AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Life After Benchmark Saturation: A Case Study of CORE-Bench

When a benchmark's accuracy saturates, it is often retired. This paper shows that this approach misses six other key dimensions: construct validity issues, out-of-distribution generalizability, efficiency, reliability, model versus scaffold importance, and human-agent collaboration uplift. Using CORE-Bench Hard, they surface construct validity threats, introduce an improved benchmark v1.1 and OOD suite, and find that the benchmark remains useful for measuring efficiency, reliability, and performance. A small-scale experiment shows human-agent collaboration yields about a 2x speedup.

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Nitya Nadgir, Sayash Kapoor, Kangheng Liu, Peter Kirgis, Matilda Orona, Stephan Rabanser, Tilman Bayer, Abhishek Shetty, Yue Ling, Derrick Chan-Sew, Rumi Nakagawa, Saiteja Utpala, Zachary S. Siegel, Arvind Narayanan

[2606.26158] Life After Benchmark Saturation: A Case Study of CORE-Bench

[Submitted on 23 Jun 2026]

Title:Life After Benchmark Saturation: A Case Study of CORE-Bench

View a PDF of the paper titled Life After Benchmark Saturation: A Case Study of CORE-Bench, by Nitya Nadgir and 13 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:When a benchmark's accuracy saturates, it is often retired and replaced with a more challenging version. We show that this approach privileges accuracy and misses the opportunity to study six other key dimensions of agent performance: construct validity issues such as shortcuts, out-of-distribution generalizability, efficiency, reliability, the relative importance of the model versus the scaffold, and uplift from human-agent collaboration. We use CORE-Bench Hard, a benchmark for computational reproducibility of scientific code, as a case study to demonstrate that measuring agents along these dimensions yields meaningful insights into agent performance even after accuracy saturates. First, we surface threats to construct validity in CORE-Bench Hard that are difficult to anticipate with less capable agents. We introduce an improved benchmark, CORE-Bench v1.1, and an out-of-distribution task suite, CORE-Bench OOD. Second, we find that despite accuracy saturation, CORE-Bench v1.1 remains useful for measuring efficiency, reliability, model performance, and scaffold performance. Finally, we conduct a small-scale randomized experiment to measure uplift from human-agent collaboration on real-world computational reproducibility tasks. We find a statistically significant speedup by about a factor of two -- likely underestimated due to one-fifth of human-only reproductions reaching the time limit before completing -- and describe various other findings. Together, our contributions present a more rigorous alternative to the dominant accuracy-centric evaluation paradigm.

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

Cite as: arXiv:2606.26158 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2606.26158v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.26158

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Nitya Nadgir [view email] [v1] Tue, 23 Jun 2026 22:30:44 UTC (2,036 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Life After Benchmark Saturation: A Case Study of CORE-Bench, by Nitya Nadgir and 13 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-06

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)