Benchmark Almanac

RE-Bench subset (Anthropic)

Only in system cards

Agents solve a modified subset of four METR RE-Bench research engineering tasks. Scores are normalized from reference solution 0 to expert solution 1.

Anthropic runs triton_cumsum, rust_codecontests_inference, restricted_mlm and fix_embedding. Scores are not comparable to METR's reported scores.

Made by
Anthropic
Released
February 2025
Kind
Machine learning engineering
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Claude 3.7 Sonnet #118 on the capability index
Last in a system card
February 2025
Last model added
February 2025

In the authors’ words

Frontier AI safety policies highlight automation of AI research and development (R&D) by AI agents as an important capability to anticipate. However, there exist few evaluations for AI R&D capabilities, and none that are highly realistic and have a direct comparison to human performance. We introduce RE-Bench (Research Engineering Benchmark, v1), which consists of 7 challenging, open-ended ML research engineering environments and data from 71 8-hour attempts by 61 distinct human experts. We confirm that our experts make progress in the environments given 8 hours, with 82% of expert attempts achieving a non-zero score and 24% matching or exceeding our strong reference solutions. We compare humans to several public frontier models through best-of-k with varying time budgets and agent designs, and find that the best AI agents achieve a score 4x higher than human experts when both are given a total time budget of 2 hours per environment. However, humans currently display better returns to increasing time budgets, narrowly exceeding the top AI agent scores given an 8-hour budget, and achieving 2x the score of the top AI agent when both are given 32 total hours (across different attempts). Qualitatively, we find that modern AI agents possess significant expertise in many ML topics – e.g. an agent wrote a faster custom Triton kernel than any of our human experts' – and can generate and test solutions over ten times faster than humans, at much lower cost. We open-source the evaluation environments, human expert data, analysis code and agent trajectories to facilitate future research.

Abstract of RE-Bench: Evaluating frontier AI R&D capabilities of language model agents against human experts (arXiv:2411.15114, CC0)
1
Model scored in lab cards
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads with 0.24

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

  1. 1 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 0.24

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 0.24 Feb 2025 Lab model card

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card
0.24 2025 0.24 2025

Source: Labs’ model cards

Labs report it only in system cards

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.

One system card reports it

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Feb 24, 2025 Claude 3.7 Sonnet system card 0.239 RE-Bench Subset (triton_cumsum, rust_codecontests_inference, restricted_mlm, fix_embedding), average normalized score 0.2386 (7.2.2, Figure 23) AI R&D risk

More in AI research

All 104 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