Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks
Thomas Kwa, Ben West, Joel Becker, Amy Deng, Katharyn Garcia, Max Hasin, Sami Jawhar, Megan Kinniment, Nate Rush, Sydney von Arx, Ryan Bloom, Thomas Broadley
Abstract
Despite rapid progress on AI benchmarks, the real-world meaning of benchmark performance remains unclear. To quantify the capabilities of AI systems in terms of human capabilities, we propose a new metric: 50%-task-completion time horizon. This is the time humans typically take to complete tasks that AI models can complete with 50% success rate. We first timed humans with relevant domain expertise on a combination of RE-Bench, HCAST, and 66 novel shorter tasks. On these tasks, current frontier AI models such as Claude 3.7 Sonnet have a 50% time horizon of around 50 minutes. Furthermore, frontier AI time horizon has been doubling approximately every seven months since 2019, though the trend may have accelerated in 2024. The increase in AI models'time horizons seems to be primarily driven by greater reliability and ability to adapt to mistakes, combined with better logical reasoning and tool use capabilities. We discuss the limitations of our results -- including their degree of external validity -- and the implications of increased autonomy for dangerous capabilities. If these results generalize to real-world software tasks, extrapolation of this trend predicts that within 5 years, AI systems will be capable of automating many software tasks that currently take humans a month.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers6
- Agentic Plan Caching: Test-Time Memory for Fast and Cost-Efficient LLM AgentsQizheng Zhang, Michael Wornow, Kunle OlukotunNeurIPS 2025 · 27 citations
- The Hot Mess of AI: How Does Misalignment Scale With Model Intelligence and Task Complexity?Alexander Hägele, Aryo Pradipta Gema, Henry Sleight, Ethan Perez et al.ICLR 2026 · 10 citations
- BRIDGE: Predicting Human Task Completion Time From Model PerformanceFengyuan Liu, Jay Gala, Nilaksh, Dzmitry Bahdanau et al.ICML 2026 · 5 citations
- Efficient numeracy in language models through single-token number embeddingsLinus Kreitner, Paul Hager, Jonathan Mengedoht, Georgios Kaissis et al.ICML 2026 · 5 citations
- Scaling Small Agents Through Strategy AuctionsLisa Alazraki, Shen, Yoram Bachrach, Akhil MathurICML 2026 · 2 citations
Builds on15
- Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
- SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-world Github Issues?Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao et al.ICLR 2024 · 2,082 citations
- AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as AgentsXiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu et al.ICLR 2024 · 748 citations
- GAIA: a benchmark for General AI AssistantsGrégoire Mialon, Clémentine Fourrier, Thomas Wolf, Yann LeCun et al.ICLR 2024 · 716 citations
- MLAgentBench: Evaluating Language Agents on Machine Learning ExperimentationQian Huang, Jian Vora, Percy Liang, Jure LeskovecICML 2024 · 209 citations
Related papers
- RE-Bench: Evaluating Frontier AI R&D Capabilities of Language Model Agents against Human ExpertsHjalmar Wijk, Tao Roa Lin, Joel Becker, Sami Jawhar et al.ICML 2025
- PaperBench: Evaluating AI's Ability to Replicate AI ResearchGiulio Starace, Oliver Jaffe, Dane Sherburn, James Aung et al.ICML 2025
- GDPval: Evaluating AI Model Performance on Real-World Economically Valuable TasksTejal Patwardhan, Rachel Dias, Elizabeth Proehl, Grace Kim et al.ICLR 2026 · 154 citations
- Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line InterfacesMike A. Merrill, Alexander Glenn Shaw, Nicholas Carlini, Boxuan Li et al.ICLR 2026 · 520 citations
- PostTrainBench: Can LLM Agents Automate LLM Post-Training?Ben Rank, Hardik Bhatnagar, Ameya Pandurang Prabhu, Shira Eisenberg et al.ICML 2026 · 28 citations
