaining complete records of actions and feedback can support more effective learning than summarizing these experiences into rules or strategies. (2) Human agent gap: Top-performing human players achieve higher peak scores than the evaluated agents. Human explore more varied strategies, and repeat actions less. (3) Harness matters: With the backbone fixed, changing the harness can improve performance while reducing estimated inference cost. Together, these findings provide insights into how LLM agents learn from experience and suggest directions for future work to improve their learning ability. Project website: https://liushiliushi.github.io/learn2play-bench-website/

Large language model agents are increasingly deployed to perform complex tasks in real-world environments. However, the knowledge required for correct behavior in these environments is often implicit, undisclosed, and subject to change over time. Recent continual-learning harnesses seek to address this challenge by enabling agents to improve from serving experience. Yet the effectiveness and limitations of these methods are not yet well characterized. Existing benchmarks provide only partial coverage: some explicitly provide the target knowledge, others assume a static environment, and those that support continual adaptation remain limited in scale and knowledge diversity. To enable systematic evaluation, we formalize an evolving-environment streaming dataset (EESD), in which agents must infer, apply, and revise latent environment knowledge from interaction and outcome feedback as hidden policies evolve, and introduce ServeLearnBench, spanning retail support, banking, and sales-pitch generation with 53 environment windows and 7,718 tasks. We evaluate five learning harnesses (RAG, Mem0, SkillOpt, Continual Harness, and Prime) across six models (GPT-5.6 Terra, Opus 5, Kimi K3, GLM-5.3, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, and GLM-5.3 Flash), covering 28 model-harness pairs and 252 learning runs. Our evaluation reveals three main findings: a substantial gap remains between task capability and learning from experience; continual adaptation is costly and can degrade already-correct behavior; and insufficient exploration emerges as a key bottleneck to effective adaptation. Overall, ServeLearnBench provides a controlled testbed for diagnosing these limitations and tracking progress toward agents that continually and reliably improve through serving experience.

We introduce TasteVal, a benchmark to evaluate the experimental research taste of frontier models. We define research taste as the ability to pick interesting problems to solve, design experiments, and interpret experimental results. TasteVal measures the experimental component of research taste; given a fixed research problem, we measure how well a model iteratively designs experiments and draws conclusions from their outcomes. We operationalize experimental research taste as compute efficiency; a Researcher who reaches the same score as an expert human using half the serial experimental compute has twice the experimental taste. Experimental taste thus acts as a multiplier on experimental compute, making it a key input to forecasts of AI progress. TasteVal consists of 8 novel, challenging, open-ended tasks representative of frontier AI R&D. To isolate taste from coding ability, the model under evaluation acts as a Researcher that iteratively designs experiments while a fixed Coder agent implements them and reports their results. The Researcher executes until either the 40 H100 hour or 120 wall-clock hour budgets are exhausted. We recruit 24 human experts, at least 2 per task, and take the best expert attempt per task as the expert baseline. We evaluate 20 models released between 2023 and 2026. The best-performing model, Opus 5.5, exceeds our expert baseline, with a compute multiplier of 2.3x (95% CI 1.15-4.37), at roughly 1/30 of our baseliners' average per-run cost. On TasteVal, the compute multiplier of frontier models has doubled approximately every 3.0 months since December 2025 (95% CI 1.7-5.0), up from every 14 months between 2023 and December 2025. Measured by final normalized performance, frontier models show no trend break, doubling every 14.6 months. To keep TasteVal uncontaminated, we do not release the tasks.

Recent advances in multimodal foundation models yield strong performance on static perception and reasoning benchmarks, yet such evaluations largely overlook a central aspect of intelligence: acting competently in dynamic environments over extended time horizons. We introduce PlaySuite, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating interactive visual intelligence across more than 5K open-source video games curated from PyWeek and itch.io. Spanning diverse genres and engines, including Pygame, HTML5, Godot, and Unity, these independent games are largely out-of-distribution for current models, reducing the likelihood that success can be achieved by retrieving memorized walkthroughs or web-scale training artifacts. To enable scalable evaluation across heterogeneous titles, we develop a unified closed-loop interaction framework optimized for HPC clusters alongside a Video-LLM-as-a-judge protocol that maps observable gameplay milestones to standardized progress levels. We evaluate fourteen recent open models spanning vision-language models, computer-use agents, and vision-language-action models. Our results yield strong evidence of a perception-action gap: despite strong reasoning capabilities, current models struggle to make sustained progress and exhibit recurring failures in spatial grounding, action execution, and self-correction. PlaySuite provides a reproducible and extensible testbed for measuring progress from visual perception to goal-directed interaction, and a foundation for developing models that can act, adapt, and generalize in dynamic visual environments.

