EvoPolicyGym
Agents repeatedly edit an executable policy for compact interactive RL environments under a fixed interaction budget. The score tracks how much the policy improves.
48 HF paper upvotes and about 150 GitHub stars.
- Made by
- EvoPolicyGym authors
- Released
- July 2026
- Kind
- AI research tasks
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-5.5 #20 on the capability index
- Last model added
- June 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Autonomous agents are increasingly expected to improve executable policies through feedback, yet existing evaluations often collapse this process into a final score or confound it with open-ended software-engineering progress. We introduce Autonomous Policy Evolution, a controlled evaluation setting in which a harness-model agent repeatedly edits an executable policy system under a fixed interaction budget. We instantiate this setting in EvoPolicyGym, a benchmark built from compact interactive RL environments that evaluates how agents iteratively improve explored policies. On the EvoPolicyGym suite, GPT-5.5 achieves the strongest aggregate rank score and top-two performance on all 16 environments. Beyond leaderboard results, EvoPolicyGym also provides trajectory-level diagnostics that distinguish how agents allocate budget, convert feedback into parametric tuning. These analyses show that strong autonomous policy evolution depends not only on isolated task wins, but on discovering task-appropriate mechanisms and refining policies under bounded feedback.
GPT-5.5 leads with 0.89 among models released by June 2026
Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.
The newest model with a score here came out in June 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 15 more
- 1 GPT-5.5 128 episode budget 0.89
- 2 Claude Opus 4.7 128 episode budget 0.75
- 3
MiniMax-M3 128 episode budget 0.53
- 4
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 128 episode budget 0.36
Source: Official EvoPolicyGym leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-5.5 | 0.89 | 128 episode budget, Codex | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 0.75 | 128 episode budget, Claude Code | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | | 0.53 | 128 episode budget, Claude Code | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | | 0.36 | 128 episode budget, Claude Code | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official EvoPolicyGym leaderboard
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Official EvoPolicyGym leaderboard
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
More in AI research
- PaperBench In use Agent replicates ICML 2024 papers from scratch. LLM judge grades against author-written hierarchical rubrics.
Qwen 3.8 Max 93%
- MLS-Bench In use Agent must invent one algorithmic change in an ML research scaffold whose gain transfers across settings. Scored relative to human baselines. Claude Fable 5.1 50.3%
- PostTrainBench 1.2 In use CLI agent gets a base model, one H100 and a time budget to post-train it for a target benchmark. Scored on normalized gain. Claude Fable 5.1 44.6%
- MLE-bench In use Kaggle-style ML engineering competitions. Agent trains models and is scored against competition leaderboards. GPT-6 Astra 93.8%
- KernelBench In use Replace PyTorch operators with faster custom GPU kernels. Scored on correctness and speedup.
MiniMax-M3 28.8%
- PMPP-Hard In use Agents write GPU kernels for 69 tasks that must be correct, and on 48 of them also run within 1.25 times the reference time. The score is the area under the solved-tasks curve over a 10-hour budget, out of 690 task-hours.
Inkling 2 Small 494.3