Daily Papers

Exploitation is not a binary event. It is a ladder of acquiring progressive capabilities, from executing a single buggy line of code to taking full control of the target. However, existing LLM security benchmarks treat a crash as exploitation success. That single binary outcome collapses the hard parts of exploitation: the transition from triggering a bug to constructing reusable primitives and control. We present ExploitBench, a capability-graded benchmark that decomposes exploitation into 16 measurable flags, from coverage and crash through sandbox primitives, arbitrary read/write, control-flow hijack, and arbitrary code execution. Each capability is verified by a deterministic oracle that uses a per-run randomized challenge-response for primitives, differential execution against ground-truth binaries to measure progress, and a signal-handler proof for code execution. We instantiate ExploitBench on 41 V8 bugs because V8 is both widely deployed and exploitation-hardened. We report three arms: <model,env> as the primary measurement of model-environment capability, <model,env, adaptive coaching> as a secondary arm that adds adaptive coaching to test whether targeted feedback shifts outcomes, and <model,env,harness> as an ablation that swaps in the model's native CLI to check whether vendor-side optimizations increase exploitation capabilities. Our results show a sharp capability split between publicly deployed frontier models and the private frontier. Across the 8 publicly deployed models tested, reaching the vulnerable code and triggering a crash is routine, but arbitrary code execution is not. The private model shows arbitrary code execution on approximately half. Overall, results suggest that exploit construction against hardened targets is an emerging frontier capability.

Recent advances in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) and large language models (LLMs) have greatly enhanced visual reasoning, a key capability for embodied AI agents like robots. However, existing visual reasoning benchmarks often suffer from several limitations: they lack a clear definition of reasoning complexity, offer have no control to generate questions over varying difficulty and task customization, and fail to provide structured, step-by-step reasoning annotations (workflows). To bridge these gaps, we formalize reasoning complexity, introduce an adaptive query engine that generates customizable questions of varying complexity with detailed intermediate annotations, and extend the JRDB dataset with human-object interaction and geometric relationship annotations to create JRDB-Reasoning, a benchmark tailored for visual reasoning in human-crowded environments. Our engine and benchmark enable fine-grained evaluation of visual reasoning frameworks and dynamic assessment of visual-language models across reasoning levels.

Unified multimodal models target joint understanding, reasoning, and generation, but current image editing benchmarks are largely confined to natural images and shallow commonsense reasoning, offering limited assessment of this capability under structured, domain-specific constraints. In this work, we introduce GRADE, the first benchmark to assess discipline-informed knowledge and reasoning in image editing. GRADE comprises 520 carefully curated samples across 10 academic domains, spanning from natural science to social science. To support rigorous evaluation, we propose a multi-dimensional evaluation protocol that jointly assesses Discipline Reasoning, Visual Consistency, and Logical Readability. Extensive experiments on 20 state-of-the-art open-source and closed-source models reveal substantial limitations in current models under implicit, knowledge-intensive editing settings, leading to large performance gaps. Beyond quantitative scores, we conduct rigorous analyses and ablations to expose model shortcomings and identify the constraints within disciplinary editing. Together, GRADE pinpoints key directions for the future development of unified multimodal models, advancing the research on discipline-informed image editing and reasoning. Our benchmark and evaluation code are publicly released.

Agentic Reasoning has become a transformative force in financial analysis due to its ability to integrate large-scale information and generate reliable and accurate content. However, when handling complex real-world problems, different agents still show significant performance variation. In this work, we design Finance-LaTeX SKILL, a skill for synthesizing financial documents with complex layouts based on expert knowledge. Using an agent workflow built on this skill, we generate 2,000 professional financial documents along with 6,000 high-quality question-answer pairs. To evaluate the overall capability of agents, we introduce FinanceComplexQA, a comprehensive open-ended generation benchmark for financial documents that closely resembles real-world scenarios. It contains 2,026 deep research tasks targeting 1009 financial documents. FinanceComplexQA has 8 key features: bilingual support; coverage of six mainstream scenarios and seven tasks; expert-level document reasoning questions; deep research of complex layouts; relatively stable and permanent reference answers; and precise evaluation through an Agent-as-a-Judge with multiple evaluation metrics. Using FinanceComplexQA, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of leading RAG systems and agentic reasoning tools for financial document QA. Through identifying and analyzing failure cases, we provide an in-depth study of their capabilities in numerical computation, multi-hop reasoning, content summarization, and industry analysis.

While current Computer Use Agent (CUA) benchmarks measure task completion effectively, they provide limited assessment of enterprise deployment readiness, emphasizing functional correctness over the operational reliability required for production systems. We present UI-CUBE (UiPath Computer Use BEnchmark), a systematic benchmark comprising 226 tasks across two difficulty tiers designed to expose fundamental architectural limitations in current CUAs. Our evaluation covers simple UI interactions (136 tasks) and complex workflows including copy-paste tasks (50 tasks) and enterprise application scenarios (40 tasks), with systematic interface variation coverage, multi-resolution testing and automated validation of task success through the application state. Evaluation of five state-of-the-art models reveals a sharp capability cliff rather than gradual performance degradation. Simple UI interactions achieve 67-85% success rates (compared to 97.9% human performance), but complex workflows drop precipitously to 9-19%. Human evaluators with no prior application experience achieve only 61.2% on complex tasks despite near-perfect performance on simple tasks, establishing realistic performance ceilings. This discontinuous performance pattern -- where agents achieve 68-87% of human performance on simple tasks but only 15-32% on complex workflows -- indicates fundamental architectural limitations in memory management, hierarchical planning, and state coordination rather than incremental capability gaps addressable through better training or prompting. UI-CUBE functions as an enterprise-readiness diagnostic, revealing that while current CUAs can manipulate individual interface elements, they cannot yet function as reliable workflow automation tools. These findings provide architectural insights essential for developing production-ready CUAs capable of managing complex, multi-step enterprise processes.

Recent advances in language models have demonstrated their capability to solve mathematical reasoning problems, achieving near-perfect accuracy on grade-school level math benchmarks like GSM8K. In this paper, we formally study how language models solve these problems. We design a series of controlled experiments to address several fundamental questions: (1) Can language models truly develop reasoning skills, or do they simply memorize templates? (2) What is the model's hidden (mental) reasoning process? (3) Do models solve math questions using skills similar to or different from humans? (4) Do models trained on GSM8K-like datasets develop reasoning skills beyond those necessary for solving GSM8K problems? (5) What mental process causes models to make reasoning mistakes? (6) How large or deep must a model be to effectively solve GSM8K-level math questions? Our study uncovers many hidden mechanisms by which language models solve mathematical questions, providing insights that extend beyond current understandings of LLMs.

Deep Research Agents generate analyst-grade reports, yet evaluating them remains challenging due to the absence of a single ground truth and the multidimensional nature of research quality. Recent benchmarks propose distinct methodologies, yet they suffer from the Mirage of Synthesis, where strong surface-level fluency and citation alignment can obscure underlying factual and reasoning defects. We characterize this gap by introducing a taxonomy across four verticals that exposes a critical capability mismatch: static evaluators inherently lack the tool-use capabilities required to assess temporal validity and factual correctness. To address this, we propose DREAM (Deep Research Evaluation with Agentic Metrics), a framework that instantiates the principle of capability parity by making evaluation itself agentic. DREAM structures assessment through an evaluation protocol combining query-agnostic metrics with adaptive metrics generated by a tool-calling agent, enabling temporally aware coverage, grounded verification, and systematic reasoning probes. Controlled evaluations demonstrate DREAM is significantly more sensitive to factual and temporal decay than existing benchmarks, offering a scalable, reference-free evaluation paradigm.

Existing benchmarks measure capability -- whether a model succeeds on a single attempt -- but production deployments require reliability -- consistent success across repeated attempts on tasks of varying duration. We show these properties diverge systematically as task duration grows, and that pass@1 on short tasks is structurally blind to this divergence. We introduce a reliability science framework for long-horizon LLM agents with four metrics: Reliability Decay Curve (RDC), Variance Amplification Factor (VAF), Graceful Degradation Score (GDS), and Meltdown Onset Point (MOP). We evaluate 10 models across 23,392 episodes on a 396-task benchmark spanning four duration buckets and three domains. Key findings: (1) reliability decay is domain-stratified -- SE GDS drops from 0.90 to 0.44 while document processing is nearly flat (0.74 to 0.71); (2) VAF bifurcates by capability tier -- high VAF is a capability signature, not an instability signal; (3) capability and reliability rankings diverge substantially, with multi-rank inversions at long horizons; (4) frontier models have the highest meltdown rates (up to 19%) because they attempt ambitious multi-step strategies that sometimes spiral; and (5) memory scaffolds universally hurt long-horizon performance across all 10 models. These results motivate reliability as a first-class evaluation dimension alongside capability.

