RE-Bench
Seven open-ended ML research-engineering environments with human-expert baselines. Score normalized to reference solutions.
- Made by
- METR
- Released
- November 2024
- Kind
- AI research tasks
- Level
- Research frontier
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
-
Gemini 3.1 Pro #39 on the capability index
- Last in a system card
- February 2026
- Last model added
- February 2026
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.
Gemini 3.1 Pro leads with 1.27
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.
Source: Labs’ model cards
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 1.27 | Feb 2026 | 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.
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.
6 system cards report it, from 2 labs
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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 19, 2026 | | 1.27 | RE-Bench (Deep Think mode): human-normalised average score 1.27. Optimise LLM Foundry runtime 47 s vs human reference 94 s (FSF results table, p.9) | AI R&D risk |
| Nov 18, 2025 | | RE-Bench subset of 5 tasks, normalised scores, 32-hour budget, chart without printed values (Figure 4) | AI R&D risk | |
| Jul 7, 2025 | | RE-Bench, 5 of 7 tasks, 32-hour budget: best agent solutions achieve between 50% and 125% of best expert-written solutions (Table 10); Figure 12 prints no values | AI R&D risk | |
| Jul 7, 2025 | | RE-Bench, 2.5 Flash 45-minute runs plotted in Figure 12 without printed values | AI R&D risk | |
| Apr 28, 2025 | | RE-Bench, 5 of 7 tasks: <= ~60% of human performance (Table 1), on average roughly 10-30% of human expert performance (text); Figure 4 prints no values | AI R&D risk | |
| Sep 12, 2024 | o1-preview system card | METR AI R&D Evaluations, normalized score on 7 environments, chart without printed numbers (Figure 5, 8.4) | AI R&D risk |
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