Chartography: A Benchmark for Professional Chart Understanding

Professionals across medicine, engineering, finance, manufacturing, and the sciences often make consequential decisions from charts. Existing chart benchmarks do not sufficiently measure this ability: they are dominated by bar, line, and pie formats, rely on shorter reasoning chains, and are nearing saturation, with frontier models already scoring 80-90%. We introduce Chartography, a benchmark of 100 tasks that pair charts drawn from professional practice, in domain-specific formats that standard chart benchmarks rarely include, with questions written by professionals who read these charts for a living and independently verified by three additional experts. In an evaluation of 30 frontier-model configurations (20 scored trials per task), the best configuration reaches only 45.0% mean pass@1; the remainder span 9.0-39.5%. Failures concentrate in visual perception: models can miss nuanced features, misread values along sparsely labeled axes, mishandle projected 3D geometry, and violate domain conventions encoded in the chart. We release all tasks, images, provenance metadata, and evaluation code.

HANDBOOK.md: A Benchmark for Long-Context Agentic Instruction Following

Language-model agents are increasingly deployed under standing instructions: a system prompt, a policy file, or a skills document is placed in context, and the agent is trusted to let it govern every action that follows. Existing benchmarks rarely test this deployment pattern directly; they measure whether an agent can complete a task, not whether a long, binding policy document actually constrains its behavior over an extended tool-use horizon. We present HANDBOOK.md, a benchmark of 65 agentic tasks modeled on how enterprise employees follow company handbooks. Each task places an agent in a self-contained company environment, a file workspace together with mock email, chat, calendar, issue-tracking, and commerce services exposed over the Model Context Protocol, and instructs it to carry out routine professional work governed by an expert-written standard operating procedure of 20 to 124 pages. Tasks span five domains (finance, medical billing, insurance, logistics, and HR) and ten fictional companies. To resist memorization, every task modifies one of ten base handbooks, altering the specific rules and thresholds on which grading turns, so no two tasks share a policy. Grading is fully deterministic: each task carries a rubric of programmatic criteria (824 in total) that check both that required actions occurred and that prohibited actions did not. Under strict grading, where a trial passes only if every criterion is satisfied, the best of thirty evaluated model configurations passes 36.2% of trials, and most frontier configurations remain below 25%. Failures follow consistent patterns: agents let a plausible in-environment request override the standing policy, perform a required check and then act against its result, lose rule details over long horizons, and report compliance they did not achieve. We release all tasks, environments, and the evaluation harness.

GDP.pdf: Benchmarking Grounded Multimodal Reasoning over Professional PDF Documents

A large share of day-to-day work in professional domains happens inside PDF files: benefits packets, leases, datasheets, clinical guidelines, construction plans. Benchmarks for document AI have generally measured the required capabilities in isolation: OCR, layout analysis, chart reasoning, table QA, document VQA. A high score on any one of them does not necessarily reveal whether a model can answer a realistic question that someone in the field would actually ask about a specific PDF. GDP_pdf is a benchmark built to measure this directly. It consists of question-document pairs authored by working professionals in ten fields, and a candidate question was kept only when at least two frontier multimodal models failed it in a way that mattered: a wrong answer, missed decisive evidence, or a fabricated claim, rather than a superficial difference such as style. Each item comes with a rubric of atomic criteria, so we can report a graded rubric score as well as a strict task-level pass rate, and each item is tagged against a taxonomy of eleven capabilities in three tiers, spanning text extraction and grounding, table and chart comprehension, cross-referencing, spatial reasoning, and abstention on unsupported queries. We evaluated seven frontier models on the 100-item benchmark. The best model passed only 15% of the items and the worst passed 1%. Most errors trace back to a small set of recurring loss patterns: misaligned tables, misread charts, skipped footnotes and exclusions, miscounted floor-plan symbols, scan noise, and amendments that supersede earlier text.

Riemann-Bench: A Benchmark for Moonshot Mathematics

Recent AI systems have achieved gold-medal-level performance on the International Mathematical Olympiad, demonstrating remarkable proficiency at competition-style problem solving. However, competition mathematics represents only a narrow slice of mathematical reasoning: problems are drawn from limited domains, require minimal advanced machinery, and can often reward insightful tricks over deep theoretical knowledge. We introduce \bench{}, a private benchmark of 25 expert-curated problems designed to evaluate AI systems on research-level mathematics that goes far beyond the olympiad frontier. Problems are authored by Ivy League mathematics professors, graduate students, and PhD-holding IMO medalists, and routinely took their authors weeks to solve independently. Each problem undergoes double-blind verification by two independent domain experts who must solve the problem from scratch, and yields a unique, closed-form solution assessed by programmatic verifiers. We evaluate frontier models as unconstrained research agents, with full access to coding tools, search, and open-ended reasoning, using an unbiased statistical estimator computed over 100 independent runs per problem. Our results reveal that all frontier models currently score below 10\%, exposing a substantial gap between olympiad-level problem solving and genuine research-level mathematical reasoning. By keeping the benchmark fully private, we ensure that measured performance reflects authentic mathematical capability rather than memorization of training data.

EnterpriseBench Corecraft: Training Generalizable Agents on High-Fidelity RL Environments

We show that training AI agents on high-fidelity reinforcement learning environments produces capabilities that generalize beyond the training distribution. We introduce CoreCraft, the first environment in EnterpriseBench, Surge AI's suite of agentic RL environments. CoreCraft is a fully operational enterprise simulation of a customer support organization, comprising over 2,500 entities across 14 entity types with 23 unique tools, designed to measure whether AI agents can perform the multi-step, domain-specific work that real jobs demand. Frontier models such as GPT-5.2 and Claude Opus 4.6 solve fewer than 30% of tasks when all expert-authored rubric criteria must be satisfied. Using this environment, we train GLM 4.6 with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) and adaptive clipping. After a single epoch of training, the model improves from 25.37% to 36.76% task pass rate on held-out evaluation tasks. More importantly, these gains transfer to out-of-distribution benchmarks: +4.5% on BFCL Parallel, +7.4% on Tau2-Bench Retail, and +6.8% on Tool Decathlon (Pass@1). We believe three environment properties are consistent with the observed transfer: task-centric world building that optimizes for diverse, challenging tasks; expert-authored rubrics enabling reliable reward computation; and enterprise workflows that reflect realistic professional patterns. Our results suggest that environment quality, diversity, and realism are key factors enabling generalizable agent capabilities.