Rigorous and reproducible evaluation is critical for assessing the state of the art and for guiding scientific advances in Artificial Intelligence. Evaluation is challenging in practice due to several reasons, including benchmark saturation, lack of transparency in methods used for measurement, development challenges in extracting measurements for generative tasks, and, more generally, the extensive number of capabilities required for a well-rounded comparison across models. We make three contributions to alleviate the above challenges. First, we present Eureka, an open-source framework for standardizing evaluations of large foundation models beyond single-score reporting and rankings. Second, we introduce Eureka-Bench as an extensible collection of benchmarks testing capabilities that (i) are still challenging for state-of-the-art models and (ii) represent fundamental but overlooked language and multimodal capabilities. The inherent space for improvement in non-saturated benchmarks enables us to discover meaningful differences between models at a capability level. Third, using Eureka, we conduct an analysis of 12 state-of-the-art models, providing in-depth insights into failure understanding and model comparison, which can be leveraged to plan targeted improvements. In contrast to recent trends in reports and leaderboards showing absolute rankings and claims for one model or another to be the best, our analysis shows that there is no such best model. Different models have different strengths, but there are models that appear more often than others as best performers for some capabilities. Despite the recent improvements, current models still struggle with several fundamental capabilities including detailed image understanding, benefiting from multimodal input when available rather than fully relying on language, factuality and grounding for information retrieval, and over refusals.

AI models are increasingly prevalent in high-stakes environments, necessitating thorough assessment of their capabilities and risks. Benchmarks are popular for measuring these attributes and for comparing model performance, tracking progress, and identifying weaknesses in foundation and non-foundation models. They can inform model selection for downstream tasks and influence policy initiatives. However, not all benchmarks are the same: their quality depends on their design and usability. In this paper, we develop an assessment framework considering 46 best practices across an AI benchmark's lifecycle and evaluate 24 AI benchmarks against it. We find that there exist large quality differences and that commonly used benchmarks suffer from significant issues. We further find that most benchmarks do not report statistical significance of their results nor allow for their results to be easily replicated. To support benchmark developers in aligning with best practices, we provide a checklist for minimum quality assurance based on our assessment. We also develop a living repository of benchmark assessments to support benchmark comparability, accessible at betterbench.stanford.edu.

In recent years, with the rapid development of the depth and breadth of large language models' capabilities, various corresponding evaluation benchmarks have been emerging in increasing numbers. As a quantitative assessment tool for model performance, benchmarks are not only a core means to measure model capabilities but also a key element in guiding the direction of model development and promoting technological innovation. We systematically review the current status and development of large language model benchmarks for the first time, categorizing 283 representative benchmarks into three categories: general capabilities, domain-specific, and target-specific. General capability benchmarks cover aspects such as core linguistics, knowledge, and reasoning; domain-specific benchmarks focus on fields like natural sciences, humanities and social sciences, and engineering technology; target-specific benchmarks pay attention to risks, reliability, agents, etc. We point out that current benchmarks have problems such as inflated scores caused by data contamination, unfair evaluation due to cultural and linguistic biases, and lack of evaluation on process credibility and dynamic environments, and provide a referable design paradigm for future benchmark innovation.

As the demand for comprehensive evaluations of diverse model capabilities steadily increases, benchmark suites have correspondingly grown significantly in scale. Despite notable advances in redundancy reduction and subset-level performance prediction, a systematic framework that effectively integrates these methods to ensure both prediction accuracy and ranking consistency is still largely elusive. In this paper, we first perform a sample-level analysis of benchmark redundancy and identify several highly similar samples that can be eliminated. Besides, we frame benchmark compression as an optimization problem with the aim of score reconstruction. Building on these, we then propose EssenceBench, a coarse-to-fine framework utilizing an iterative Genetic Algorithm (GA), which takes the advantages of fitness-based subset search and attribution-based sample search. Compared to previous methods, our approach yields superior compression results with lower reconstruction error and markedly higher efficiency. In particular, on the HellaSwag benchmark (10K samples), our method preserves the ranking of all models shifting within 5% using 25x fewer samples, and achieves 95% ranking preservation shifting within 5% using only 200x fewer samples.

Agent skill libraries are becoming routable software assets: a retrieved skill can contribute instructions, scripts, resource bindings, and execution assumptions to an agent. This makes retrieval failures more specific than broad irrelevance. A system can find the right capability family yet expose the wrong same-capability representative. We study this failure as same-capability risk-exposure retrieval. Each benchmark unit pairs a helpful skill with a query-specific risky sibling that shares the capability family but differs on an execution-controlling contract, such as the required resource, precondition, procedure, or artifact. We introduce SameCapRisk-Bench, an auditable benchmark with 1,190 skill-risk units and 1,686 evaluation query cases: 694 marked-sibling units under public library pressure and 496 hard role-flip units where the same two skills swap helpful/risky roles across paired queries. The release records admission evidence, cue/leakage checks, source hashes, family relations, and fixed candidate pools. The benchmark reports helpful ranking together with harmful sibling rate (HSR@K), the top-K exposure of the marked risky sibling. On this benchmark, public SkillRouter, SkillRet, and R3-Skill retrieve helpful skills at high Recall@3 (0.848--0.888) but also expose marked risky siblings frequently (HSR@3 0.346--0.372). A fully public score-and-cluster pipeline lowers HSR@3 to 0.128--0.182, with Recall@3 of 0.713--0.776. Under a benchmark-trained reference scorer, public text-cluster and controlled resolvers reach HSR@3 0.012 and 0.007; the latter attains Recall@3 0.833. Skill retrieval should therefore report both capability matching and same-family risk exposure, with HSR serving as a targeted exposure certificate for fixed skill libraries.

The rapid proliferation of benchmarks for evaluating large language models (LLMs) has created an urgent need for systematic methods to assess benchmark quality itself. We propose Benchmark^2, a comprehensive framework comprising three complementary metrics: (1) Cross-Benchmark Ranking Consistency, measuring whether a benchmark produces model rankings aligned with peer benchmarks; (2) Discriminability Score, quantifying a benchmark's ability to differentiate between models; and (3) Capability Alignment Deviation, identifying problematic instances where stronger models fail but weaker models succeed within the same model family. We conduct extensive experiments across 15 benchmarks spanning mathematics, reasoning, and knowledge domains, evaluating 11 LLMs across four model families. Our analysis reveals significant quality variations among existing benchmarks and demonstrates that selective benchmark construction based on our metrics can achieve comparable evaluation performance with substantially reduced test sets.

Large language models achieve near-ceiling performance on code generation benchmarks, yet these results increasingly reflect memorization rather than genuine reasoning. We introduce EsoLang-Bench, a benchmark using five esoteric programming languages (Brainfuck, Befunge-98, Whitespace, Unlambda, and Shakespeare) that lack benchmark gaming incentives due to their economic irrationality for pre-training. These languages require the same computational primitives as mainstream programming but have 1,000-100,000x fewer public repositories than Python (based on GitHub search counts). We evaluate five frontier models across five prompting strategies and find a dramatic capability gap: models achieving 85-95% on standard benchmarks score only 0-11% on equivalent esoteric tasks, with 0% accuracy beyond the Easy tier. Few-shot learning and self-reflection fail to improve performance, suggesting these techniques exploit training priors rather than enabling genuine learning. EsoLang-Bench provides the first benchmark designed to mimic human learning by acquiring new languages through documentation, interpreter feedback, and iterative experimentation, measuring transferable reasoning skills resistant to data contamination.

Training algorithms, broadly construed, are an essential part of every deep learning pipeline. Training algorithm improvements that speed up training across a wide variety of workloads (e.g., better update rules, tuning protocols, learning rate schedules, or data selection schemes) could save time, save computational resources, and lead to better, more accurate, models. Unfortunately, as a community, we are currently unable to reliably identify training algorithm improvements, or even determine the state-of-the-art training algorithm. In this work, using concrete experiments, we argue that real progress in speeding up training requires new benchmarks that resolve three basic challenges faced by empirical comparisons of training algorithms: (1) how to decide when training is complete and precisely measure training time, (2) how to handle the sensitivity of measurements to exact workload details, and (3) how to fairly compare algorithms that require hyperparameter tuning. In order to address these challenges, we introduce a new, competitive, time-to-result benchmark using multiple workloads running on fixed hardware, the AlgoPerf: Training Algorithms benchmark. Our benchmark includes a set of workload variants that make it possible to detect benchmark submissions that are more robust to workload changes than current widely-used methods. Finally, we evaluate baseline submissions constructed using various optimizers that represent current practice, as well as other optimizers that have recently received attention in the literature. These baseline results collectively demonstrate the feasibility of our benchmark, show that non-trivial gaps between methods exist, and set a provisional state-of-the-art for future benchmark submissions to try and surpass.

