mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Agent psychometrics: Task-level performance prediction in agentic coding benchmarks

arXiv 2604.00594 ↗First posted 1 Apr 2026cs.AIcited by 11

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

As the focus in LLM-based coding shifts from static single-step code generation to multi-step agentic interaction with tools and environments, understanding which tasks will challenge agents and why becomes increasingly difficult. This is compounded by current practice: agent performance is typically measured by aggregate pass rates on benchmarks, but single-number metrics obscure the diversity of tasks within a benchmark. We present a framework for predicting success or failure on individual tasks tailored to the agentic coding regime. Our approach augments Item Response Theory (IRT) with rich features extracted from tasks, including issue statements, repository contexts, solutions, and test cases, and introduces a novel decomposition of agent ability into LLM and scaffold ability components. This parameterization enables us to aggregate evaluation data across heterogeneous leaderboards and accurately predict task-level performance for unseen benchmarks, as well as unseen LLM-scaffold combinations. Our methods have practical utility for benchmark designers, who can better calibrate the difficulty of their new tasks without running computationally expensive agent evaluations.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 25 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Apr 2026.

Builds on

25 of 36 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026FeatureBench: Benchmarking Agentic Coding for Complex Feature Development11 Feb
  2. 2025An Empirical Study on Failures in Automated Issue Solving17 Sep
  3. 2025GSO: Challenging Software Optimization Tasks for Evaluating SWE-Agents29 May

Other references · 22

  1. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  2. 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,637
  3. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
  4. 2025Qwen3 Embedding: Advancing Text Embedding and Reranking Through Foundation Modelscited by 1,261
  5. 2026Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfacescited by 585
  6. 2024MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineeringcited by 469
  7. 2025PaperBench: Evaluating AI's Ability to Replicate AI Researchcited by 321
  8. 2024tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examplescited by 310
  9. 2024RE-Bench: Evaluating frontier AI R&D capabilities of language model agents against human expertscited by 175
  10. 2025Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Taskscited by 156
  11. 2025Act Only When It Pays: Efficient Reinforcement Learning for LLM Reasoning via Selective Rolloutscited by 113
  12. 2025SWE-bench Goes Live!cited by 80
10 more
  1. 2024Making Text Embedders Few-Shot Learnerscited by 79
  2. 2025Are "Solved Issues" in SWE-bench Really Solved Correctly? An Empirical Studycited by 49
  3. 2025A Rosetta Stone for AI Benchmarkscited by 36
  4. 2025Fluid Language Model Benchmarkingcited by 35
  5. 2025General Scales Unlock AI Evaluation with Explanatory and Predictive Powercited by 31
  6. 2025Reliable and Efficient Amortized Model-based Evaluationcited by 31
  7. 2025Adaptive Testing for LLM Evaluation: A Psychometric Alternative to Static Benchmarkscited by 28
  8. 2023Language Models are Universal Embedderscited by 11
  9. 2025Learning Compact Representations of LLM Abilities via Item Response Theorycited by 10
  10. 2026BRIDGE: Predicting Human Task Completion Time From Model Performancecited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 11.

11 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Beyond Resolution Rates: Behavioral Drivers of Coding Agent Success and Failure
  2. 2025CentaurEval: Benchmarking Human-in-the-Loop Value in Agentic Coding
  3. 2026A Framework for Evaluating Agentic Skills at Scale
  4. 2026Code Understanding is a Bottleneck for Coding Agents
  5. 2024AgentQuest: A Modular Benchmark Framework to Measure Progress and Improve LLM Agents
  6. 2026Before They Can Solve: Predicting Post-Training Coding-Agent Performance from Base Models
  7. 2026AgentAtlas: Beyond Outcome Leaderboards for LLM Agents
  8. 2026AdaRubric: Task-Adaptive Rubrics for Reliable LLM Agent Evaluation and Reward Learning