How Many Tasks Are Enough for Agent Benchmark Decisions? A Replay Analysis of Public LLM Agent Benchmarks

Wei-Jung Huang
7/14/2026
cs.AI

No confident code implementation found for this paper. 2 possible matches can be shown below.

Abstract

Agent benchmarks often compare two agents after all tasks have run, but costly evaluations make partial runs tempting. A task fraction alone does not show whether a partial run supports the same pairwise conclusion as the completed benchmark. We study this question by replaying completed public task-level records from SWE-bench, AppWorld, and tau-bench. A partial budget counts as enough only when it supports the completed benchmark's decision, covers required task groups, and leaves no more than a target fraction of comparisons unresolved. The required task fraction varies sharply. At the strict 0 percentage point threshold on a 5 percentage point budget grid, AppWorld first meets all targets at 15 percent, tau-bench at 25 percent, and SWE-bench Verified at 90 percent; SWE-bench Lite does not meet all targets by 95 percent under the primary coverage rule. Partial-evaluation reports should state how much one agent must outperform another, how tasks are selected, what coverage rule is required, what decision rule is used, and how many comparisons may remain unresolved.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. 2 weaker matches are hidden by default — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{huang2026many,
  title  = {How Many Tasks Are Enough for Agent Benchmark Decisions? A Replay Analysis of Public LLM Agent Benchmarks},
  author = {Wei-Jung Huang},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2607.12338},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12338v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2607.12338.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2607.12338)

Discussion