Benchmarks are essential for consistent evaluation and reproducibility. The integration of Artificial Intelligence into Software Engineering (AI4SE) has given rise to numerous benchmarks for tasks such as code generation and bug fixing. However, this surge presents challenges: (1) scattered benchmark knowledge across tasks, (2) difficulty in selecting relevant benchmarks, (3) the absence of a uniform standard for benchmark development, and (4) limitations of existing benchmarks. In this paper, we review 173 studies and identify 204 AI4SE benchmarks. We classify these benchmarks, analyze their limitations, and expose gaps in practices. Based on our review, we created BenchScout, a semantic search tool to find relevant benchmarks, using automated clustering of the contexts from associated studies. We conducted a user study with 22 participants to evaluate BenchScout's usability, effectiveness, and intuitiveness which resulted in average scores of 4.5, 4.0, and 4.1 out of 5. To advance benchmarking standards, we propose BenchFrame, a unified method to enhance benchmark quality. As a case study, we applied BenchFrame to the HumanEval benchmark and addressed its main limitations. This led to HumanEvalNext, featuring (1) corrected errors, (2) improved language conversion, (3) expanded test coverage, and (4) increased difficulty. We then evaluated ten state-of-the-art code language models on HumanEval, HumanEvalPlus, and HumanEvalNext. On HumanEvalNext, models showed a pass@1 score reduction of 31.22% and 19.94% compared to HumanEval and HumanEvalPlus, respectively.

We introduce AInsteinBench, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating whether large language model (LLM) agents can operate as scientific computing development agents within real research software ecosystems. Unlike existing scientific reasoning benchmarks which focus on conceptual knowledge, or software engineering benchmarks that emphasize generic feature implementation and issue resolving, AInsteinBench evaluates models in end-to-end scientific development settings grounded in production-grade scientific repositories. The benchmark consists of tasks derived from maintainer-authored pull requests across six widely used scientific codebases, spanning quantum chemistry, quantum computing, molecular dynamics, numerical relativity, fluid dynamics, and cheminformatics. All benchmark tasks are carefully curated through multi-stage filtering and expert review to ensure scientific challenge, adequate test coverage, and well-calibrated difficulty. By leveraging evaluation in executable environments, scientifically meaningful failure modes, and test-driven verification, AInsteinBench measures a model's ability to move beyond surface-level code generation toward the core competencies required for computational scientific research.

Benchmarks play a central role in the development and governance of models, yet it is often unclear whether they actually measure the concepts they purport to measure (e.g., reasoning, refusal). We adapt convergent and discriminant validity from the social sciences into an approach for interrogating AI benchmarks, applying it to 56 capability and safety benchmarks across 53 models. We label benchmarks with substantively similar purported concepts to a shared assigned concept, and ask whether model rankings on benchmarks with the same assigned concept correlate more strongly than rankings on benchmarks with different assigned concepts. We ask analogous questions at the item level using item response theory (IRT) models. We find that correlations between model rankings on benchmarks with the same assigned safety concepts are often weak, suggesting these concepts may be conceptualized inconsistently across benchmarks. For assigned capability concepts (e.g., reasoning, knowledge), model rankings are often as strongly correlated among benchmarks with the same assigned concept as between benchmarks with different assigned concepts, suggesting these capability concepts may not discriminate well from one another. In some cases, benchmarks that share design elements (e.g., score format) correlate more strongly than benchmarks with the same assigned concept. Finally, some individual benchmarks correlate more strongly with benchmarks assigned a different concept than with benchmarks sharing their own assigned concept, suggesting they may measure a different concept than they purport to. For example, BBQ-accuracy correlates more strongly with benchmarks labeled reasoning than with benchmarks that share its assigned concept, bias. To support future empirical work on benchmark validity, we release our extensive dataset of model outputs and scores at the item- and benchmark-level.

Benchmarks increasingly guide deployment, procurement and scientific screening, yet a score supports only the response it records, not necessarily the deployment action. We introduce deployment-complete benchmarking, which tests whether benchmark evidence determines a deployment action. A benchmark is complete for a claim exactly when the action is constant on each evidence fiber; mixed fibers expose missing deployment information, and completion curves quantify the evidence required to resolve ambiguity. In controlled response spaces, benchmark-channel conformal coverage of 94.98% transferred poorly to an unmeasured deployment channel (10.07%), whereas response-rank intervals achieved 94.91% coverage; even zero benchmark error certified only 45.4% of candidates at the largest residual size. Public audits revealed incompleteness, including 97.9% mixed Tox21 fibers and zero median certifiable fraction in main Matbench and JARVIS audits. In held-out replays, certify-then-acquire reduced false decisions from 1.19% to 0.027% in Tox21 and from 20.3% to 0.128% in JARVIS, while changing model choice and identifying deployment-relevant probes. Deployment-ready benchmarks should report evidence, supported actions, ambiguity and completion cost rather than scores alone.

Forecasting when AI systems will become capable of meaningfully accelerating AI research is a central challenge for AI safety. Existing benchmarks measure broad capability growth, but may not provide ample early warning signals for recursive self-improvement. We propose measuring AI's capability to autonomously implement end-to-end machine learning pipelines from past AI research breakthroughs, given a minimal task description. By providing a concise task description instead of the full prior work as reference, we hope to better elicit emerging AI research taste. We introduce a proof-of-concept benchmark in which frontier coding agents autonomously implement an AlphaZero-style machine learning pipeline for Connect Four on consumer hardware within a three-hour budget, and we evaluate the resulting game AIs in a round-robin tournament anchored to the Pascal Pons Connect Four solver. Across four agents with eight trials each, we find substantial differentiation: Claude Opus 4.7 won as first-mover against Pons in seven of eight trials, statistically significantly better than the other agents tested, none of which exceeded two of eight. The task, which no frontier agent could reliably complete when we began development in January of 2026, is now near-saturation. Our evaluation also surfaced anomalous behavior in GPT-5.4, which consistently used far less of its allocated time budget than other agents. A follow-up 16-trial probe using shorter, less evaluation-coded prompts substantially increased GPT-5.4's time-budget usage, consistent with but not diagnostic of sandbagging; Bradley-Terry ratings across probe conditions showed only directional differences, despite significant differences in time-budget usage. We release our data, code, and prompts to support reproduction and extension.

Existing benchmarks for frontier models often test specialized, ``PhD-level'' knowledge that is difficult for non-experts to grasp. In contrast, we present a benchmark based on the NPR Sunday Puzzle Challenge that requires only general knowledge. Our benchmark is challenging for both humans and models, however correct solutions are easy to verify, and models' mistakes are easy to spot. Our work reveals capability gaps that are not evident in existing benchmarks: OpenAI o1 significantly outperforms other reasoning models that are on par on benchmarks that test specialized knowledge. Furthermore, our analysis of reasoning outputs uncovers new kinds of failures. DeepSeek R1, for instance, often concedes with ``I give up'' before providing an answer that it knows is wrong. R1 can also be remarkably ``uncertain'' in its output and in rare cases, it does not ``finish thinking,'' which suggests the need for an inference-time technique to ``wrap up'' before the context window limit is reached. We also quantify the effectiveness of reasoning longer with R1 and Gemini Thinking to identify the point beyond which more reasoning is unlikely to improve accuracy on our benchmark.

Autonomous agents are increasingly adopted to complete complex, multi-tool workflows in real-world settings. However, existing benchmarks typically separate tasks by application or capability and evaluate agents in environments that are cleaner and more stable than those encountered in practice. We introduce DuMateBench, a real-session benchmark reconstructed from anonymized and privacy-screened user sessions collected from a large-scale production agent platform. Each task preserves the relevant pre-solution interaction history, persistent configurations, and workspace state, and is then validated through human verification. The resulting benchmark comprises 200 tasks spanning 8 broad scenarios and 17 fine-grained capability categories, with most tasks requiring multiple capability coordination. We execute these tasks in isolated Docker containers injected with three forms of real-world environmental complexity: Insufficient, Unstable, and Noisy, and assess performance using a hybrid deterministic and LLM-as-Judge evaluation protocol. Experiments across five representative autonomous-agent frameworks paired with four state-of-the-art LLMs reveal substantial gaps in strict task completion. Complementary robustness, efficiency, and diagnostic analyses further show that performance under environmental perturbations is jointly shaped by the capabilities of the LLM and the surrounding agent framework. The code and data are publicly available at https://dumatebench.com/.