To evaluate the frontier, we must measure models not by what they say, but by what they can engineer and build in grounded physical environments. We introduce \textsc{ArtifactArena}, an open-ended platform where models face a physically grounded hardware-software co-design challenge: engineering fully functional robots to compete in a simulated arena. We evaluate a frontier model's zero-shot, verifier guided refinement, and open-ended physical design capabilities through three harnesses that refine their bot artifacts based on text descriptions, physics simulator feedback, and gameplay data. We benchmark these capabilities with an Elo ranking of frontier models derived from head-to-head tournaments between their artifacts. By releasing this framework and tournament infrastructure for ongoing community submissions, we establish a living, non-saturating testbed to continuously measure the expanding limits of open-ended intelligence in the physical world. Please visit https://artifactarena.ai for more information.

As agents take on long-horizon tasks, users shift from making individual decisions to overseeing autonomous execution. Yet the volume of agent activity and the fragmentation of supporting evidence make it difficult to determine which decisions warrant user verification. We study monitors that identify consequential decisions and locate evidence to help users assess their implications. We introduce AgentMonBench, a software-engineering benchmark comprising three subsets that cover two complementary dimensions: alignment between requirements and behavior, and awareness of consequential autonomous decisions for verification. To support these judgments, we propose the Evidence-Grounded Behavior Graph (EBG), a training-free method that groups source-linked evidence into behaviors and organizes their relationships into a graph. EBG presents task-oriented views of this graph to help monitors interpret behavior in context. Experiments across eight models show that EBG improves decision identification and evidence localization in most settings compared with direct access to the original context. Further experiments show that EBG's evidence-localization gains persist across input scales and hyperparameter settings, while real-world applications illustrate its practical value for human oversight.

LLM agents are increasingly built for medical work and scored on clinical benchmarks. Each such score, however, comes from a model running inside an agent harness, the system that controls the loop between the model and its environment. An agent's score is therefore a property of a model--harness pair. For medical agents, how much outcomes change with the harness has rarely been measured. Measuring this change, and explaining it, raises two challenges. First, a harness comparison must change nothing but the harness and be repeated across models and kinds of task. Second, comparing whole harnesses leaves their mechanisms bundled together, so it cannot show when an individual mechanism helps. To address these challenges, we present MedicalHarness, a controlled study of models and agent harnesses on medical tasks. We first build MedicalHarnessBench to evaluate agents on $107$ tasks across four domains that each test a different harness capability. Using this benchmark, we run five open-weight models under five agent harnesses, changing only the harness within a comparison, and analyze both outcomes and execution traces. To study individual mechanisms, we build MH-Lab, a controlled harness that switches off context management, planning or tool exposure one at a time within a shared execution loop. We find that the harness and its interaction with the model account for about a quarter of the outcome variance, and that no single harness is best across models and tasks. Code and data are available at https://github.com/REAL-Lab-NU/MedicalHarness.

A video assistant must speak when its instruction warrants a response and stay silent otherwise. We introduce a benchmark that evaluates this decision for the complete system of model, memory, and response controller. InteractionBench covers query responses, event triggers, and ongoing updates in 1,060 interactions over 812 videos, with 69 negative streams and 53 suites that pair counted events with look-alike near misses. It scores content accuracy, timing accuracy, and silence compliance on the video clock. Timely speech costs silence across systems. Polled Qwen3-VL-8B reaches 77.8 timing accuracy but 10.9 silence compliance. A native real-time interaction system reaches 29.2 silence compliance at 66.8 timing accuracy, yet emits on 89.9% of negative streams. No open-weight system clears a third of the near-miss suites. Fewer replies help only when chosen, as random deletion merely trades timing for silence. Offline scores miss these failures and mispredict online behavior. Adding restraint is costly, as the native system's controller adds little by itself and agentic systems add it only at about 30 s per poll.Project page: https://www.enxinsong.com/projects/interactionbench/ Code: https://github.com/Espere-1119-Song/InteractionBench Data: https://huggingface.co/datasets/InteractionBench/InteractionBench