# EvalResearchBench: Can AI Agents Design Their Own Evaluations?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04184 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.04184/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 59 of its 78 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 59)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07974/) (2024)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10925/) (2025)
- [BEIR: A Heterogenous Benchmark for Zero-shot Evaluation of Information Retrieval Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08663/) (2021)
- [Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07911/) (2023)
- [The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06292/) (2024)
- [DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.19348/) (2026)
- [Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckList](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.04118/) (2020)
- [AlphaEvolve: A coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.13131/) (2025)
- [Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09251/) (2022)
- [DeepSeek-V3.2: Pushing the Frontier of Open Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.02556/) (2025)
- [BrowseComp: A Simple Yet Challenging Benchmark for Browsing Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12516/) (2025)
- [Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfaces](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.11868/) (2026)
- [MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07095/) (2024)
- [Dynabench: Rethinking Benchmarking in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.14337/) (2021)
- [Agent Laboratory: Using LLM Agents as Research Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.04227/) (2025)
- [PlanBench: An Extensible Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models on Planning and Reasoning about Change](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.10498/) (2022)
- [MLAgentBench: Evaluating Language Agents on Machine Learning Experimentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03302/) (2023)
- [Darwin Godel Machine: Open-Ended Evolution of Self-Improving Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.22954/) (2025)
- [RepoBench: Benchmarking Repository-Level Code Auto-Completion Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.03091/) (2023)
- [PaperBench: Evaluating AI's Ability to Replicate AI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01848/) (2025)
- [tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14992/) (2024)
- [MathArena: Evaluating LLMs on Uncontaminated Math Competitions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23281/) (2025)

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

- [Verifier-Harness Co-Evolution for Training-Free Self-Improvement on Open-Ended Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.17609/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recursive self-improvement (RSI) relies on evaluation feedback to assess progress and guide further research, yet repeatedly running complex benchmarks is costly and slows iteration. Human experts reduce this cost by selecting benchmark subsets or designing compact suites. We ask whether AI agents can automate this design process and introduce EvalResearchBench (ERB), a benchmark for autonomous evaluation research. Given target materials, development references, candidate APIs, and fixed time and API budgets, an agent called the researcher selects or synthesizes tasks, implements graders, and revises them in pilot tests before freezing an executable evaluator for coding, co-work, and reasoning. We study 9 researchers and 13 candidate models and compare each frozen evaluator with 14 target benchmarks on score concordance and pairwise agreement. The best evaluators order about 75% of candidate pairs as the targets do, below the 91% ceiling set by disagreements among the targets. No researcher leads on every metric, and the best evaluator on development targets is not the best on sealed targets hidden from the researcher. A human-designed sample of public tasks remains a strong baseline, and the evaluator with the lowest recorded execution cost attains the highest pairwise agreement. Agents repair tasks and graders through pilot feedback, yet their evaluators can still truncate answers, exhaust the evaluation budget, or let a few questions dominate a domain score.