Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 26 references

VibeLifeBench: Can Your Life Agent Be Proactive and Persistent in a Living World?

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read VibeLifeBench measures proactive, persistent life agents in a simulated living world and finds every evaluated frontier model scores between 21.1 and 32.5.

desk verdict A serious, well-constructed benchmark for long-horizon life agents, but the headline 'proactive' claim rests on a harness that never lets the agent initiate a turn; the abstract overpromises. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10875 v2 pith:PFOPO3BY submitted 2026-08-11 cs.CL cs.AI

Xiaohongshu Dots Studio , Evolvent AI This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords lifeagentsproactivelivingworldsimulationlong-horizonevaluationLLMagentbenchmarkssilentmutationspersistence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

VibeLifeBench argues that everyday life assistance cannot be judged by short, static, single-turn benchmarks: a real assistant must notice unannounced changes, hold one coherent plan across weeks, and decide when to act, when to ask, and when to stay silent. To measure that, it builds 200 scripted multi-week tasks in a simulated world of 22 mock services where the world advances on its own clock and many changes fire silently. The paper evaluates seven frontier models and all score low, with the strongest reaching 32.5 on the average of each task's mean score over three runs. The consistent failure across models suggests current agents are far from trustworthy long-term life assistants.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the simulated living world driven by four event kinds: user messages, world observations, and notifications each open an agent turn, while a mutation silently changes the world state and produces no turn at all. Because later stages depend on state changed by mutations, only an agent that proactively re-queries the world notices the discrepancy in time; the benchmark places 1,483 such mutations among 7,453 scripted events. Scoring is carried by 12,261 weighted, deterministic checks that read only observable artifacts such as backend end state, workspace files, calendar entries, sent email, and captured replies, with safety and hardening checks carrying the largest weights.

What would settle it

Give an agent an always-open channel that lets it query services or send messages at any simulated time, not only when a turn is dispatched, and observe whether it catches silent mutations earlier and scores higher. If scores stay flat, the silent mutations are not gated on initiative; if scores rise substantially, the current benchmark conflates autonomous proactivity with scheduled re-inspection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that proactivity, living-world adaptation, and long-horizon coherence can be jointly measured in one benchmark, and that no current frontier model comes close to competence on that measurement. The mechanism for making proactivity observable is the silent mutation: the world changes without any notification, so only an agent that re-inspects the world on its own initiative can react in time. Across seven frontier models, the strongest average score is 32.5 and every model lands between 21.1 and 32.5, with the hardest failures concentrated in cross-stage and final checks, persistent bookkeeping, and the later third of each timeline. This is presented as direct evidence that strong single-turn tool-calling ability does not transfer to weeks-long, evolving life management.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that proactivity can be measured by how well an agent re-checks the world on turns the harness already gives it; if true initiative means acting at moments the system does not schedule, then the benchmark's main quantity is not quite what it claims to be.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the benchmark measures what it claims, current frontier models cannot be trusted to manage multi-week life tasks without supervision: all seven score below 33 and their per-stage pass rates decay by 10 to 15 points from the first third of a timeline to the last.
  • Improving life-agent performance will require explicit persistent artifacts such as notes, calendars, and running ledgers rather than chat replies, since persistence and bookkeeping failures are the largest identified source of lost checks.
  • Because scoring reads only observable world state and artifacts, agents can be ranked by objective criteria without relying on self-reported reasoning, and the offline, deterministic environment makes runs reproducible and auditable.
  • The benchmark splits overall competence into separable axes—proactivity, propagation and recovery, persistence and bookkeeping, safety, and authorization—so future work can identify which capability gains actually lift total scores.
  • The consistent easy-to-hard ordering of the ten domains across all models implies that life-domain competence does not transfer automatically from easier domains like shopping and travel to harder ones like team building and rental, making domain breadth a distinct challenge.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The benchmark defines proactivity as re-querying the world on each turn the harness opens; a truly asynchronous agent that can initiate actions at arbitrary simulated times would likely behave differently, so testing such an agent would clarify whether the measured gap reflects model limitations or partly the turn-structured interface.
  • Because all tasks share the same deterministic service backends, the suite could be reused to study continual learning: an agent that carries durable memory across tasks rather than only within one timeline could be evaluated with the same infrastructure.
  • Sweeping the fraction of silent mutations while holding other design properties fixed would quantify how much of the score gap is caused specifically by the need for unsolicited re-inspection, a testable extension the paper does not run.
  • The authors' own failure analysis suggests a concrete training signal: models rarely create the cross-stage-linked artifacts the checks demand, so fine-tuning on tasks that reward explicit durable bookkeeping could be a direct route to higher scores.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. VibeLifeBench is a benchmark for proactive, persistent life-assistant agents. It comprises 200 scripted multi-week tasks across ten everyday-life domains, all running on a shared simulated world of 22 mock service backends with 288 tool interfaces. Each task is a timeline driven by four event kinds (user messages, world observations, notifications, and silent mutations), and each task is scored by an average of 58 weighted deterministic checks over observable artifacts, totaling 12,261 checks. The paper evaluates seven frontier models and reports avg@3 scores between 21.1 and 32.5, with Claude Opus 5 strongest at 32.5. It also reports per-domain, per-tier, and per-capability-axis analysis, concluding that current agents are far from competent at proactive, persistent long-horizon life assistance.

