Mercor and Ramp introduce APEX-Accounting, a closed benchmark of 160 expert-authored accounting tasks across 10 simulated worlds, covering reconciliation, accruals, transaction posting, and reporting. Across nine frontier models, Claude-Fable-5 (Max) leads with 56.4% Mean Criteria@3, while no model exceeds 2.6% on the stricter Pass^8 metric, indicating substantial headroom. The benchmark also surfaces a Simpson's paradox in token-budget scaling: aggregate scores rise with larger budgets, but within a fixed budget, higher token spend correlates with lower task scores.
AutoLab is a new benchmark of 36 expert-curated tasks across system optimization, puzzle-solving, model development, and CUDA kernel optimization, designed to test agents on sustained closed-loop improvement under wall-clock budgets rather than single-turn or short-horizon settings. Evaluation of 17 frontier models finds that persistence in iterative benchmarking and feedback incorporation — not initial attempt quality — is the dominant success predictor. Claude Opus 4.6 stands out as the strongest performer, while most models including proprietary ones either terminate early or exhaust budgets with minimal progress. The benchmark, harness, and task artifacts are open-sourced.
IBM Research and Artificial Analysis have released ITBench-AA, a benchmark targeting agentic AI performance on enterprise IT operations tasks. Frontier models evaluated on the benchmark score below 50%, indicating significant capability gaps in real-world IT automation scenarios. The benchmark appears to be the first of its kind focused specifically on agentic enterprise IT workflows, covering tasks relevant to site reliability engineering and IT operations.
Researchers introduce BusinessCaseBench, a benchmark of hundreds of questions drawn from business school case studies across eighteen disciplines, each graded against expert instructor rubrics. The benchmark targets analytical knowledge work — synthesis, judgment under uncertainty, strategic reasoning, trade-off analysis — that existing benchmarks largely miss. Frontier AI models already score highly on the benchmark, and capability within one model family improved substantially over two years. The authors argue this has direct implications for business education and entry-level professional roles historically anchored by these skills.
Researchers introduce EnterpriseClawBench, an enterprise agent benchmark constructed from proprietary real-world workplace sessions, yielding 852 reproducible tasks with fixtures, prompts, role classes, skill subclasses, and semantic rubrics. Because the sessions contain internal enterprise content, the benchmark data is not publicly released, but the construction and evaluation protocol is the reusable contribution. The best evaluated configuration (Codex with GPT-5.5) achieves only 0.663, indicating substantial headroom. The paper argues enterprise agent evaluation must report harness-model combinations, artifact delivery, visual quality, cost, runtime, and skill-transfer behavior rather than collapsing to a single score.
Researchers introduce AARR (Act As a Real Researcher), a new benchmark series targeting whether AI agents can emulate the professionalism, thoroughness, and nuanced judgment of human researchers in granular research scenarios—not just macro-level task execution. The first benchmark, AARRI-Bench, tests frontier models and agentic harnesses, finding that even the best configuration (Mini-SWE-Agent with Claude Opus 4.7) achieves only 68.3% success, frequently missing subtle but critical details obvious to human researchers. The work argues that closing the gap requires deeper modeling of research behavior rather than more complex scaffolding.
A Interconnects commentary piece examining how to compare frontier AI models in 2026, using Anthropic's Opus 4.6 and OpenAI's Codex 5.3 as case studies. The piece appears to argue that traditional benchmarks are no longer sufficient for distinguishing model capabilities at the frontier. This reflects a broader industry shift toward more nuanced, task-specific evaluation methods.
MacAgentBench introduces a 676-task benchmark across 25 macOS applications designed to evaluate computer use agents (CUAs) with framework augmentation and fine-grained multi-checkpoint scoring, addressing gaps in existing binary-evaluation benchmarks. Nearly 60% of tasks involve both GUI and CLI interaction, and the benchmark tests 16 models across three agent frameworks. The best result — Claude Opus 4.6 on the OpenClaw framework — achieves 73.7% Pass@1, with performance gains attributed primarily to the skill library rather than framework design. Fine-grained metrics reveal that models with similar Pass@1 scores can differ substantially in sub-goal completion, highlighting limitations of coarse evaluation.
This commentary introduces CRUX, a new evaluation project designed to assess frontier AI systems on long-horizon, open-ended, and messy real-world tasks. The piece argues that existing benchmarks are insufficient for capturing the full range of capabilities exhibited by frontier models in complex settings. CRUX aims to fill this gap by providing evaluations that better reflect deployment-relevant performance.