| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 12 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Generates and renders abstract visual puzzle tasks as interactive game environments where agents must explore state spaces, plan actions, and achieve goals through a Percept → Plan → Action cycle. Tasks are presented in configurable rendering modes (terminal text-based or programmatic API access) and support memory persistence across action sequences, enabling agents to learn patterns from minimal examples.
Unique: Implements tasks as interactive game environments with agent-based exploration rather than static puzzle-solving; agents must discover patterns through action-observation cycles with memory and goal acquisition, mirroring human learning efficiency on novel tasks. Rendering modes support both human-interpretable terminal output (+2K FPS without rendering) and programmatic API access for scalable evaluation.
vs alternatives: Differs from static benchmark suites (MMLU, ARC-Easy) by requiring agents to actively explore and plan within unfamiliar environments, measuring learning efficiency and abstract reasoning rather than knowledge retrieval or pattern matching on familiar domains.
Provides a Python SDK (arc-agi package) for local execution of benchmark tasks with configurable rendering modes and performance optimization. The SDK exposes a GameAction class for discrete action specification, an Arcade environment factory for task instantiation, and a scorecard evaluation system. Execution runs entirely client-side without mandatory cloud dependencies, achieving 2000+ FPS when rendering is disabled.
Unique: Implements dual-mode execution: high-performance local evaluation (2K+ FPS) without rendering for batch evaluation, and optional terminal rendering for human inspection. Avoids cloud dependency and API rate limits by running tasks entirely client-side, enabling tight integration with custom training loops and offline evaluation.
vs alternatives: Faster than cloud-only benchmarks (e.g., OpenAI Evals) by eliminating network round-trips; more flexible than static test suites by supporting programmatic task instantiation and custom action spaces through the GameAction abstraction.
Implements the core agent-environment interaction loop through env.step(action), which executes an action, updates task state, and returns observations. The step function encapsulates the Percept → Plan → Action cycle, enabling agents to iteratively explore tasks and learn patterns. Step returns observation, done flag, and implicit feedback enabling agents to assess action effectiveness.
Unique: Implements the core Percept → Plan → Action cycle through a step function that encapsulates state updates and observation generation. Implicit feedback enables agents to assess action effectiveness without explicit reward signals.
vs alternatives: More flexible than explicit-reward benchmarks by enabling agents to infer success from observations; more realistic than single-step reasoning by supporting iterative exploration and learning.
Provides open-source access to benchmark tasks, evaluation infrastructure, and reference implementations, enabling community-driven research and algorithm development. The benchmark is published on GitHub with MIT license (implied by open-source claim), supporting reproducibility, contribution, and derivative work. Foundation explicitly emphasizes 'open-source ecosystem' and rewards open-source contributions through ARC Prize 2026.
Unique: Provides fully open-source benchmark with explicit community-driven research model and financial incentives (ARC Prize 2026) for open-source contributions. Foundation emphasizes ecosystem development and rewards novel algorithmic progress through prize pool.
vs alternatives: More transparent than proprietary benchmarks by open-sourcing all code and tasks; more incentivized than academic benchmarks by offering prize money for contributions and progress.
Exposes benchmark tasks and evaluation through a REST API (documented at https://docs.arcprize.org) with API key authentication, enabling remote task access without local installation. The API abstracts task execution and scoring, allowing integration into web-based systems, cloud pipelines, and multi-language environments. Authentication uses API keys (with anonymous access available but limited).
Unique: Decouples task execution from local environment by exposing a REST API layer, enabling language-agnostic access and cloud-native integration. Supports both authenticated (API key) and anonymous access modes, with performance optimization through optional local caching or remote execution.
vs alternatives: More flexible than SDK-only benchmarks by supporting remote access and multi-language clients; more standardized than custom evaluation scripts by providing a centralized API endpoint with consistent versioning and authentication.
Measures an AI system's ability to recognize and generalize abstract patterns from minimal examples (1-5 training demonstrations) without domain-specific knowledge or pre-training on similar tasks. Evaluation is based on whether agents can infer transformation rules, spatial relationships, and logical operations from limited visual evidence and apply them to novel test cases. This capability directly measures fluid intelligence and learning efficiency rather than memorized knowledge.
