CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 3Ethics and Social Impacts of AIAI and HR TechnologiesArtificial Intelligence Applications

JobBench: Aligning Agent Work With Human Will

Open access
Li, Yuetai, Feng, Yichen, Xu, Zhangchen, Ma, Zixian, Zheng, Kaiyuan, Jiang, Fengqing, Sun, Xinghua, Shao, Rulin +16 more·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2605.26329arXiv 2605.26329
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Current benchmarks for occupational AI agents are scoped primarily by economic values, telling a replacement story. We introduce JobBench, which evaluates AI agents on the workflows that experts identify as high-priority for delegation, empowering humans based on their needs instead of replacing them with GDP value. JobBench covers 130 agentic tasks across 35 occupations. Each task is packaged as a workspace of heterogeneous reference files, requiring the agent to reason through the cluttered information streams of real professional work. Outputs are graded by a fact-anchored chain of rubrics, averaging 35.6 binary criteria per task. We evaluate 36 models; the strongest, Claude Opus~4.7 under Claude Code, reaches only 45.9 %. We hope JobBench shifts the community's target labour-market effect from replacement to enhancement: building agents that do what humans actually want delegated, not only what is most economically valuable.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2605.26329

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The draft model of EAGLE-3 comprises a single decoder layer whose structure matches the MTP layer.

    “As the draft model of EAGLE-3 [71] comprises a single decoder layer whose structure matches the MTP layer, we fine-tune the pre-trained MTP layer into an EAGLE-3-style draft model”

    From Kimi K3: Open Frontier Intelligence (2026) · cites this paper as [71]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, Y., Feng, Y., Xu, Z., Ma, Z., Zheng, K., Jiang, F., Sun, X., Shao, R., Chen, Z., Huang, Y., Han, X., Lee, B., Xu, K., Zeng, S., Hua, H., Zhang, X., Alomair, B., Krishna, R., Zettlemoyer, L., Koh, P. W., Ramasubramanian, B., Niu, L., Yue, X., & Poovendran, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
  • University of Notre Dame (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (SA)
  • Western Washington University (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2605.26329
arXiv
2605.26329
OpenAlex
W7162496332
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2229876)
  • U.S. Department of Homeland Security
  • Office of Naval Research (FA9550)
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9550-, FA9550-23-1-0208)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
benchmarking, human-AI collaboration, task delegation, agentic workflows, occupational tasks, Claude Opus, human enhancement, labour market impact, assessment rubrics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review