263 lines
9.7 KiB
Markdown
263 lines
9.7 KiB
Markdown
|
|
> Imported research draft. Benchmark versions, availability, and source claims require verification before operational use.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
# Benchmark Catalog — Initial Canon
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Status:** Draft 0.1
|
|||
|
|
**Snapshot date:** 2026-09-13
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 1. Purpose
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The Benchmark Catalog is not a list of scores. It is a registry of **measurement instruments**.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Each benchmark record should describe:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- intended construct;
|
|||
|
|
- task distribution;
|
|||
|
|
- modality;
|
|||
|
|
- interaction style;
|
|||
|
|
- agent/tool environment;
|
|||
|
|
- scoring;
|
|||
|
|
- versions;
|
|||
|
|
- freshness;
|
|||
|
|
- saturation;
|
|||
|
|
- contamination risk;
|
|||
|
|
- reproducibility;
|
|||
|
|
- ecological validity;
|
|||
|
|
- scaffold dependence;
|
|||
|
|
- cost to run;
|
|||
|
|
- public/private test status;
|
|||
|
|
- observed correlations with other benchmarks;
|
|||
|
|
- observed predictive value for Intelligence Radar task outcomes.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 2. Health dimensions
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Suggested 0–1 dimensions:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- `construct_relevance`
|
|||
|
|
- `ecological_validity`
|
|||
|
|
- `measurement_reliability`
|
|||
|
|
- `discriminative_power`
|
|||
|
|
- `freshness`
|
|||
|
|
- `reproducibility`
|
|||
|
|
- `contamination_resistance`
|
|||
|
|
- `execution_profile_similarity`
|
|||
|
|
- `coverage_breadth`
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
No single health score should replace the components, though a summary can be generated.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 3. Initial benchmark candidates
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Humanity's Last Exam (HLE)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Constructs:** broad expert academic knowledge/reasoning, multimodal closed-ended reasoning.
|
|||
|
|
**Strength:** deliberately difficult broad frontier evaluation.
|
|||
|
|
**Risk:** closed-ended academic performance is not equivalent to agentic work; rapid frontier gains can reduce discrimination over time.
|
|||
|
|
**Status:** active/watch for saturation.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Source: Nature, *A benchmark of expert-level academic questions to assess AI capabilities*, published 2026-01-28.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### ARC-AGI-2
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Constructs:** abstraction, novel-rule induction, test-time adaptation, sample-efficient generalization.
|
|||
|
|
**Strength:** novel tasks with minimal prior task-specific knowledge; explicit efficiency orientation.
|
|||
|
|
**Risk:** narrow task formalism; uncertain transfer to many real workloads.
|
|||
|
|
**Status:** active.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Source: ARC Prize official ARC-AGI-2 materials and 2026 competition.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### SWE-bench Verified
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Constructs:** repository-level software issue resolution.
|
|||
|
|
**Environment:** code repository + tests; agent/scaffold heavily matters.
|
|||
|
|
**Strength:** real GitHub issues; executable verification.
|
|||
|
|
**Risk:** benchmark and scaffold familiarity; Python-heavy Verified set; high scores reduce discrimination.
|
|||
|
|
**Status:** active/watch.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Official site states Verified is a human-filtered 500-instance subset.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### SWE-bench Multilingual
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Constructs:** real software engineering across multiple languages.
|
|||
|
|
**Strength:** 300 curated tasks from 42 repositories across 9 languages.
|
|||
|
|
**Risk:** still a specific issue-resolution distribution.
|
|||
|
|
**Status:** active.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Terminal-Bench
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Constructs:** agent competence on hard terminal tasks.
|
|||
|
|
**Strength:** execution-based tasks in sandboxed terminal environments.
|
|||
|
|
**Risk:** version comparability and agent harness effects must be tracked carefully.
|
|||
|
|
**Status:** active; version must always be recorded.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Artificial Analysis moved its aggregate index to Terminal-Bench v4.0 in September 2026, illustrating rapid benchmark version churn.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Constructs:** tool/function calling and broader agentic tool use.