Significance. If the benchmark measures what it claims, it is a genuinely useful resource for the agent-evaluation community. The strengths are substantial: scoring is based on deterministic predicates over observable world state and artifacts, not on model self-reports; the environment is offline and reproducible; the task suite is large and diversified across domains; and the evaluation is systematic, covering multiple frontier models with per-domain and per-tier breakdowns. The headline empirical result is concrete and falsifiable. However, the central claim about proactivity is narrower than advertised: the harness only opens turns for the three event kinds and gives the agent no way to initiate a turn spontaneously. This does not invalidate the benchmark as a measure of in-turn re-inspection and long-horizon persistence, but it does mean the statements that the agent 'decides on its own when to act, when to ask, and when to stay silent' are not fully supported. The low absolute scores are therefore also consistent with an interface-level restriction, and the absence of a reactive baseline makes the proactivity attribution weaker than the text suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2.3, Table 2, Eq. (2)] The benchmark does not actually let the agent decide when to act. Turns open only for user messages, world observations, or notifications; a mutation changes the world with no turn, and the formal execution model in Eq. (2) has a_j = ∅ for mutations with no mechanism for the agent to schedule an action between scripted events. Consequently, Section 2.1's operationalization of proactivity as 're-query the world on each turn it is given' measures in-turn re-inspection, not asynchronous initiative. This is in tension with the abstract's claim that the agent 'decides on its own when to act, when to ask, and when to stay silent.' The headline low scores are therefore also consistent with the harness restricting when the agent may act. I recommend either extending the harness to allow agent-initiated turns between events (or at least a controlled, clearly specified asynchronous mode), or substantially reframing the proactivity claims so that they match what the harness actually measures.
  2. [Section 5.1, Table 7] The capability-axis attribution is derived by keyword matching over check names and is explicitly described as 'indicative rather than exact,' with 41.8% of failed checks falling outside all named categories. The claim that proactivity and persistence are the largest weaknesses is therefore not a rigorous quantitative decomposition. As the axis labels are load-bearing for the paper's main diagnostic conclusion, the authors should validate the keyword assignment on a sample of checks, report precision and recall, or otherwise limit the strength of the claims drawn from the axis-level numbers.
  3. [Section 3.3 and Section 4.1] There is no passive or reactive baseline, and no ablation that removes proactive re-querying from the agent. Without such a control, the low scores cannot be attributed specifically to missing proactivity: they may reflect general tool-use difficulty, poor instruction following, the turn restriction of the harness, or the high weight placed on durable-artifact checks. A minimal baseline (for example, a model that never re-queries the world and only responds to the current turn's content) would make the proactivity claim substantially stronger and would help quantify the contribution of the benchmark's central mechanism.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 1] The legend symbols are garbled in the text (',G #, and#denote'); please fix the typesetting so that the three table symbols are clearly distinguished.
  2. [Section 2.2.1, Eq. (2)] The history variable H_{j-1} is used in the equation but is never formally defined; please specify how the agent's history and memory are updated and represented.
  3. [Section 3.2] The naming of avg@3 is slightly confusing: it is the average of within-task mean scores, not the average of all individual runs. Please clarify this in the metric definition to avoid ambiguity with max@3 and min@3.
  4. [Section 5.1] The pooled failure shares (such as the 22.2% attributed to persistence and bookkeeping) are not compared with the base rates of checks in each axis; reporting per-axis failure rates would make the 'largest source of failure' claim more informative.
  5. [Figure 1 and Section 2.4] The event-kind percentages (30.1, 25.8, 24.1, 19.9) sum to 99.9 rather than 100.0; either round consistently or state that the values are approximate.
  6. [Appendix A, Table 8] The row labeled 'Mutation, then notification' for the phishing email appears under a 'D1, 4/18' heading, while the previous row also uses 'D1, 4/18'; aligning the dates and event labels would prevent reader confusion.
  7. [Section 3.3] The paper states that the framework will be open-sourced; please include a repository URL or a concrete release plan in the final version, and for reference [16] provide a version or commit identifier for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: VibeLifeBench is an empirical benchmark whose headline results are measured outputs, not consequences constructed from its inputs; the proactivity operationalization raises a construct-validity concern but no circular reduction.

