LoopArena
Models act as the controller loop around a coding agent. They monitor progress, assign work, run checks and decide when the task is safe to submit.
96 HF paper upvotes. Separates the loop's guidance from the coding agent's own skill.
- Made by
- AMAP-ML (Alibaba)
- Released
- August 2026
- Kind
- Building whole projects
- 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
- July 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Loop Engineering is emerging as a practice for organizing development work around coding agents. Instead of writing each prompt by hand, practitioners design loops that monitor progress, assign work, run checks, and decide what the agent should do next. Even with a capable coding agent, a loop may trust a stale progress note, skip needed verification, spend its budget in the wrong direction, or stop before the task is safe to submit. Yet the final outcome of one end-to-end run cannot tell whether success or failure reflects the loop's guidance or the coding agent's ability to carry out the task. We introduce LoopArena, a benchmark for evaluating how well one model can guide a separate coding agent through a long-running task. The model under evaluation is the Controller: after each coding round, it receives a structured summary of the run and instructs a separate, fixed coding agent, the Worker, on what to do or verify next, or decides whether to stop. LoopArena evaluates this ability in three complementary settings that differ in execution scope and cost. Type I consists of 160 low-cost control questions; its execution cost is incurred once during benchmark construction, so each new Controller is evaluated through a single four-way choice with no code execution. Type II evaluates Controller guidance on 80 selected task slices, while Type III evaluates the corresponding 80 full tasks from their original states. On full tasks, the best observed Strict Success Rate is 36.25%, leaving substantial room for improvement in long-horizon loop control. Across Controllers, the paired reduction in estimated inference cost averages 60.6%, and Type II produces a positively correlated ordering under the main Core criterion (Spearman's rho = 0.7353). We release the benchmark data and evaluation code at https://github.com/AMAP-ML/LoopArena.
GPT-5.5 leads with 36.3% among models released by July 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 July 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 36.3%
- 2
Qwen3.7-Plus 34.2%
- 3
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 33.8%
- 4 Claude Opus 4.8 33.8%
- 5
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 28.3%
- 6 GLM-5.2 24.2%
Source: Official LoopArena leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-5.5 | 36.3% | LoopArena controller | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | | 34.2% | LoopArena controller | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | | 33.8% | LoopArena controller | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 33.8% | LoopArena controller | May 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | | 28.3% | LoopArena controller | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | GLM-5.2 | 24.2% | LoopArena controller | Jun 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 LoopArena 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 LoopArena 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 Coding
- SWE-bench Verified In use 500 human-validated GitHub issues from 12 Python repos. Agent writes a patch that must pass hidden tests. Claude Opus 4.7 83.5%
- LiveCodeBench v6 In use Competitive programming problems collected after model cutoffs from LeetCode, AtCoder, Codeforces. Scored pass@1 on hidden tests.
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 93.5%
- SWE-bench Multilingual In use 300 GitHub-issue tasks across nine programming languages in SWE-bench format. Patch graded by repository tests. Claude Fable 5.2 96.6%
- DeepSWE In use 113 original long-horizon engineering tasks across 91 repos and five languages, written from scratch. Hand-written verifiers accept alternative solutions. GPT-6 Astra 74.1%
- SciCode In use Scientist-curated research coding problems split into subproblems across natural sciences. Code checked against test cases.
Seed2.1 Pro 59.8%
- Codeforces rating In use Model solves recent Codeforces contest problems. An Elo-style rating is computed from simulated contest performance.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 3,471