|
|||
|
|
**Strength:** explicit function/tool-use evaluation, real-world contributed functions, multi-turn and agentic evolution.
|
|||
|
|
**Risk:** native function calling vs prompted emulation are distinct execution conditions.
|
|||
|
|
**Status:** active.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Official leaderboard describes V4 as moving from function calling toward holistic agentic evaluation.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### τ³-bench
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Constructs:** tool-agent-user interaction; knowledge-aware and voice variants.
|
|||
|
|
**Strength:** evaluates coordination with dynamic users/tools rather than isolated single-turn answers.
|
|||
|
|
**Risk:** domain/task versioning materially affects comparability.
|
|||
|
|
**Status:** active.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
A July 2026 grading update explicitly made affected pre-1.0.1 and post-1.0.1 results non-comparable.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### OSWorld 2.0
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Constructs:** multimodal computer use in real operating-system environments.
|
|||
|
|
**Strength:** execution in computer environments.
|
|||
|
|
**Risk:** environment configuration, UI drift, and agent harness matter.
|
|||
|
|
**Status:** active.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
OSWorld announced version 2.0 in June 2026.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### BrowseComp
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Constructs:** persistent web research/navigation to find difficult information.
|
|||
|
|
**Strength:** tests search persistence and information discovery.
|
|||
|
|
**Risk:** short verifiable answers omit much of real research quality, synthesis, ambiguity handling, and citation practice.
|
|||
|
|
**Status:** active.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The original dataset contains 1,266 difficult browsing questions.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### METR Task-Completion Time Horizon
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Constructs:** autonomy/reliability versus human-expert task duration.
|
|||
|
|
**Strength:** converts heterogeneous software tasks into an interpretable time-horizon measure at fixed success probability.
|
|||
|
|
**Risk:** software-task distribution; estimates above the tested horizon become unreliable.
|
|||
|
|
**Status:** active.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
METR's Time Horizon 1.1 page was last updated 2026-05-08 and explicitly warns that measurements above 16 hours are unreliable with the current task suite.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### GDPval / GDPval-AA v2
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Constructs:** economically valuable professional knowledge work across occupations.
|
|||
|
|
**Strength:** realistic work products including documents, spreadsheets, diagrams, and slides.
|
|||
|
|
**Risk:** judge-model sensitivity and agent harness effects; GDPval-AA is an independent evaluation implementation rather than the original benchmark alone.
|
|||
|
|
**Status:** active.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Artificial Analysis' GDPval-AA v2 uses 220 tasks from the larger GDPval dataset, shell/web tools, and pairwise judging.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### AA-Briefcase
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Constructs:** long-horizon agentic knowledge work.
|
|||
|
|
**Strength:** private evaluation set helps contamination resistance.
|
|||
|
|
**Risk:** externally non-reproducible/private; methodology provider dependence.
|
|||
|
|
**Status:** active as independent evidence, not canonical truth.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Included in Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.2+.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### AutomationBench-AA
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Constructs:** agentic business workflow automation.
|
|||
|
|
**Strength:** hundreds of workflows across simulated business applications with a private question set.
|
|||
|
|
**Risk:** implementation-specific; private test set.
|
|||
|
|
**Status:** active as independent evidence.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Added to Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.3 in September 2026.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### SciCode
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Constructs:** scientific reasoning translated into research-level code.
|
|||
|
|
**Strength:** scientist-curated problems from realistic scientific workflows.
|
|||
|
|
**Risk:** specialized scientific-programming distribution.
|
|||
|
|
**Status:** active.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Original benchmark contains research problems across physics, mathematics, materials science, biology, and chemistry.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### MLPerf Inference
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Constructs:** systems-level inference performance and efficiency, not semantic intelligence directly.