full rationale

This paper does not derive a predicted result from fitted inputs or from a self-citation chain. VibeLifeBench is an evaluation suite: each task is formalized as a five-tuple with an initial world state, an event timeline, service capabilities, a persona, and weighted check predicates, and a run is defined by applying events and agent actions to the world state. The headline numbers (avg@3 between 21.1 and 32.5) are empirical measurements produced by executing seven frontier models against 12,261 authored checks, not quantities implied by the task definition itself. The central claim that models are far from competent rests on observed check pass rates, which are external to the benchmark's construction. The paper's self-citations are not load-bearing: Terrarium is cited only as the evaluation infrastructure, and ClawMark is listed in a comparative table as prior work with partial proactivity, not as evidence for the paper's conclusions. The most serious limitation is that the harness opens turns only for user messages, world observations, and notifications, while mutations produce no turn, and the paper operationalizes proactivity as re-querying on each turn the agent is given. That is a potential gap between the advertised ability to 'decide on its own when to act' and the measured behavior of re-inspecting on harness-granted turns, but it is not circular: the score is still a measured outcome under a stated interface restriction, not an output that is identical to the definition or to a fitted parameter. Because no prediction reduces by construction to its inputs and no load-bearing argument depends on an unverified self-citation, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

VibeLifeBench is a benchmark rather than a physical theory, so the ledger is short. The main assumptions are about how the evaluation harness operationalizes proactivity and how scoring artifacts relate to real-world competence. No free parameters are fitted to data in the derivation; the benchmark design choices are fixed rather than learned.

assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper The agent is only given turns when a user message, world observation, or notification fires; it cannot initiate a turn spontaneously.
    This is the core design choice that defines 'proactivity' as in-turn re-inspection. It appears in Section 2.1: 'on each turn it is given the agent must proactively re-query the world.'
  • domain assumption Observable artifacts (backend state, workspace files, email, replies) are sufficient to judge whether a task was completed correctly.
    The scoring system explicitly reads only observable artifacts and never internal reasoning. This is necessary for objective grading but assumes the artifacts capture all meaningful behavior.
  • ad hoc to paper Keyword matching over check names reliably assigns failures to capability axes such as proactivity and persistence.
    Section 5.1 states the axes are 'assigned by keyword matching over check names, so they are indicative rather than exact.' The subsequent analysis relies on these approximate categories.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VibeLifeBench: Can Your Life Agent Be Proactive and Persistent in a Living World?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PFOPO3BY

@misc{pith2026260810875,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VibeLifeBench: Can Your Life Agent Be Proactive and Persistent in a Living World?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PFOPO3BY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10875}
}
read the original abstract

