mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AcademiClaw: When Students Set Challenges for AI Agents

arXiv 2605.02661 ↗First posted 4 May 2026cs.AI cs.CYcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Benchmarks within the OpenClaw ecosystem have thus far evaluated exclusively assistant-level tasks, leaving the academic-level capabilities of OpenClaw largely unexamined. We introduce AcademiClaw, a bilingual benchmark of 80 complex, long-horizon tasks sourced directly from university students' real academic workflows -- homework, research projects, competitions, and personal projects -- that they found current AI agents unable to solve effectively. Curated from 230 student-submitted candidates through rigorous expert review, the final task set spans 25+ professional domains, ranging from olympiad-level mathematics and linguistics problems to GPU-intensive reinforcement learning and full-stack system debugging, with 16 tasks requiring CUDA GPU execution. Each task executes in an isolated Docker sandbox and is scored on task completion by multi-dimensional rubrics combining six complementary techniques, with an independent five-category safety audit providing additional behavioral analysis. Experiments on six frontier models show that even the best achieves only a 55% pass rate. Further analysis uncovers sharp capability boundaries across task domains, divergent behavioral strategies among models, and a disconnect between token consumption and output quality, providing fine-grained diagnostic signals beyond what aggregate metrics reveal. We hope that AcademiClaw and its open-sourced data and code can serve as a useful resource for the OpenClaw community, driving progress toward agents that are more capable and versatile across the full breadth of real-world academic demands. All data and code are available at https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/AcademiClaw.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 May 2026.

Builds on

17 of 26 references.

References · 17

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  2. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  3. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
  4. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  5. 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 1,908
  6. 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,280
  7. 2024OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environmentscited by 1,134
  8. 2023GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistantscited by 1,084
  9. 2023C-Eval: A Multi-Level Multi-Discipline Chinese Evaluation Suite for Foundation Modelscited by 694
  10. 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandboxcited by 514
  11. 2021Dynabench: Rethinking Benchmarking in NLPcited by 447
  12. 2024TheAgentCompany: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Consequential Real World Taskscited by 306
5 more
  1. 2024R-Judge: Benchmarking Safety Risk Awareness for LLM Agentscited by 268
  2. 2025The Danger of Overthinking: Examining the Reasoning-Action Dilemma in Agentic Taskscited by 150
  3. 2025SWE-Lancer: Can Frontier LLMs Earn 1 Million from Real-World Freelance Software Engineering?cited by 99
  4. 2026ClawBench: Can AI Agents Complete Everyday Online Tasks?cited by 28
  5. 2026LiveClawBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Complex, Real-World Assistant Taskscited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.