The increasing versatility of language models LMs has given rise to a new class of benchmarks that comprehensively assess a broad range of capabilities. Such benchmarks are associated with massive computational costs reaching thousands of GPU hours per model. However the efficiency aspect of these evaluation efforts had raised little discussion in the literature. In this work we present the problem of Efficient Benchmarking namely intelligently reducing the computation costs of LM evaluation without compromising reliability. Using the HELM benchmark as a test case we investigate how different benchmark design choices affect the computation-reliability tradeoff. We propose to evaluate the reliability of such decisions by using a new measure Decision Impact on Reliability DIoR for short. We find for example that the current leader on HELM may change by merely removing a low-ranked model from the benchmark and observe that a handful of examples suffice to obtain the correct benchmark ranking. Conversely a slightly different choice of HELM scenarios varies ranking widely. Based on our findings we outline a set of concrete recommendations for more efficient benchmark design and utilization practices leading to dramatic cost savings with minimal loss of benchmark reliability often reducing computation by x100 or more.

Benchmarks are fundamental for evaluating and advancing LLMs and MLLMs by providing standardized and explicit measures of performance. However, their construction is labor-intensive and hard to reuse, raising concerns about sustainability and scalability. Moreover, existing benchmarks often quickly reach performance saturation after their release, resulting in insufficient discrimination among state-of-the-art models. To address these challenges, we introduce Benchmark Agent, a fully autonomous agentic system designed for benchmark building. Our framework orchestrates the complete benchmark construction pipeline, from user query analysis and subtask design to data annotation and quality control. To assess Benchmark Agent, we implement it to produce 15 representative benchmarks, spanning diverse evaluation scenarios, including text understanding, multimodal understanding, and domain-specific reasoning. Extensive experiments, including human evaluation, LLM-as-a-judge assessment, and consistency checks, demonstrate Benchmark Agent can generate high-quality benchmark samples with minimal human involvement. More importantly, through continual evaluation, we observe several insightful findings, including that current models struggle with certain domain-specific reasoning tasks. We believe that rapidly evolving benchmarks can contribute significantly to the research community. The preview and code will be publicly available at the demo page and code repository.

Evaluation benchmarks are the cornerstone of measuring capabilities of large language models (LLMs), as well as driving progress in said capabilities. Originally designed to make claims about capabilities (or lack thereof) in fully pretrained models, evaluation benchmarks are now also extensively used to decide between various training choices. Despite this widespread usage, we rarely quantify the variance in our evaluation benchmarks, which dictates whether differences in performance are meaningful. Here, we define and measure a range of metrics geared towards measuring variance in evaluation benchmarks, including seed variance across initialisations, and monotonicity during training. By studying a large number of models -- both openly available and pretrained from scratch -- we provide empirical estimates for a variety of variance metrics, with considerations and recommendations for practitioners. We also evaluate the utility and tradeoffs of continuous versus discrete performance measures and explore options for better understanding and reducing this variance. We find that simple changes, such as framing choice tasks (like MMLU) as completion tasks, can often reduce variance for smaller scale (sim7B) models, while more involved methods inspired from human testing literature (such as item analysis and item response theory) struggle to meaningfully reduce variance. Overall, our work provides insights into variance in evaluation benchmarks, suggests LM-specific techniques to reduce variance, and more generally encourages practitioners to carefully factor in variance when comparing models.

The application of large language models (LLMs) in the field of coding is evolving rapidly: from code assistants, to autonomous coding agents, and then to generating complete projects through natural language. Early LLM code benchmarks primarily focused on code generation accuracy, but these benchmarks have gradually become saturated. Benchmark saturation weakens their guiding role for LLMs. For example, HumanEval Pass@1 has reached 99.4% and MBPP 94.2%. Among various attempts to address benchmark saturation, approaches based on software engineering have stood out, but the saturation of existing software engineering benchmarks is rapidly increasing. To address this, we propose a new benchmark, Web-Bench, which contains 50 projects, each consisting of 20 tasks with sequential dependencies. The tasks implement project features in sequence, simulating real-world human development workflows. When designing Web-Bench, we aim to cover the foundational elements of Web development: Web Standards and Web Frameworks. Given the scale and complexity of these projects, which were designed by engineers with 5 to 10 years of experience, each presents a significant challenge. On average, a single project takes 4 to 8 hours for a senior engineer to complete. On our given benchmark agent (Web-Agent), SOTA (Claude 3.7 Sonnet) achieves only 25.1% Pass@1, significantly lower (better) than SWE-Bench's Verified (65.4%) and Full (33.8%) scores. Finally, we discuss that in any development field, Standards and Frameworks represent foundational knowledge and efficiency tools, respectively, and LLMs require optimization tailored to them.

The ViDoRe Benchmark V1 was approaching saturation with top models exceeding 90% nDCG@5, limiting its ability to discern improvements. ViDoRe Benchmark V2 introduces realistic, challenging retrieval scenarios via blind contextual querying, long and cross-document queries, and a hybrid synthetic and human-in-the-loop query generation process. It comprises four diverse, multilingual datasets and provides clear evaluation instructions. Initial results demonstrate substantial room for advancement and highlight insights on model generalization and multilingual capability. This benchmark is designed as a living resource, inviting community contributions to maintain relevance through future evaluations.

Trustworthy capability evaluations are crucial for ensuring the safety of AI systems, and are becoming a key component of AI regulation. However, the developers of an AI system, or the AI system itself, may have incentives for evaluations to understate the AI's actual capability. These conflicting interests lead to the problem of sandbagging, which we define as strategic underperformance on an evaluation. In this paper we assess sandbagging capabilities in contemporary language models (LMs). We prompt frontier LMs, like GPT-4 and Claude 3 Opus, to selectively underperform on dangerous capability evaluations, while maintaining performance on general (harmless) capability evaluations. Moreover, we find that models can be fine-tuned, on a synthetic dataset, to hide specific capabilities unless given a password. This behaviour generalizes to high-quality, held-out benchmarks such as WMDP. In addition, we show that both frontier and smaller models can be prompted or password-locked to target specific scores on a capability evaluation. We have mediocre success in password-locking a model to mimic the answers a weaker model would give. Overall, our results suggest that capability evaluations are vulnerable to sandbagging. This vulnerability decreases the trustworthiness of evaluations, and thereby undermines important safety decisions regarding the development and deployment of advanced AI systems.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for software engineering, constructing high-quality benchmarks is crucial for evaluating not just the functional correctness, but also the formal verifiability of generated code. However, existing benchmarks are limited by the quantity and quality of positive and negative test cases, leading to an overestimation of model capabilities in generating specifications and implementations. To address this, we propose VeriScale, a novel framework driven by the adversarial implementations. It consists of two stages: test-suite expansion to construct diverse and challenging test cases, and test-suite reduction to distill them into compact yet discriminative suites. While VeriScale is general, we instantiate it on Verina to construct VerinaPlus, which expands the original test suites by over 83times, and VerinaLite, a lightweight 14times variant. Our experiments across eight state-of-the-art LLMs demonstrate that VerinaPlus exposes substantial model weaknesses hidden by the original benchmark, evidenced by sharp score drops on both SpecGen and CodeGen tasks, whereas VerinaLite maintains this discriminative power at a fraction of the evaluation cost. The enhanced benchmarks and source code are publicly available at https://github.com/XiaoyangLiu-sjtu/VeriScale.

Traditional fixed test sets fall short in evaluating open-ended capabilities of foundation models. To address this, we propose ONEBench(OpeN-Ended Benchmarking), a new testing paradigm that consolidates individual evaluation datasets into a unified, ever-expanding sample pool. ONEBench allows users to generate custom, open-ended evaluation benchmarks from this pool, corresponding to specific capabilities of interest. By aggregating samples across test sets, ONEBench enables the assessment of diverse capabilities beyond those covered by the original test sets, while mitigating overfitting and dataset bias. Most importantly, it frames model evaluation as a collective process of selecting and aggregating sample-level tests. The shift from task-specific benchmarks to ONEBench introduces two challenges: (1)heterogeneity and (2)incompleteness. Heterogeneity refers to the aggregation over diverse metrics, while incompleteness describes comparing models evaluated on different data subsets. To address these challenges, we explore algorithms to aggregate sparse measurements into reliable model scores. Our aggregation algorithm ensures identifiability(asymptotically recovering ground-truth scores) and rapid convergence, enabling accurate model ranking with less data. On homogenous datasets, we show our aggregation algorithm provides rankings that highly correlate with those produced by average scores. We also demonstrate robustness to ~95% of measurements missing, reducing evaluation cost by up to 20x with little-to-no change in model rankings. We introduce ONEBench-LLM for language models and ONEBench-LMM for vision-language models, unifying evaluations across these domains. Overall, we present a technique for open-ended evaluation, which can aggregate over incomplete, heterogeneous sample-level measurements to continually grow a benchmark alongside the rapidly developing foundation models.

As frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly saturate new benchmarks shortly after they are published, benchmarking itself is at a juncture: if frontier models keep improving, it will become increasingly hard for humans to generate discriminative tasks, provide accurate ground-truth answers, or evaluate complex solutions. If benchmarking becomes infeasible, our ability to measure any progress in AI is at stake. We refer to this scenario as the post-comprehension regime. In this work, we propose Critique-Resilient Benchmarking, an adversarial framework designed to compare models even when full human understanding is infeasible. Our technique relies on the notion of critique-resilient correctness: an answer is deemed correct if no adversary has convincingly proved otherwise. Unlike standard benchmarking, humans serve as bounded verifiers and focus on localized claims, which preserves evaluation integrity beyond full comprehension of the task. Using an itemized bipartite Bradley-Terry model, we jointly rank LLMs by their ability to solve challenging tasks and to generate difficult yet solvable questions. We showcase the effectiveness of our method in the mathematical domain across eight frontier LLMs, showing that the resulting scores are stable and correlate with external capability measures. Our framework reformulates benchmarking as an adversarial generation-evaluation game in which humans serve as final adjudicators.

Computer use agents (CUAs) have advanced rapidly in desktop automation, and a growing number of users deploy CUAs such as OpenClaw on Mac Mini for always-on automation. However, existing benchmarks, including those for macOS, evaluate agents without framework augmentation and rely on binary evaluation. As a result, they fail to capture both the framework capabilities leveraged by modern CUAs and the partial progress on long-horizon, multi-application tasks. We present MacAgentBench, a comprehensive macOS agent benchmark comprising 676 tasks across 25 applications, with nearly 60% involving both GUI and CLI interaction. The benchmark adopts deterministic rule-based evaluation and introduces fine-grained multi-checkpoint scoring with capability annotations for multi-application tasks. Experiments across three frameworks and 16 models show that the best configuration, Claude Opus 4.6 on OpenClaw, attains 73.7% Pass@1, while this advantage is primarily driven by the skill library rather than by framework design. Fine-grained metrics further reveal that models with similar Pass@1 can differ substantially in sub-goal completion. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/JetAstra/MacAgentBench.

We present BenchRL-QAS, a unified benchmarking framework for reinforcement learning (RL) in quantum architecture search (QAS) across a spectrum of variational quantum algorithm tasks on 2- to 8-qubit systems. Our study systematically evaluates 9 different RL agents, including both value-based and policy-gradient methods, on quantum problems such as variational eigensolver, quantum state diagonalization, variational quantum classification (VQC), and state preparation, under both noiseless and noisy execution settings. To ensure fair comparison, we propose a weighted ranking metric that integrates accuracy, circuit depth, gate count, and training time. Results demonstrate that no single RL method dominates universally, the performance dependents on task type, qubit count, and noise conditions providing strong evidence of no free lunch principle in RL-QAS. As a byproduct we observe that a carefully chosen RL algorithm in RL-based VQC outperforms baseline VQCs. BenchRL-QAS establishes the most extensive benchmark for RL-based QAS to date, codes and experimental made publicly available for reproducibility and future advances.

We introduce MSC-Bench, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating multi-hop, end-to-end tool orchestration by LLM agents in a hierarchical Model-Context Protocol (MCP) ecosystem. Existing benchmarks often evaluate tools in isolation, ignoring challenges such as functional overlap and cross-server orchestration, leading to overly optimistic assessments. MSC-Bench addresses these gaps by constructing ground truth through 'equal function sets', allowing objective metrics such as F1 score and reducing the dependency on LLM-as-a-judge evaluation. Organized as a five-level curriculum, it systematically tests agent capabilities from single-tool orchestration to complex cross-server planning, and robustness to out-of-scope requests. Experiments reveal that rigid hierarchies can hinder performance without co-designed strategies, and even state-of-the-art agents exhibit systemic weaknesses in robustness. MSC-Bench provides a diagnostic framework to expose these limitations and guide the development of more capable and efficient tool-using agents. The benchmark and resources are publicly available at https://github.com/snooow1029/MSC_Bench.

Various benchmarks have been proposed to assess the performance of large language models (LLMs) in different coding scenarios. We refer to them as code-related benchmarks. However, there are no systematic guidelines by which such a benchmark should be developed to ensure its quality, reliability, and reproducibility. We propose How2Bench, which is comprised of a 55- 55-criteria checklist as a set of guidelines to govern the development of code-related benchmarks comprehensively. Using HOW2BENCH, we profiled 274 benchmarks released within the past decade and found concerning issues. Nearly 70% of the benchmarks did not take measures for data quality assurance; over 10% did not even open source or only partially open source. Many highly cited benchmarks have loopholes, including duplicated samples, incorrect reference codes/tests/prompts, and unremoved sensitive/confidential information. Finally, we conducted a human study involving 49 participants, which revealed significant gaps in awareness of the importance of data quality, reproducibility, and transparency.

Large language model agents increasingly rely on reusable skills to extend their capabilities beyond parametric knowl- edge. However, retrieving the appropriate skill from a large- scale library remains challenging because realistic user re- quests are often concise and underspecified, stating only the task goal while leaving the required capabilities and execu- tion steps implicit. Existing benchmarks provide limited cov- erage of such requests. To address this gap, we introduce SkillReason-Bench, a large-scale cross-domain benchmark containing 3,729 queries and a retrieval corpus of 61,228 skills spanning nine domains. We further propose SkillRea- son, a two-stage framework that uses chain-of-thought rea- soning as training-time supervision for skill retrieval. In Stage I, capability reasoning traces generated by a stronger teacher provide explicit supervision through contrastive learning, re- trieval distribution alignment, and language modeling, en- couraging the retriever to internalize capability reasoning in its query representation. In Stage II, a retrieval-guided GRPO objective encourages the model to explore reasoning trajecto- ries better suited to its own capabilities and more effective for retrieval. At inference, SkillReason directly encodes the orig- inal query without autoregressive CoT generation, preserv- ing efficient query-only retrieval. Extensive experiments on SkillReason-Bench, SkillRet, and SRA-Bench show that Skill- Reason achieves state-of-the-art performance across all three benchmarks, demonstrating that reasoning-enhanced training better bridges the semantic gap between high-level task goals and skill capabilities.

Reward models are used throughout the post-training of language models to capture nuanced signals from preference data and provide a training target for optimization across instruction following, reasoning, safety, and more domains. The community has begun establishing best practices for evaluating reward models, from the development of benchmarks that test capabilities in specific skill areas to others that test agreement with human preferences. At the same time, progress in evaluation has not been mirrored by the effectiveness of reward models in downstream tasks -- simpler direct alignment algorithms are reported to work better in many cases. This paper introduces RewardBench 2, a new multi-skill reward modeling benchmark designed to bring new, challenging data for accuracy-based reward model evaluation -- models score about 20 points on average lower on RewardBench 2 compared to the first RewardBench -- while being highly correlated with downstream performance. Compared to most other benchmarks, RewardBench 2 sources new human prompts instead of existing prompts from downstream evaluations, facilitating more rigorous evaluation practices. In this paper, we describe our benchmark construction process and report how existing models perform on it, while quantifying how performance on the benchmark correlates with downstream use of the models in both inference-time scaling algorithms, like best-of-N sampling, and RLHF training algorithms like proximal policy optimization.

Benchmarks for systems that are optimized against the evaluation signal measure something different from what they claim. We document this concretely in two GPU-kernel-optimization suites with held-out generalization gates: Metal-Sci (10 scientific-compute tasks) and Metal-ZK (12 zero-knowledge/cryptographic tasks), in which three frontier LLMs (Opus 4.7, Gemini 3.1 Pro, GPT-5.5) propose Metal kernels inside a (1{+}1) evolutionary loop with rich feedback. Although no model is prompted to act adversarially, the promoted winners repeatedly fingerprint the evaluation configuration: they branch on the identity of runtime parameters, tune the measured branch maximally, and leave the unmeasured branch slow or silently wrong. Across the pooled suites, 16/53 (30%) of in-distribution wins fail to transfer to held-out configurations. We give a four-mode taxonomy of these failures, from configuration fingerprints to gate leakage. We distill design guidance for measurement under strategic optimization: held-out probes retain validity only on non-enumerable axes; gates must measure held-out performance, not just correctness; and a transfer rate is interpretable only with per-failure mechanism grades: ours decomposes into gamed, overfit, and benign. Code and research artifacts: https://github.com/vicgalle/kernel-fingerprinting

Benchmarks are essential for quantitatively tracking progress in AI. As AI agents become increasingly capable, researchers and practitioners have introduced agentic benchmarks to evaluate agents on complex, real-world tasks. These benchmarks typically measure agent capabilities by evaluating task outcomes via specific reward designs. However, we show that many agentic benchmarks have issues task setup or reward design. For example, SWE-bench Verified uses insufficient test cases, while TAU-bench counts empty responses as successful. Such issues can lead to under- or overestimation agents' performance by up to 100% in relative terms. To make agentic evaluation rigorous, we introduce the Agentic Benchmark Checklist (ABC), a set of guidelines that we synthesized from our benchmark-building experience, a survey of best practices, and previously reported issues. When applied to CVE-Bench, a benchmark with a particularly complex evaluation design, ABC reduces the performance overestimation by 33%.

