# AvalancheBench: Evaluating Enterprise Data Agents Through Latent World Recovery

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24183 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.24183/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 4 of its 15 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [DeepScholar-Bench: A Live Benchmark and Automated Evaluation for Generative Research Synthesis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.20033/) (2025)
- [KramaBench: A Benchmark for AI Systems on Data-to-Insight Pipelines over Data Lakes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.06541/) (2025)
- [Cortex AISQL: A Production SQL Engine for Unstructured Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.07663/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Argo-Bench: Evaluating Data Agents on Enterprise-Scale Workflows](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.02122/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We introduce AvalancheBench, a benchmark for evaluating enterprise data agents through latent world recovery. AvalancheBench improves on existing benchmarks in three ways. First, it evaluates analytical understanding rather than pipeline completion: systems are scored on whether they recover the segments, drivers, temporal events, and relationships that explain the data, not merely on whether they execute a workflow or produce a plausible report. Second, it provides ground truth for goal-driven analytics by generating observations from a known latent world, enabling partial credit for incomplete but valid recoveries. Third, it exposes how early analytical mistakes propagate into later conclusions: missed segments, merged events, or wrong attributions can lead to systematically wrong recommendations. In this sense, AvalancheBench complements real-data benchmarks by providing a controlled setting for diagnosing whether agents recover the analytical structure behind enterprise data. On a first e-commerce use case, the strongest configuration of a leading coding agent recovers only 26% of the rubric, with failures concentrated in generic customer segmentations and merged temporal events.