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed as personal assistants. Existing evaluations, however, mostly use short, self-contained requests in static environments. Everyday life assistance is different. A task runs for weeks rather than minutes. The world keeps changing while the agent is not being prompted. Many constraints are never stated outright. An agent that merely answers the request in front of it will fail at such a task. What is needed instead is an agent that stays proactive and consistent. It decides on its own when to act, when to ask, and when to stay silent. It notices changes that nobody announced. It keeps one plan coherent from the first day to the last. No current benchmark measures this. We introduce VibeLifeBench, a benchmark of 200 long-horizon tasks across ten everyday-life domains. Each task is a scripted multi-week timeline in a simulated world of 22 mock services. The world advances on its own clock, and many of its changes are silent, so only an agent that re-inspects the world discovers them. Every task is graded by fine-grained, weighted checks that read only what the agent actually left behind, covering the end state, the timeliness of its actions, and whether it upheld the implicit constraints. We evaluate seven frontier models. All of them score low, which shows how far current agents are from assisting with real life. We will open-source all tasks, environments, and the evaluation framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10875 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of VibeLifeBench. The top shows a complete living-world task end to end: a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Number of tasks that use each service across the suite (all 22 services are exercised). Usage is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Per-domain distribution of horizon, number of events, number of services, and number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Per-run input tokens, output tokens, tool calls, and turns. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Per-stage check pass rate as a function of the normalized position of the check along the task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    SWE-Milestone: Evaluating AI Agents on Continuous Software Evolution

    Gangda Deng, Zhaoling Chen, Zhongming Yu, Haoyang Fan, Yuhong Liu, Yuxin Yang, Dhruv Parikh, Rajgopal Kannan, Le Cong, Mengdi Wang, Qian Zhang, Viktor Prasanna, Xiangru Tang, and Xingyao Wang. Swe-milestone: Evaluating ai agents on continuous software evolution, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.13428

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Measuring The Impact Of Programming Language Distribution

    Mike A. Merrill, Alexander G. Shaw, Nicholas Carlini, Boxuan Li, Harsh Raj, Ivan Bercovich, Lin Shi, Jeong Yeon Shin, Thomas Walshe, E. Kelly Buchanan, Junhong Shen, Guanghao Ye, Haowei Lin, Jason Poulos, Maoyu Wang, Marianna Nezhurina, Jenia Jitsev, Di Lu, Orfeas Menis Mastromichalakis, Zhiwei Xu, Zizhao Chen, Yue Liu, Robert Zhang, Leon Liangyu Chen, An...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Apex-agents, 2026

    Bertie Vidgen, Austin Mann, Abby Fennelly, John Wright Stanly, Lucas Rothman, Marco Burstein, Julien Benchek, David Ostrofsky, Anirudh Ravichandran, Debnil Sur, Neel Venugopal, Alannah Hsia, Isaac Robinson, Calix Huang, Olivia Varones, Daniyal Khan, Michael Haines, Austin Bridges, Jesse Boyle, Koby Twist, Zach Richards, Chirag Mahapatra, Brendan Foody, an...

    work page arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    EdgeBench: Unveiling Scaling Laws of Learning from Real-World Environments

    Deyao Zhu, Xin Zhou, Shengling Qin, Xuekai Zhu, Hangliang Ding, Shu Zhong, Zixin Wen, Zhonglin Xie, Chenhui Gou, Linxuan Ren, Yueyang Wang, Junfeng Zhong, Rui Liu, Tian Gao, Yangguang Lin, Jingyuan Zhang, Maojia Song, Xuan Qi, Jinhong Wu, Chenyang Zhang, Yinzhu Piao, Ziru Niu, Hongbin Lin, Lingxiang Meng, Peng Tang, Chengyao Tang, Shanyu Wu, Huanyu Zheng,...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    Continual Learning Bench: Evaluating Frontier AI Systems in Real-World Stateful Environments

    Parth Asawa, Christopher M. Glaze, Gabriel Orlanski, Ramya Ramakrishnan, Benji Xu, Asim Biswal, Vincent Sunn Chen, Frederic Sala, Matei Zaharia, and Joseph E. Gonzalez. Continual learning bench: Evaluating frontier ai systems in real-world stateful environments, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.05661

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    JobBench: Aligning Agent Work With Human Will