Unique: Explicitly designed to measure learning efficiency and abstract reasoning on novel tasks, resisting scaling-only solutions. Foundation claims 'scaling alone will not reach AGI' and positions ARC-AGI as identifying capability gaps that require new algorithmic ideas, not just parameter scaling.
vs alternatives: Differs from knowledge benchmarks (MMLU, TriviaQA) by requiring genuine learning and generalization rather than retrieval; differs from domain-specific reasoning benchmarks (math, code) by using abstract visual puzzles without domain conventions or pre-training advantages.
Supports agent memory persistence and goal acquisition across action sequences, enabling agents to maintain state, learn from observations, and dynamically discover task objectives. The Percept → Plan → Action cycle allows agents to accumulate knowledge across multiple steps, with memory mechanisms enabling pattern recognition and strategy refinement. Goals are not explicitly provided; agents must infer them from task structure and feedback.
Unique: Implements implicit goal acquisition where agents must discover task objectives through exploration and observation rather than explicit specification. Memory mechanisms enable agents to accumulate knowledge across action sequences, supporting iterative refinement and pattern learning.
vs alternatives: More challenging than explicit-goal benchmarks (e.g., Atari) by requiring agents to infer objectives; more realistic than single-step reasoning tasks by supporting multi-step planning and memory-based learning.
Provides dual rendering modes for task visualization: terminal-based text rendering for human inspection and programmatic access (no rendering) for high-performance evaluation. Terminal mode enables visual debugging and human understanding of task state, while the no-render mode optimizes for throughput (2000+ FPS) by eliminating rendering overhead. Rendering mode is configurable per task instantiation.
Unique: Implements dual-mode rendering with explicit performance optimization: terminal mode for interpretability and programmatic mode for throughput (2K+ FPS). Rendering is configurable at instantiation, enabling developers to balance debugging capability and evaluation speed.
vs alternatives: More flexible than single-mode benchmarks by supporting both human inspection and high-performance evaluation; faster than graphical rendering systems by offering text-based and no-render alternatives.
+4 more capabilities
Provides a standardized evaluation framework for code generation models that accepts generated code in 17 programming languages (C, C++, C#, Java, Kotlin, Go, Rust, Python, Ruby, PHP, JavaScript, Perl, Haskell, OCaml, Scala, D, Pascal) and validates correctness through actual execution against unit tests via the ExecEval Docker-based execution engine. Uses a centralized problem definition model with src_uid foreign keys linking generated code to shared problem descriptions and unittest_db.json, enabling consistent evaluation across language variants of the same problem.
Unique: Combines 25M training examples across 7,500 unique problems with an execution-based evaluation pipeline (ExecEval) that actually runs generated code in Docker containers against unit tests, rather than relying on static analysis or string matching. The src_uid linking system creates a normalized data model where problem descriptions and tests are stored once and referenced by all language variants, eliminating duplication and ensuring consistency.
vs alternatives: Larger scale (25M examples vs typical 10-100K) and true execution-based validation across more languages (17 vs 4-6) than HumanEval or CodeXGLUE, with explicit support for code translation and repair tasks beyond generation.
Implements a foreign key linking system where all task-specific datasets (program synthesis, code translation, APR, retrieval) reference shared problem definitions via src_uid identifiers. Problem descriptions and unit tests are stored once in centralized problem_descriptions.jsonl and unittest_db.json files, then linked by src_uid to avoid duplication. The Hugging Face datasets API automatically resolves these links during data loading, returning enriched DatasetDict objects with problem context pre-joined to task examples.
Unique: Uses a normalized relational data model (src_uid as foreign key) for a code benchmark, treating problem definitions as a separate entity layer rather than embedding them in each task dataset. This is more sophisticated than typical flat-file benchmark structures and enables consistent multi-task evaluation on identical problems.
xCodeEval scores higher at 67/100 vs ARC-AGI at 64/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
vs alternatives: More efficient than duplicating problem descriptions across 7 task datasets (reduces storage by ~30-40%), and enables automatic link resolution via Hugging Face API unlike manual CSV joins in CodeXGLUE or HumanEval variants.
Provides a Python API for loading xCodeEval datasets from Hugging Face Hub (NTU-NLP-sg/xCodeEval) with automatic src_uid-based linking between task datasets and shared problem definitions. The datasets library handles data downloading, caching, and streaming, while the xCodeEval integration automatically joins task examples with problem_descriptions.jsonl and unittest_db.json using src_uid foreign keys. Returns DatasetDict objects with enriched examples ready for model training or evaluation.
