Benchmark Almanac

AutoLab

Claude Opus 4.6 0.68 leads since June 2026
Not in model cards

Agents start from a correct but weak baseline and improve it within a fixed wall-clock budget by measuring, editing and measuring again. The 36 tasks span system optimization, puzzles, model development and CUDA kernels, such as scaling-law fitting, radix sort and FlashAttention. Each task scores the measured improvement, averaged over three runs.

The site ranks 11 models by Avg@3 and also shows Best@3. The paper evaluates 17 models and finds that persistence in rerunning and refining matters more than the quality of the first attempt. About 170 GitHub stars and 31 HF paper upvotes.

Released
June 2026
Kind
Machine learning engineering
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-5.4 #27 on the capability index
Last model added
April 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Scientific and engineering progress is fundamentally a long-horizon iterative process: proposing changes, running experiments, measuring outcomes, and continuously refining artifacts. Yet existing benchmarks for frontier models primarily evaluate either single-turn responses or short-horizon agent trajectories, failing to capture the challenges of sustained iterative improvement over extended time horizons. To address this gap, we introduce AutoLab, a new benchmark for ultra long-horizon closed-loop optimization. AutoLab consists of 36 realistic, expert-curated tasks spanning four diverse domains: system optimization, puzzle & challenge, model development, and CUDA kernel optimization. Each task begins with a correct but deliberately suboptimal baseline and challenges agents to improve it within a strict wall-clock budget. Evaluating 17 state-of-the-art models reveals the dominant predictor of success is not the quality of an agent's initial attempt, but its persistence in repeatedly benchmarking, editing, and incorporating empirical feedback. While claude-opus-4.6 exhibits strong long-horizon optimization capabilities, most frontier models, including several proprietary ones, either terminate prematurely or exhaust their budgets with minimal progress. These results underscore the importance of time awareness and persistent iteration in autonomous agents. We open-source the full benchmark, evaluation harness, and task artifacts, to accelerate research toward truly capable long-horizon agents.

Abstract of AutoLab: Can Frontier Models Solve Long-Horizon Auto Research and Engineering Tasks? (arXiv:2606.05080, CC0)
11
Entries on its own leaderboard, 10 models we track

Claude Opus 4.6 leads with 0.68 among models released by April 2026

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

The newest model with a score here came out in April 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Claude Opus 4.6 0.68
  2. 2 Gemini 3.1 Pro 0.50
  3. 3 Kimi K2.6 0.46
  4. 4 MiMo-V2.5-Pro 0.45
  5. 5 GLM-5 0.43
  6. 6 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 0.38
  7. 7 GPT-5.4 0.36
  8. 8 Grok 4.20 0.35
  9. 9 Hunyuan-3-Preview 0.31
  10. 10 MiniMax-M2.7 0.27
  11. 11 Qwen 3.6 Plus 0.27

Source: Official AutoLab leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 4.6 0.68 Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 3.1 Pro 0.50 Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
3 Kimi K2.6 0.46 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
4 MiMo-V2.5-Pro 0.45 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
5 GLM-5 0.43 Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
6 DeepSeek-V4-Pro 0.38 Apr 2026 Official leaderboard
7 GPT-5.4 0.36 Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
8 Grok 4.20 0.35 Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
9 Hunyuan-3-Preview 0.31 Official leaderboard
10 MiniMax-M2.7 0.27 Mar 2026 Official leaderboard
11 Qwen 3.6 Plus 0.27 Mar 2026 Official leaderboard

Number one over time

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Jun 2026

Source: Official AutoLab leaderboard

Scores over time

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

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 2026 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 2026

Source: Official AutoLab 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 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