The fast-growing demands in using Large Language Models (LLMs) to tackle complex multi-step data science tasks create an emergent need for accurate benchmarking. There are two major gaps in existing benchmarks: (i) the lack of standardized, process-aware evaluation that captures instruction adherence and process fidelity, and (ii) the scarcity of accurately labeled training data. To bridge these gaps, we introduce DARE-bench, a benchmark designed for machine learning modeling and data science instruction following. Unlike many existing benchmarks that rely on human- or model-based judges, all tasks in DARE-bench have verifiable ground truth, ensuring objective and reproducible evaluation. To cover a broad range of tasks and support agentic tools, DARE-bench consists of 6,300 Kaggle-derived tasks and provides both large-scale training data and evaluation sets. Extensive evaluations show that even highly capable models such as gpt-o4-mini struggle to achieve good performance, especially in machine learning modeling tasks. Using DARE-bench training tasks for fine-tuning can substantially improve model performance. For example, supervised fine-tuning boosts Qwen3-32B's accuracy by 1.83x and reinforcement learning boosts Qwen3-4B's accuracy by more than 8x. These significant improvements verify the importance of DARE-bench both as an accurate evaluation benchmark and critical training data.

Previous multilingual benchmarks focus primarily on simple understanding tasks, but for large language models(LLMs), we emphasize proficiency in instruction following, reasoning, long context understanding, code generation, and so on. However, measuring these advanced capabilities across languages is underexplored. To address the disparity, we introduce BenchMAX, a multi-way multilingual evaluation benchmark that allows for fair comparisons of these important abilities across languages. To maintain high quality, three distinct native-speaking annotators independently annotate each sample within all tasks after the data was machine-translated from English into 16 other languages. Additionally, we present a novel translation challenge stemming from dataset construction. Extensive experiments on BenchMAX reveal varying effectiveness of core capabilities across languages, highlighting performance gaps that cannot be bridged by simply scaling up model size. BenchMAX serves as a comprehensive multilingual evaluation platform, providing a promising test bed to promote the development of multilingual language models. The dataset and code are publicly accessible.

Artificial intelligence benchmarks are an important mechanism for measuring model progress and guiding deployment decisions. However, benchmarks quickly "saturate", making it difficult to differentiate models and diminishing their long-term value. In this study, we define benchmark saturation and analyze it across 60 language model benchmarks using 14 properties that relate to saturation. We find that nearly half of the our benchmarks exhibit saturation, with rates increasing with age. Further, we find that resilience to saturation is impacted by expert-curation, not by public test data. Our results suggest that design choices can extend benchmark longevity and inform more durable evaluation approaches.

Ensuring safe and effective use of AI requires understanding and anticipating its performance on novel tasks, from advanced scientific challenges to transformed workplace activities. So far, benchmarking has guided progress in AI, but it has offered limited explanatory and predictive power for general-purpose AI systems, given the low transferability across diverse tasks. In this paper, we introduce general scales for AI evaluation that can explain what common AI benchmarks really measure, extract ability profiles of AI systems, and predict their performance for new task instances, in- and out-of-distribution. Our fully-automated methodology builds on 18 newly-crafted rubrics that place instance demands on general scales that do not saturate. Illustrated for 15 large language models and 63 tasks, high explanatory power is unleashed from inspecting the demand and ability profiles, bringing insights on the sensitivity and specificity exhibited by different benchmarks, and how knowledge, metacognition and reasoning are affected by model size, chain-of-thought and distillation. Surprisingly, high predictive power at the instance level becomes possible using these demand levels, providing superior estimates over black-box baseline predictors based on embeddings or finetuning, especially in out-of-distribution settings (new tasks and new benchmarks). The scales, rubrics, battery, techniques and results presented here represent a major step for AI evaluation, underpinning the reliable deployment of AI in the years ahead. (Collaborative platform: https://kinds-of-intelligence-cfi.github.io/ADELE.)

Existing browser agent benchmarks face a fundamental trilemma: real-website benchmarks lack reproducibility due to content drift, controlled environments sacrifice realism by omitting real-web noise, and both require costly manual curation that limits scalability. We present WebForge, the first fully automated framework that resolves this trilemma through a four-agent pipeline -- Plan, Generate, Refine, and Validate -- that produces interactive, self-contained web environments end-to-end without human annotation. A seven-dimensional difficulty control framework structures task design along navigation depth, visual complexity, reasoning difficulty, and more, enabling systematic capability profiling beyond single aggregate scores. Using WebForge, we construct WebForge-Bench, a benchmark of 934 tasks spanning 7 domains and 3 difficulty levels. Multi-model experiments show that difficulty stratification effectively differentiates model capabilities, while cross-domain analysis exposes capability biases invisible to aggregate metrics. Together, these results confirm that multi-dimensional evaluation reveals distinct capability profiles that a single aggregate score cannot capture. Code and benchmark are publicly available at https://github.com/yuandaxia2001/WebForge.

The ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to use external tools unlocks powerful real-world interactions, making rigorous evaluation essential. However, current benchmarks primarily report final accuracy, revealing what models can do but obscuring the cognitive bottlenecks that define their true capability boundaries. To move from simple performance scoring to a diagnostic tool, we introduce a framework grounded in Cognitive Load Theory. Our framework deconstructs task complexity into two quantifiable components: Intrinsic Load, the inherent structural complexity of the solution path, formalized with a novel Tool Interaction Graph; and Extraneous Load, the difficulty arising from ambiguous task presentation. To enable controlled experiments, we construct ToolLoad-Bench, the first benchmark with parametrically adjustable cognitive load. Our evaluation reveals distinct performance cliffs as cognitive load increases, allowing us to precisely map each model's capability boundary. We validate that our framework's predictions are highly calibrated with empirical results, establishing a principled methodology for understanding an agent's limits and a practical foundation for building more efficient systems.

In Machine Learning, a benchmark refers to an ensemble of datasets associated with one or multiple metrics together with a way to aggregate different systems performances. They are instrumental in (i) assessing the progress of new methods along different axes and (ii) selecting the best systems for practical use. This is particularly the case for NLP with the development of large pre-trained models (e.g. GPT, BERT) that are expected to generalize well on a variety of tasks. While the community mainly focused on developing new datasets and metrics, there has been little interest in the aggregation procedure, which is often reduced to a simple average over various performance measures. However, this procedure can be problematic when the metrics are on a different scale, which may lead to spurious conclusions. This paper proposes a new procedure to rank systems based on their performance across different tasks. Motivated by the social choice theory, the final system ordering is obtained through aggregating the rankings induced by each task and is theoretically grounded. We conduct extensive numerical experiments (on over 270k scores) to assess the soundness of our approach both on synthetic and real scores (e.g. GLUE, EXTREM, SEVAL, TAC, FLICKR). In particular, we show that our method yields different conclusions on state-of-the-art systems than the mean-aggregation procedure while being both more reliable and robust.

Large language models are increasingly evolving from text generators into general agents capable of understanding user requests, invoking external tools, and completing complex tasks through interaction. However, existing agent benchmarks often focus on limited scenarios, tool ecosystems, or interaction formats, making it difficult to systematically characterize model capabilities across heterogeneous application settings. We introduce OmniaBench, a benchmark for evaluating general agents across diverse scenarios with explicit state spaces. We derive application-oriented scenario knowledge from app stores, product documents, industry resources, Web retrieval, and human refinement, forming a hierarchical taxonomy that spans ToC, ToB and ToE with 90 level-1 and 354 level-2 domains. Based on this taxonomy, we construct executable environments and synthesize single-turn and multi-turn tasks through four complementary routes: DAG, DAG-S, Solver, and Program. OmniaBench further introduces a ten-dimensional capability taxonomy and eight compositional atomic difficulty factors to support fine-grained evaluation and analysis. The resulting dataset contains 1,431 tasks, together with a challenging subset of 644 tasks designed to reduce evaluation cost and mitigate potential contamination of the full set after public release. The bench presents substantial challenges to current frontier models, with even Claude-Sonnet-5 and GPT-5.6-Sol achieving Overall Pass@1 scores of only 58.54 and 57.14, respectively. Further analyses reveal clear differences across domains and capabilities, as well as persistent limitations in planning, constraint maintenance, and adaptive correction. OmniaBench provides a broad and diagnostic benchmark for characterizing the capability boundaries of general agents.