Unique: Integrates xCodeEval with Hugging Face datasets library, providing automatic src_uid resolution and streaming support. Treats data loading as a first-class concern with built-in linking logic, rather than requiring manual JSON parsing.
vs alternatives: More convenient than manual Git LFS downloads because it handles caching and automatic linking, and integrates seamlessly with Hugging Face training pipelines vs custom data loaders.
Provides an alternative data access method using Git LFS for users who prefer direct file access or need selective dataset downloads. Supports cloning the repository with LFS disabled, then pulling specific task files or problem definitions on demand. Useful for custom processing pipelines or environments where Python/Hugging Face is not available, though requires manual src_uid linking to join task examples with problem definitions.
Unique: Provides Git LFS-based alternative to Hugging Face API, enabling direct file access and selective downloads. Requires manual src_uid linking but offers more control over data access patterns.
vs alternatives: More flexible than Hugging Face API for selective downloads and custom pipelines, but requires more manual work for src_uid linking and lacks automatic caching/streaming.
Implements a standardized three-phase evaluation pipeline (Phase 1: Generation, Phase 2: Execution, Phase 3: Metrics) that applies consistently across all 7 tasks (program synthesis, code translation, APR, tag classification, code compilation, NL-code retrieval, code-code retrieval). Phase 1 generates or retrieves code, Phase 2 executes it via ExecEval or computes retrieval metrics, and Phase 3 aggregates results into pass@k, MRR, NDCG, or other task-specific metrics. Enables direct comparison of model performance across tasks.
Unique: Defines a unified three-phase evaluation pipeline that applies to all 7 tasks, treating generation, execution, and metric computation as separate concerns. Enables consistent evaluation methodology across diverse task types (generation, translation, retrieval, classification).
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than task-specific evaluation scripts because it provides a unified framework for all 7 tasks, and enables direct comparison of model performance across different task types.
Evaluates code generation models on the program synthesis task by accepting natural language problem descriptions and generating code solutions in any of 17 languages. The evaluation pipeline (Phase 1: Generation, Phase 2: Execution, Phase 3: Metrics) runs generated code against unit tests via ExecEval, computing pass@k metrics (pass@1, pass@10, etc.) that measure the probability of finding a correct solution within k samples. Supports both single-solution and multi-sample evaluation modes for assessing model reliability.
Unique: Implements a three-phase evaluation pipeline (Generation → Execution → Metrics) with explicit pass@k computation that measures the probability of finding a correct solution within k attempts, rather than just binary pass/fail. Supports multi-sample evaluation across 17 languages with language-specific compiler configurations and timeout handling.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than HumanEval's simple pass@k because it handles language-specific compilation errors and timeouts explicitly, and scales to 25M training examples vs HumanEval's 164 problems.
Evaluates code translation models by accepting source code in one language and generated translations in a target language, then validating functional equivalence through execution against shared unit tests. The translation evaluation pipeline compiles and executes both source and translated code against the same unittest_db.json test cases, comparing outputs to detect translation errors. Supports all 17 language pairs (though not all pairs may have training data) and uses language-specific compiler mappings to handle syntax differences.
Unique: Validates code translation by executing both source and target code against identical unit tests and comparing outputs, ensuring functional equivalence rather than syntactic similarity. Uses language-specific compiler mappings to handle the complexity of 17 different compilation environments and their idiosyncrasies.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than BLEU-score-based translation metrics because it validates actual functional correctness through execution, and covers more language pairs (17 vs typical 2-4) with explicit compiler integration.
Evaluates program repair models by providing buggy code snippets and expecting corrected versions that pass unit tests. The APR evaluation pipeline executes repaired code against unittest_db.json test cases, measuring whether the repair successfully fixes the bug without introducing new failures. Supports repairs across all 17 languages and uses the same execution-based validation as program synthesis, enabling direct comparison of repair quality.
Unique: Treats program repair as an executable task where success is measured by unit test passage, rather than syntactic similarity to reference repairs. Integrates with the same ExecEval pipeline as program synthesis, enabling direct performance comparison between generation and repair models.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than traditional APR benchmarks (Defects4J, QuixBugs) because it covers 17 languages and 7,500 problems vs 395 Java bugs, and uses consistent execution-based metrics across all repair types.
+5 more capabilities