ELT-Bench-Verified: Benchmark Quality Issues Underestimate AI Agent Capabilities

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29399v2
• Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2026 17:59:44 GMT
• Title: ELT-Bench-Verified: Benchmark Quality Issues Underestimate AI Agent Capabilities
• Abstract summary: Extract-Load-Transform pipelines are a labor-intensive data engineering task and a high-impact target for AI automation.<n>On ELT-Bench, the first benchmark for end-to-end ELT pipeline construction, AI agents initially showed low success rates.<n>We revisit these results and identify two factors causing a substantial underestimation of agent capabilities.
• Score: 4.5258165293324515
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Constructing Extract-Load-Transform (ELT) pipelines is a labor-intensive data engineering task and a high-impact target for AI automation. On ELT-Bench, the first benchmark for end-to-end ELT pipeline construction, AI agents initially showed low success rates, suggesting they lacked practical utility. We revisit these results and identify two factors causing a substantial underestimation of agent capabilities. First, re-evaluating ELT-Bench with upgraded large language models reveals that the extraction and loading stage is largely solved, while transformation performance improves significantly. Second, we develop an Auditor-Corrector methodology that combines scalable LLM-driven root-cause analysis with rigorous human validation (inter-annotator agreement Fleiss' kappa = 0.85) to audit benchmark quality. Applying this to ELT-Bench uncovers that most failed transformation tasks contain benchmark-attributable errors -- including rigid evaluation scripts, ambiguous specifications, and incorrect ground truth -- that penalize correct agent outputs. Based on these findings, we construct ELT-Bench-Verified, a revised benchmark with refined evaluation logic and corrected ground truth. Re-evaluating on this version yields significant improvement attributable entirely to benchmark correction. Our results show that both rapid model improvement and benchmark quality issues contributed to underestimating agent capabilities. More broadly, our findings echo observations of pervasive annotation errors in text-to-SQL benchmarks, suggesting quality issues are systemic in data engineering evaluation. Systematic quality auditing should be standard practice for complex agentic tasks. We release ELT-Bench-Verified to provide a more reliable foundation for progress in AI-driven data engineering automation.

Related papers

• Efficient SWE Agent Benchmarking via Trajectory-Aware Evaluation [46.74484954631231]
  We propose PTA-IRT, a Privileged Trajectory-Aware Item Response Theory framework that fuses process and outcome signals.<n>Under low calibration budgets, PTA-IRT consistently outperforms prior IRT baselines on score and ranking recovery across four SWE benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-01T17:59:46Z)
• LLM-as-a-Verifier: A General-Purpose Verification Framework [74.40111651545979]
  We introduce LLM-as-a-Verifier, a general-purpose verification framework.<n>It provides fine-grained feedback for agentic tasks without requiring additional training.<n>It achieves state-of-the-art performance on several benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-06T17:59:35Z)
• RigorBench: Benchmarking Engineering Process Discipline in Autonomous AI Coding Agents [0.0]
  RigorBench is the first benchmark to measure process discipline in AI coding agents.<n>It evaluates harnesses across five pillars: Planning Fidelity, Verification Coverage, Recovery Efficiency, Abstention Quality, and Atomic Transition Integrity.<n>Our results show that structured process discipline improves process quality scores by an average of 41% and raises downstream outcome correctness by 17%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-21T21:41:34Z)
• Automated Benchmark Auditing for AI Agents and Large Language Models [46.03841647776303]
  Auto Benchmark Audit (ABA) is an agentic framework that systematically audits individual benchmark tasks.<n>We run ABA on a collection of frontier LLM benchmarks and previous NeurIPS publications, totaling 168 benchmarks across nine domains.<n>ABA identifies critical issues including ambiguous task design, execution environment conflicts, and incorrect ground truths in over 25.7% of the evaluated tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-25T17:44:21Z)
• LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation [75.05397479715576]
  Large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, but their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear.<n>We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T11:31:33Z)
• Rewarding the Scientific Process: Process-Level Reward Modeling for Agentic Data Analysis [68.28714988482703]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) have achieved remarkable success in augmenting the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We present a study revealing that general-domain PRMs struggle to supervise data analysis agents.<n>We introduce DataPRM, a novel environment-aware generative process reward model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-27T09:00:30Z)
• PRIME: A Process-Outcome Alignment Benchmark for Verifiable Reasoning in Mathematics and Engineering [71.15346406323827]
  We introduce PRIME, a benchmark for evaluating verifiers on Process-Outcome Alignment verification.<n>We find that current verifiers frequently fail to detect derivation flaws.<n>We propose a process-aware RLVR training paradigm utilizing verifiers selected via PRIME.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T04:45:01Z)
• AACR-Bench: Evaluating Automatic Code Review with Holistic Repository-Level Context [10.769682566098695]
  AACR-Bench is a comprehensive benchmark that provides full cross-file context across multiple programming languages.<n>Unlike traditional datasets, AACR-Bench employs an "AI-assisted, Expert-verified" annotation pipeline to uncover latent defects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T11:28:44Z)
• DataGovBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Real-World Data Governance Workflows [22.16698382751559]
  Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a promising solution for automating data governance by translating user intent into code.<n>Existing benchmarks for automated data science often emphasize snippet-level coding or high-level analytics.<n>We introduce DataGovBench, a benchmark featuring 150 diverse tasks grounded in real-world scenarios, built on data from actual cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-04T03:25:12Z)
• Automatic Building Code Review: A Case Study [6.530899637501737]
  Building officials face labor-intensive, error-prone, and costly manual reviews of design documents as projects increase in size and complexity.<n>This study introduces a novel agent-driven framework that integrates BIM-based data extraction with automated verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-03T00:30:14Z)
• Automatic Failure Attribution and Critical Step Prediction Method for Multi-Agent Systems Based on Causal Inference [8.823529310904162]
  Multi-agent systems (MAS) are critical for automating complex tasks, yet their practical deployment is hampered by the challenge of failure attribution.<n>We introduce the first failure attribution framework for MAS grounded in multi-granularity causal inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-10T15:22:00Z)
• Automated Validation of LLM-based Evaluators for Software Engineering Artifacts [0.7548538278943616]
  REFINE (Ranking Evaluators for FIne grained Nuanced Evaluation) is an automated framework for benchmarking large language models (LLMs)<n> REFINE applies novel generation techniques to automatically synthesize artifacts with progressively reduced quality.<n>It quantifies each candidate evaluator configuration by measuring how closely its rankings align with expected ordering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T18:52:01Z)
• Establishing Best Practices for Building Rigorous Agentic Benchmarks [94.69724201080155]
  We show that many agentic benchmarks have issues in task setup or reward design.<n>Such issues can lead to under- or overestimation of agents' performance by up to 100% in relative terms.<n>We introduce the Agentic Benchmark Checklist (ABC), a set of guidelines that we synthesized from our benchmark-building experience.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T17:35:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.