Large language models (LLMs) are powerful tools capable of handling diverse tasks. Comparing and selecting appropriate LLMs for specific tasks requires systematic evaluation methods, as models exhibit varying capabilities across different domains. However, finding suitable benchmarks is difficult given the many available options. This complexity not only increases the risk of benchmark misuse and misinterpretation but also demands substantial effort from LLM users, seeking the most suitable benchmarks for their specific needs. To address these issues, we introduce BenchmarkCards, an intuitive and validated documentation framework that standardizes critical benchmark attributes such as objectives, methodologies, data sources, and limitations. Through user studies involving benchmark creators and users, we show that BenchmarkCards can simplify benchmark selection and enhance transparency, facilitating informed decision-making in evaluating LLMs. Data & Code: https://github.com/SokolAnn/BenchmarkCards

In industrial procurement, an LLM answer is useful only if it survives a standards check: recommended material must match operating condition, every parameter must respect a regulated threshold, and no procedure may contradict a safety clause. Partial correctness can mask safety-critical contradictions that aggregate LLM benchmarks rarely capture. We introduce IndustryBench, a 2,049-item benchmark for industrial procurement QA in Chinese, grounded in Chinese national standards (GB/T) and structured industrial product records, organized by seven capability dimensions, ten industry categories, and panel-derived difficulty tiers, with item-aligned English, Russian, and Vietnamese renderings. Our construction pipeline rejects 70.3% of LLM-generated candidates at a search-based external-verification stage, calibrating how unreliable industrial QA remains after LLM-only filtering.Our evaluation decouples raw correctness, scored by a Qwen3-Max judge validated at κ_w = 0.798 against a domain expert, from a separate safety-violation (SV) check against source texts. Across 17 models in Chinese and an 8-model intersection over four languages, we find: (i) the best system reaches only 2.083 on the 0--3 rubric, leaving substantial headroom; (ii) Standards & Terminology is the most persistent capability weakness and survives item-aligned translation; (iii) extended reasoning lowers safety-adjusted scores for 12 of 13 models, primarily by introducing unsupported safety-critical details into longer final answers; and (iv) safety-violation rates reshuffle the leaderboard -- GPT-5.4 climbs from rank 6 to rank 3 after SV adjustment, while Kimi-k2.5-1T-A32B drops seven positions.Industrial LLM evaluation therefore requires source-grounded, safety-aware diagnosis rather than aggregate accuracy. We release IndustryBench with all prompts, scoring scripts, and dataset documentation.

Capability evaluation of large language models (LLMs) is increasingly shadowed by rising concerns of data contamination that cast doubts on whether static benchmarks measure genuine reasoning or mere memorization. We present an empirical study using an infinitely scalable framework to synthesize research-level QA directly from arXiv papers, harnessing the natural temporal structure of research publications where performance decay after knowledge cutoffs may indicate potential contamination. We evaluated 4 frontier model represented by 2 models of different knowledge cutoff dates per family on 1,643 multi-step reasoning questions synthesized from 20,277 arXiv papers stratified over 26 months, covering at least 6 months before and after all cutoff dates. Our results consistently showed a lack of significant performance decay near knowledge cutoff dates for models of various sizes, developers, and release dates. We further performed a comparative analysis with previous longitudinal studies that reported significant post-cutoff performance decay using directly retrieved questions based on public data. we hypothesize that the multi-step reasoning required by our synthesis pipeline offered additional complexity that goes deeper than shallow memorization, which effectively serves a mitigation strategy against benchmark contamination. We fully open source our code and dataset to aid reproducibility and advocate for a paradigm shift that prioritize reasoning-driven synthesis to construct benchmarks over simply collecting newly released questions periodically.

Existing benchmarks for hardware design primarily evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) on isolated, component-level tasks such as generating HDL modules from specifications, leaving repository-scale evaluation unaddressed. We introduce HWE-Bench, the first large-scale, repository-level benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on real-world hardware bug repair tasks. HWE-Bench comprises 417 task instances derived from real historical bug-fix pull requests across six major open-source projects spanning both Verilog/SystemVerilog and Chisel, covering RISC-V cores, SoCs, and security roots-of-trust. Each task is grounded in a fully containerized environment where the agent must resolve a real bug report, with correctness validated through the project's native simulation and regression flows. The benchmark is built through a largely automated pipeline that enables efficient expansion to new repositories. We evaluate seven LLMs with four agent frameworks and find that the best agent resolves 70.7% of tasks overall, with performance exceeding 90% on smaller cores but dropping below 65% on complex SoC-level projects. We observe larger performance gaps across models than commonly reported on software benchmarks, and difficulty is driven by project scope and bug-type distribution rather than code size alone. Our failure analysis traces agent failures to three stages of the debugging process: fault localization, hardware-semantic reasoning, and cross-artifact coordination across RTL, configuration, and verification components, providing concrete directions for developing more capable hardware-aware agents.

Agent benchmarks typically report only final outcomes: pass or fail. This threatens evaluation credibility in three ways. First, scores may be inflated or deflated by shortcuts and benchmark artifacts, misrepresenting capability. Second, benchmark performance may fail to predict real-world utility due to scaffold limitations and recurring failure modes. Finally, capability scores may conceal dangerous or catastrophic actions taken by the agent. We argue that log analysis -- the systematic tracking and analysis of the inputs, execution, and outputs of an AI agent -- is necessary to overcome these validity threats and promote credible agent evaluation. In this paper, we (1) present a taxonomy of threats to credible evaluation documented through log analysis, and (2) develop a set of guiding principles for log analysis. We illustrate these principles on tau-Bench Airline, revealing that pass^5 performance was under-elicited by nearly 50% and surfacing deployment failure modes invisible to outcome metrics. We conclude with pragmatic recommendations to increase uptake of log analysis, directed at diverse stakeholders including benchmark creators, model developers, independent evaluators, and deployers.

As LLMs are increasingly deployed as agents, reliable assessment of their agentic capabilities has become essential. However, reported benchmark scores often jointly reflect model capability and the implementation choices each benchmark is packaged with, making cross-benchmark results difficult to interpret as clean measurements of the underlying model. In this work, we present a unified framework for the fair evaluation of LLM agentic capabilities. Driven by a unified configuration system, the framework integrates diverse benchmarks into a standardized instruction-tool-environment format, executes agents through a fixed ReAct-style architecture within a controllable sandbox, and provides an optional offline setting that replaces volatile live environments with curated snapshots, so that framework effects and environment effects can be analyzed separately. Building on this, we unify the evaluation methodology under each benchmark's original task-success criteria, while introducing unified metrics for resource consumption and a taxonomy for decision- and execution-level failure attribution. Within this framework, we adapt 7 widely used benchmarks spanning 24 domains across single-agent, multi-agent, and safety-critical scenarios, and conduct a large-scale empirical analysis over 400K rollouts and 5B tokens on 15 models. The results show that scaffold choice and environmental volatility materially shift benchmark outcomes in both directions, allowing our framework to disentangle intrinsic LLM capabilities from framework- and environment-induced artifacts. We further demonstrate its extensibility as a secure testbed for safety-critical domains. Codes and benchmarks at are available at https://github.com/whfeLingYu/A-Unified-Framework-for-the-Evaluation-of-LLM-Agentic-Capabilities, https://huggingface.co/datasets/whfeLingYu/Unified_Agent_Framework.

Existing evaluation methods largely rely on clean, static benchmarks, which can overestimate true model performance by failing to capture the noise and variability inherent in real-world user inputs. This is especially true for language models, which can face human-generated text queries containing mistakes, typos, or alternative ways of phrasing the same question. In this work, we introduce a theoretical framework for quantifying model sensitivity to prompt variants, or brittleness, that can enable us to disentangle data-induced difficulty from prompt-related variability. Using this framework, we design a novel evaluation pipeline, Brittlebench, to holistically evaluate the sensitivity of frontier models. We apply semantics-preserving perturbations to a suite of popular benchmarks, and observe model performance to degrade as much as 12%. However, these perturbations do not affect all models equally: even a single perturbation alters the relative ranking of models in 63% of cases, impacting conclusions about comparative model performance. Decomposing the total variance of both state-of-the-art open-weight and commercial models, we find that semantics-preserving input perturbations can account for up to half of the performance variance for a given model. Brittlebench highlights the need for more robust evaluations and models, and allows us to systematically understand model brittleness.

