Harbor Adapters and Harbor-Index: Infrastructure and a Curated Meta-Dataset for Large-Scale Agentic Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.04298v3
• Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 02:39:50 GMT
• Title: Harbor Adapters and Harbor-Index: Infrastructure and a Curated Meta-Dataset for Large-Scale Agentic Evaluation
• Abstract summary: We develop benchmark adapters that port more than 80 benchmarks to evaluate arbitrary agents.<n>We conduct a large-scale evaluation of 8 models spanning capability tiers across 54 benchmarks.<n>We introduce Harbor-Index, a curated set of 82 difficult, diverse, and high-quality tasks spanning 29 benchmarks.
• Score: 141.29138788636013
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating agents on the growing number of agentic benchmarks is challenging because they often require complex environments and agent integrations. We introduce Harbor Adapters, a unified evaluation infrastructure for agentic benchmarks. Our work makes three contributions. First, we develop benchmark adapters that port more than 80 benchmarks to evaluate arbitrary agents, and validate them through rigorous code review and parity experiments. Second, we conduct a large-scale evaluation of 8 models spanning capability tiers across 54 benchmarks; every model is run with Terminus-2 and with one of 3 native harnesses. This enables a broader analysis of agent capabilities and failure modes than was previously possible. Third, we introduce Harbor-Index, a curated set of 82 difficult, diverse, and high-quality tasks spanning 29 benchmarks, refined from the adapted suite through difficulty filtering, AI and human audit, and an audit-and-fix loop. Harbor-Index preserves the challenge and breadth of large-scale agentic evaluations while being affordable to run; no evaluated model-harness configuration exceeds 30% pass rate, and the strongest (GPT-5.5 with Codex) reaches 28.0%. We release the adapters, evaluation results, in-depth analysis, and Harbor-Index as open-source artifacts to support more reliable and comprehensive evaluation of language-model agents.

Related papers

• SearchAuditor: Auditing and Attributing Failures in Long-Horizon Search Agents [56.400332595452966]
  We introduce SearchAuditBench, a benchmark that evaluates whether auditors can localize, attribute, and repair search-agent failures.<n>SearchAuditBench comprises 1,243 failed trajectories, averaging 73.1 messages and 65.1K tokens, collected from eight open-weight models on five deep-search benchmarks.<n>We propose SearchAuditor, a multi-perspective auditing framework that effectively localizes, attributes, and repairs search-agent failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T09:09:00Z)
• AgentOmnia: Scaling Agentic Models for Full-Scenario Applications [36.656762500581216]
  Large language model agents have advanced rapidly, yet progress remains fragmented across domains, capabilities, task difficulty, and interaction settings.<n>We frame this as full-scenario agentic scaling and present Agent Omnia, a framework coordinating task-space definition, data synthesis, post-training, evaluation, and improvement across To-Consumer (ToC), To-Business (ToB), and To-Employee (ToE) applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-25T09:58:24Z)
• Converted, Not Equivalent: Benchmarking Codebase Conversion via Observational Equivalence [56.25095230687242]
  Coding agents often over-trust their own local validation routines and declare success on artifacts that satisfy surface checks.<n>This problem is especially acute in conversion, where prior evaluation is outcome-driven.<n>Across blind conversion attempts, the best system reaches 26.7--28.9% overall pass rate despite Spec pass rates up to 91.1%.<n>This suggests that failures stem more from contract-misaligned self-validation than from limited budget or backbone strength.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T19:57:15Z)
• Evaluating Deep Research Agents on Expert Consulting Work: A Benchmark with Verifiers, Rubrics, and Cognitive Traps [0.0]
  Frontier deep research agents (DRAs) plan a research task, synthesize across documents, and return a structured deliverable on demand.<n>Existing benchmarks measure factual recall, single-hop QA, or generic agentic skill, missing the multi-document, decision-grade work DRAs are deployed to produce.<n>We grade three frontier agents, namely Claude Opus 4.6 with web search, OpenAI o3-deep-research, and Google Gemini 3.1 Pro deep-research, on 42 SME-authored prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T17:32:52Z)
• SWE Atlas: Benchmarking Coding Agents Beyond Issue Resolution [16.25554650122462]
  SWE Atlas is a benchmark suite for coding agents spanning three professional software engineering: Codebase Q&A (124 tasks), Test Writing (90 tasks), and Refactoring (70 tasks)<n>It targets underrepresented but practically important categories, uses comprehensive category-specific evaluation protocols, and adopts under-specified rubrics.<n>Overall, SWE Atlas provides a complementary evaluation suite for measuring both correctness and engineering quality in coding agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T18:21:44Z)
• Efficient Benchmarking of AI Agents [0.0]
  We study whether small task subsets can preserve agent rankings at substantially lower cost.<n>We find that absolute score prediction degrades under scaffold-driven distribution shift.<n>We propose an optimization-free protocol: evaluate new agents only on tasks with intermediate historical pass rates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T22:17:11Z)
• Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluation [87.47155146067962]
  We provide a standardized evaluation harness that orchestrates parallel evaluations across hundreds of tasks.<n>We conduct three-dimensional analysis spanning models, scaffolds, and benchmarks.<n>Our analysis reveals surprising insights, such as higher reasoning effort reducing accuracy in the majority of runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T22:22:28Z)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)
• 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.