    Yuetai Li, Yichen Feng, Zhangchen Xu, Zixian Ma, Kaiyuan Zheng, Fengqing Jiang, Xinghua Sun, Rulin Shao, Zichen Chen, Yue Huang, Xinyang Han, Brian Lee, Kayla Xu, Shenglai Zeng, Hang Hua, Xiangliang Zhang, Basel Alomair, Ranjay Krishna, Luke Zettlemoyer, Pang Wei Koh, Bhaskar Ramasubramanian, Luyao Niu, Xiang Yue, and Radha Poovendran. Jobbench: Aligning ...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Workspace-bench 1.0: Benchmarking ai agents on workspace tasks with large-scale file dependencies,

    Zirui Tang, Xuanhe Zhou, Yumou Liu, Linchun Li, Yukai Wu, Weizheng Wang, Hongzhang Huang, Wei Zhou, Jun Zhou, Jiachen Song, Shaoli Yu, Jinqi Wang, Zihang Zhou, Hongyi Zhou, Yuting Lv, Jinyang Li, Jiashuo Liu, Ruoyu Chen, Chunwei Liu, GuoLiang Li, Jihua Kang, and Fan Wu. Workspace-bench 1.0: Benchmarking ai agents on workspace tasks with large-scale file d...

  8. [8]

    Fung, Chun Yuan, and Li Shen

    Haotian Luo, Huaisong Zhang, Xuelin Zhang, Haoyu Wang, Zeyu Qin, Wenjie Lu, Guozheng Ma, Haiying He, Yingsha Xie, Qiyang Zhou, Zixuan Hu, Hongze Mi, Yibo Wang, Naiqiang Tan, Hong Chen, Yi R. Fung, Chun Yuan, and Li Shen. Ultrahorizon: Benchmarking agent capabilities in ultra long-horizon scenarios, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2509.21766

    work page arXiv 2025

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Yuxuan Zhang, Yubo Wang, Yipeng Zhu, Penghui Du, Junwen Miao, Xuan Lu, Zhuofeng Li, Xingwei Qu, Zhengkang Guo, Yuanzhe Shen, Dingjie Song, Han Zhou, Tuney Zheng, Xian Wu, Hao Yu, Songcheng Cai, Yi Lu, Yunzhuo Hao, Minyi Lei, Liang Chen, Kai Zou, Huifeng Yin, Wendong Xu, Dongfu...

    2026 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Uniclawbench: A universal benchmark for proactive agents on real-world tasks, 2026

    Zhekai Chen, Chengqi Duan, Kaiyue Sun, Bohao Li, Yuqing Wang, Manyuan Zhang, and Xihui Liu. Uniclawbench: A universal benchmark for proactive agents on real-world tasks, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.08768

    2026 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Claw-eval: Towards trustworthy evaluation of autonomous agents, 2026

    Bowen Ye, Rang Li, Qibin Yang, Yuanxin Liu, Linli Yao, Hanglong Lv, Zhihui Xie, Chenxin An, Lei Li, Lingpeng Kong, Qi Liu, Zhifang Sui, and Tong Yang. Claw-eval: Towards trustworthy evaluation of autonomous agents, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2604.06132

    2026 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Wildclawbench: A benchmark for real-world, long-horizon agent evaluation, 2026

    Shuangrui Ding, Xuanlang Dai, Long Xing, Shengyuan Ding, Ziyu Liu, Yang JingYi, Penghui Yang, Zhixiong Zhang, Xilin Wei, Xinyu Fang, Yubo Ma, Haodong Duan, Jing Shao, Jiaqi Wang, Dahua Lin, Kai Chen, and Yuhang Zang. Wildclawbench: A benchmark for real-world, long-horizon agen...

