Messier: A High-Resolution Corpus for Cross-Benchmark Agent Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.25891v1
• Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 15:50:19 GMT
• Title: Messier: A High-Resolution Corpus for Cross-Benchmark Agent Evaluation
• Abstract summary: Messier is a unified corpus of 957,253 records that span 30 benchmarks, 714 agents, 11,891 tasks, and 74,205 verifiers.<n>M Messier consolidates public benchmark scores and supplements them with five-agent runs across six underrepresented professional and scientific domains.
• Score: 37.16322609017877
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating AI agents in interactive environments is hindered by fragmented tasks, scaffolds, verifiers, and scoring rules. Existing efforts focus on narrow settings, remain limited in scale, or require costly reruns, leaving much of the empirical record incomparable. We introduce Messier, a unified corpus of 957,253 records that span 30 benchmarks, 714 agents, 11,891 tasks, and 74,205 verifiers. Messier consolidates public benchmark scores and supplements them with five-agent runs across six underrepresented professional and scientific domains, including a recent legal benchmark. Each record is standardized by model, scaffold, environment, task, verifier, and aggregation rule, with SOC/NAICS classifications for occupational and industry analysis. Using this corpus, we show frontier progress is uneven across benchmark types, with "function calling" saturated, "programming" improving the fastest, and "enterprise workflows" remaining the most challenging. Furthermore, counterfactual rescoring shows that strict all-pass aggregation in multi-verifier tasks can obscure progress and artificially alter agent rankings. From these standardized records, we derive capability scales that align with Epoch's Evaluation Capability Index rankings at Spearman \r{ho} = 0.81 and can be specialized by domain, occupation, action space, or verifier type. Messier provides a foundational, reusable infrastructure for agent capability scaling, benchmark auditing, and fine-grained analysis of evaluation failures.

Related papers

• AgentBeats: Agentifying Agent Assessment for Openness, Standardization, and Reproducibility [104.46861849039357]
  Agent systems are advancing quickly across domains, but their evaluation remains fragmented.<n>The root problem is the lack of an open, agent-agnostic assessment interface.<n>We advocate Agentified Agent Assessment (AAA), where evaluation is performed by judge agents and all participants interact through standardized protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T17:23:54Z)
• Benchmark Everything Everywhere All at Once [28.30618112297148]
  We introduce Benchmark Agent, a fully autonomous agentic system designed for benchmark building.<n>Our framework orchestrates the complete benchmark construction pipeline, from user query analysis and subtask design to data annotation and quality control.<n>We produce 15 representative benchmarks, spanning diverse evaluation scenarios, including text understanding, multimodal understanding, and domain-specific reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T17:52:04Z)
• 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)
• AJ-Bench: Benchmarking Agent-as-a-Judge for Environment-Aware Evaluation [71.49152943451328]
  We introduce a benchmark AJ-Bench to evaluate Agent-as-a-Judge across three domains-search, data systems, and graphical user interfaces-comprising 155 tasks and 516 annotated trajectories.<n>Experiments demonstrate consistent performance gains over LLM-as-a-Judge baselines, while also revealing substantial open challenges in agent-based verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-20T13:23:38Z)
• Benchmarking at the Edge of Comprehension [38.43582342860192]
  If benchmarking becomes infeasible, our ability to measure any progress in AI is at stake.<n>We propose Critique-Resilient Benchmarking, an adversarial framework designed to compare models even when full human understanding is infeasible.<n>Unlike standard benchmarking, humans serve as bounded verifiers and focus on localized claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T20:51:29Z)
• Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfaces [126.23612941699565]
  Terminal-Bench 2.0 is a benchmark composed of 89 tasks in computer terminal environments inspired by problems from real world.<n>We show that frontier models and agents score less than 65% on the benchmark.<n>We publish the dataset and evaluation harness to assist developers and researchers in future work at https://www.tbench.ai/.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-17T01:29:30Z)
• PentestJudge: Judging Agent Behavior Against Operational Requirements [0.0]
  PentestJudge is a system for evaluating operations of penetration testing agents.<n>We evaluate several models acting as judge agents, with the best model reaching an F1 score of 0.83.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T21:52:50Z)
• 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)
• AI Agents-as-Judge: Automated Assessment of Accuracy, Consistency, Completeness and Clarity for Enterprise Documents [0.0]
  This study presents a modular, multi-agent system for the automated review of highly structured enterprise business documents using AI agents.<n>It uses modern orchestration tools such as LangChain, CrewAI, TruLens, and Guidance to enable section-by-section evaluation of documents.<n>It achieves 99% information consistency (vs. 92% for humans), halving error and bias rates, and reducing average review time from 30 to 2.5 minutes per document.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T17:46:15Z)

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.