|
|||
|
|
**Strength:** standardized hardware/software serving measurement; indispensable for self-hosting economics.
|
|||
|
|
**Risk:** workload benchmark results are not direct task-quality rankings.
|
|||
|
|
**Status:** active.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
MLPerf Inference v6.0 added/updated major LLM workloads including GPT-OSS 120B and an interactive DeepSeek-R1 scenario.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 4. Benchmarks intentionally not treated as timeless
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
A benchmark can lose selection priority when:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- frontier systems approach ceiling;
|
|||
|
|
- training contamination becomes plausible;
|
|||
|
|
- test cases become widely optimized against;
|
|||
|
|
- scorer errors are discovered;
|
|||
|
|
- benchmark version changes invalidate comparability;
|
|||
|
|
- the benchmark ceases to predict real Intelligence Radar outcomes;
|
|||
|
|
- a more ecologically valid instrument becomes available.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The 2026 Stanford AI Index explicitly reports rapid benchmark saturation and evaluation-quality concerns. That is a design requirement for Intelligence Radar, not background trivia.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 5. Five-benchmark selection rule
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Given task `T`, candidate benchmark `b`, and already-selected set `S`:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
```text
|
|||
|
|
base(b,T) =
|
|||
|
|
0.30 relevance_to_task
|
|||
|
|
+ 0.15 ecological_validity
|
|||
|
|
+ 0.12 measurement_reliability
|
|||
|
|
+ 0.12 discriminative_power
|
|||
|
|
+ 0.10 freshness
|
|||
|
|
+ 0.10 execution_profile_similarity
|
|||
|
|
+ 0.06 reproducibility
|
|||
|
|
+ 0.05 contamination_resistance
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
marginal(b,T,S) =
|
|||
|
|
base(b,T)
|
|||
|
|
- redundancy_penalty(b,S)
|
|||
|
|
- known_bias_penalty(b,T)
|
|||
|
|
```
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Select greedily or via constrained optimization until five measurements are chosen.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Then normalize task weights across the five:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
`weight_i = positive_relevance_i / Σ positive_relevance`
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The system must return:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- raw relevance;
|
|||
|
|
- final weight;
|
|||
|
|
- why selected;
|
|||
|
|
- what it fails to measure;
|
|||
|
|
- independence/redundancy notes;
|
|||
|
|
- benchmark version;
|
|||
|
|
- most recent result date used.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 6. Capability-to-benchmark examples
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| Task characteristic | Strong candidate evidence |
|
|||
|
|
|---|---|
|
|||
|
|
| Repository issue resolution | SWE-bench Verified / Multilingual |
|
|||
|
|
| Terminal/DevOps work | Terminal-Bench |
|
|||
|
|
| Tool/API orchestration | BFCL V4 |
|
|||
|
|
| User+tool interactive workflow | τ³-bench |
|
|||
|
|
| Computer GUI use | OSWorld 2.0 |
|
|||
|
|
| Deep web research | BrowseComp |
|
|||
|
|
| Long autonomous software tasks | METR time horizon |
|
|||
|
|
| Professional deliverables | GDPval-AA v2 / AA-Briefcase |
|
|||
|
|
| Business-app automation | AutomationBench-AA |
|
|||
|
|
| Scientific programming | SciCode |
|
|||
|
|
| Novel abstract induction | ARC-AGI-2 |
|
|||
|
|
| Broad expert knowledge | HLE |
|
|||
|
|
| Self-hosted inference economics | MLPerf Inference |
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 7. Required next catalog work
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1. Add machine-readable records for every benchmark.
|
|||
|
|
2. Capture version-specific score semantics.
|
|||
|
|
3. Estimate benchmark correlations from shared model results.
|
|||
|
|
4. Add saturation indicators.
|
|||
|
|
5. Add benchmark-cost estimates.
|
|||
|
|
6. Add contamination/public-test exposure indicators.
|
|||
|
|
7. Record model/scaffold/provider exact configuration for every result.
|
|||
|
|
8. Add predictive validity against the Task → Model Performance Ledger.
|