    2026 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Jiayu Liu, Cheng Qian, Zhaochen Su, Qing Zong, Shijue Huang, Bingxiang He, and Yi R. Fung. Costbench: Evaluating multi-turn cost-optimal planning and adaptation in dynamic environments for llm tool-use agents, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02734

    2026 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Clawmark: A living-world benchmark for multi-turn, multi-day, multimodal coworker agents, 2026

    Fanqing Meng, Lingxiao Du, Zijian Wu, Guanzheng Chen, Xiangyan Liu, Jiaqi Liao, Chonghe Jiang, Zhenglin Wan, Jiawei Gu, Pengfei Zhou, Rui Huang, Ziqi Zhao, Shengyuan Ding, Ailing Yu, Bo Peng, Bowei Xia, Hao Sun, Haotian Liang, Ji Xie, Jiajun Chen, Jiajun Song, Liu Yang, Ming X...

    2026 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Clawarena: Benchmarking ai agents in evolving information environments, 2026

    Haonian Ji, Kaiwen Xiong, Siwei Han, Peng Xia, Shi Qiu, Yiyang Zhou, Jiaqi Liu, Jinlong Li, Bingzhou Li, Zeyu Zheng, Cihang Xie, and Huaxiu Yao. Clawarena: Benchmarking ai agents in evolving information environments, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04202

    2026 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Terrarium: Multi-turn data engine for evaluating and optimizing llm agents in living environments

    Evolvent AI. Terrarium: Multi-turn data engine for evaluating and optimizing llm agents in living environments. https://github.com/evolvent-ai/Terrarium, 2026. Open-source evaluation infrastructure

    2026

  9. [17]

    Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan

    Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan. Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues?, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06770

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Swt-bench: Testing and validating real-world bug-fixes with code agents, 2025

    Niels Mündler, Mark Niklas Müller, Jingxuan He, and Martin Vechev. Swt-bench: Testing and validating real-world bug-fixes with code agents, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2406.12952

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Deepswe: Measuring frontier coding agents on original, long-horizon engineering tasks, 2026

    Wenqi Huang, Charley Lee, Leonard Tng, and Serena Ge. Deepswe: Measuring frontier coding agents on original, long-horizon engineering tasks, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.07946

    2026 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Spreadsheetbench: Towards challenging real world spreadsheet manipulation, 2024

    Zeyao Ma, Bohan Zhang, Jing Zhang, Jifan Yu, Xiaokang Zhang, Xiaohan Zhang, Sijia Luo, Xi Wang, and Jie Tang. Spreadsheetbench: Towards challenging real world spreadsheet manipulation, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2406.14991

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Pptbench: Towards holistic evaluation of large language models for powerpoint layout and design understanding, 2025

    Zheng Huang, Xukai Liu, Tianyu Hu, Kai Zhang, and Ye Liu. Pptbench: Towards holistic evaluation of large language models for powerpoint layout and design understanding, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2512.02624

    2025

  14. [22]

    Kim, Patrick Chao, Samuel Miserendino, Gildas Chabot, David Li, Michael Sharman, Alexandra Barr, Amelia Glaese, and Jerry Tworek

    Tejal Patwardhan, Rachel Dias, Elizabeth Proehl, Grace Kim, Michele Wang, Olivia Watkins, Simón Posada Fishman, Marwan Aljubeh, Phoebe Thacker, Laurance Fauconnet, Natalie S. Kim, Patrick Chao, Samuel Miserendino, Gildas Chabot, David Li, Michael Sharman, Alexandra Barr, Ameli...

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Aa-briefcase, 2026

    Artificial Analysis. Aa-briefcase, 2026. URL https://huggingface.co/datasets/ ArtificialAnalysis/AA-Briefcase-Lite

    2026

  16. [24]

    Lifelongagentbench: Evaluating llm agents as lifelong learners, 2025

    Junhao Zheng, Xidi Cai, Qiuke Li, Duzhen Zhang, ZhongZhi Li, Yingying Zhang, Le Song, and Qianli Ma. Lifelongagentbench: Evaluating llm agents as lifelong learners, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.11942

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    R-horizon: How far can your large reasoning model really go in breadth and depth?, 2025

    Yi Lu, Jianing Wang, Linsen Guo, Wei He, Hongyin Tang, Tao Gui, Xuanjing Huang, Xuezhi Cao, Wei Wang, and Xunliang Cai. R-horizon: How far can your large reasoning model really go in breadth and depth?, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.08189. 16 A A Complete Task Walkthroug...

    2025

  18. [2026]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2605.03596

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.