As AI-driven document understanding and processing tools become increasingly prevalent in real-world applications, the need for rigorous evaluation standards has grown increasingly urgent. Existing benchmarks and evaluations often focus on isolated capabilities or simplified scenarios, failing to capture the end-to-end task effectiveness required in practical settings. To address this gap, we introduce AIDABench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating AI systems on complex data analytics tasks in an end-to-end manner. AIDABench encompasses 600+ diverse document analysis tasks across three core capability dimensions: question answering, data visualization, and file generation. These tasks are grounded in realistic scenarios involving heterogeneous data types, including spreadsheets, databases, financial reports, and operational records, and reflect analytical demands across diverse industries and job functions. Notably, the tasks in AIDABench are sufficiently challenging that even human experts require 1-2 hours per question when assisted by AI tools, underscoring the benchmark's difficulty and real-world complexity. We evaluate 11 state-of-the-art models on AIDABench, spanning both proprietary (e.g., Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 3 Pro Preview) and open-source (e.g., Qwen3-Max-2026-01-23-Thinking) families. Our results reveal that complex, real-world data analytics tasks remain a significant challenge for current AI systems, with the best-performing model achieving only 59.43% pass-at-1. We provide a detailed analysis of failure modes across each capability dimension and identify key challenges for future research. AIDABench offers a principled reference for enterprise procurement, tool selection, and model optimization, and is publicly available at https://github.com/MichaelYang-lyx/AIDABench.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) showcase varied multilingual capabilities across tasks like translation, code generation, and reasoning. Previous assessments often limited their scope to fundamental natural language processing (NLP) or isolated capability-specific tasks. To alleviate this drawback, we aim to present a comprehensive multilingual multitask benchmark. First, we present a pipeline for selecting available and reasonable benchmarks from massive ones, addressing the oversight in previous work regarding the utility of these benchmarks, i.e., their ability to differentiate between models being evaluated. Leveraging this pipeline, we introduce P-MMEval, a large-scale benchmark covering effective fundamental and capability-specialized datasets. Furthermore, P-MMEval delivers consistent language coverage across various datasets and provides parallel samples. Finally, we conduct extensive experiments on representative multilingual model series to compare performances across models, analyze dataset effectiveness, examine prompt impacts on model performances, and explore the relationship between multilingual performances and factors such as tasks, model sizes, and languages. These insights offer valuable guidance for future research. The dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Qwen/P-MMEval.

In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in code intelligence, yet systematically evaluating their code understanding and reasoning abilities remains challenging. Mainstream benchmarks such as HumanEval and MBPP primarily assess functional correctness, while reasoning benchmarks like CRUXEVAL are limited to single-function, low-complexity scenarios. As a result, advanced models achieve nearly saturated scores, limiting their discriminative power. To address this, we present STEPWISE-CODEX-Bench (SX-Bench), a novel benchmark designed for complex multi-function understanding and fine-grained execution reasoning. SX-Bench features tasks involving collaboration among multiple sub-functions (e.g., chained calls, nested loops), shifting evaluation towards overall control and data flow modeling. It defines "computation steps" as the minimal execution unit and requires models to predict the total number of steps in reasoning tasks, thereby assessing a model's in-depth understanding of dynamic execution beyond simple I/O matching. Evaluation on over 20 mainstream models (including 14 reasoning-enhanced models) demonstrates that SX-Bench is highly discriminative: even the state-of-the-art OpenAI-O3 achieves only 78.37 percent accuracy on Hard-Reasoning tasks, much lower than its saturated scores on previous benchmarks, thereby revealing bottlenecks in complex and fine-grained reasoning. We also release an automated pipeline combining program synthesis, symbolic execution, and LLM-aided validation for efficient benchmark generation and quality assurance. SX-Bench advances code evaluation from "single-function verification" to "multi-function dynamic reasoning," providing a key tool for the in-depth assessment of advanced code intelligence models.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates robust evaluation methodologies. Current benchmarking approaches often rely on comparing model outputs against predefined prompts and reference outputs. Relying on predefined reference outputs hinders flexible adaptation of benchmarks to the rapidly evolving capabilities of LLMs. This limitation necessitates periodic efforts to prepare new benchmarks. To keep pace with rapidly evolving LLM capabilities, we propose a more flexible benchmarking approach. Our method, \textbf{Varco Arena}, provides reference-free benchmarking of LLMs in tournament style. \textbf{Varco Arena} directly compares LLM outputs across a diverse set of prompts, determining model rankings through a single-elimination tournament structure. This direct pairwise comparison offers two key advantages: (1) Direct comparison, unmediated by reference text, more effectively orders competing LLMs, resulting in more reliable rankings, and (2) reference-free approach to benchmarking adds flexibility in updating benchmark prompts by eliminating the need for quality references. Our empirical results, supported by simulation experiments, demonstrate that the \textbf{Varco Arena} tournament approach aligns better with the current Elo model for benchmarking LLMs. The alignment is measured in terms of Spearman correlation, showing improvement over current practice of benchmarking that use reference outputs as comparison anchors.

With the advent of highly capable instruction-tuned neural language models, benchmarking in natural language processing (NLP) is increasingly shifting towards pairwise comparison leaderboards, such as LMSYS Arena, from traditional global pointwise scores (e.g., GLUE, BIG-bench, SWE-bench). This paper empirically investigates the strengths and weaknesses of both global scores and pairwise comparisons to aid decision-making in selecting appropriate model evaluation strategies. Through computational experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets using standard global metrics and the popular Bradley-Terry model for pairwise comparisons, we found that while global scores provide more reliable overall rankings, they can underestimate strong models with rare, significant errors or low confidence. Conversely, pairwise comparisons are particularly effective for identifying strong contenders among models with lower global scores, especially where quality metrics are hard to define (e.g., text generation), though they require more comparisons to converge if ties are frequent. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/HSPyroblast/srw-ranking under a permissive license.

Forecasting has become a natural benchmark for reasoning under uncertainty. Yet existing evaluations of large language models remain limited to judgmental tasks in simple formats, such as binary or multiple-choice questions. In practice, however, forecasting spans a far broader scope. Across domains such as economics, public health, and social demographics, decisions hinge on numerical estimates over continuous quantities, a capability that current benchmarks do not capture. Evaluating such estimates requires a format that makes uncertainty explicit and testable. We propose prediction intervals as a natural and rigorous interface for this purpose. They demand scale awareness, internal consistency across confidence levels, and calibration over a continuum of outcomes, making them a more suitable evaluation format than point estimates for numerical forecasting. To assess this capability, we introduce a new benchmark QuantSightBench, and evaluate frontier models under multiple settings, assessing both empirical coverage and interval sharpness. Our results show that none of the 11 evaluated frontier and open-weight models achieves the 90\% coverage target, with the top performers Gemini 3.1 Pro (79.1\%), Grok 4 (76.4\%), and GPT-5.4 (75.3\%) all falling at least 10 percentage points short. Calibration degrades sharply at extreme magnitudes, revealing systematic overconfidence across all evaluated models.

Large vision-language models have recently achieved remarkable progress, exhibiting great perception and reasoning abilities concerning visual information. However, how to effectively evaluate these large vision-language models remains a major obstacle, hindering future model development. Traditional benchmarks like VQAv2 or COCO Caption provide quantitative performance measurements but suffer from a lack of fine-grained ability assessment and non-robust evaluation metrics. Recent subjective benchmarks, such as OwlEval, offer comprehensive evaluations of a model's abilities by incorporating human labor, but they are not scalable and display significant bias. In response to these challenges, we propose MMBench, a novel multi-modality benchmark. MMBench methodically develops a comprehensive evaluation pipeline, primarily comprised of two elements. The first element is a meticulously curated dataset that surpasses existing similar benchmarks in terms of the number and variety of evaluation questions and abilities. The second element introduces a novel CircularEval strategy and incorporates the use of ChatGPT. This implementation is designed to convert free-form predictions into pre-defined choices, thereby facilitating a more robust evaluation of the model's predictions. MMBench is a systematically-designed objective benchmark for robustly evaluating the various abilities of vision-language models. We hope MMBench will assist the research community in better evaluating their models and encourage future advancements in this domain. Project page: https://opencompass.org.cn/mmbench.

Despite widespread deployment of Large Language Models, systematic evaluation of instruction-following capabilities remains challenging. While comprehensive benchmarks exist, focused assessments that quickly diagnose specific instruction adherence patterns are valuable. As newer models may be trained on existing benchmarks, novel evaluation approaches are needed to assess genuine capabilities rather than memorized performance. This paper presents a streamlined evaluation framework using twenty carefully designed prompts to assess LLM instruction-following across diverse task categories. We demonstrate this framework through a large-scale empirical study conducted on October 14, 2025, testing 256 verified working models from 331 available via OpenRouter. To ensure methodological rigor and prevent selection bias, we first verified each model's basic functionality before inclusion. Unlike large-scale benchmarks requiring extensive computational resources, our approach offers a practical diagnostic tool researchers and practitioners can readily apply. Our methodology builds upon verifiable instructions while introducing a compact test suite balancing comprehensiveness with efficiency. Each prompt targets distinct aspects of instruction following, including format compliance, content constraints, logical sequencing, and multi-step task execution. We evaluate models from major providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Mistral) and emerging implementations (Qwen, DeepSeek, community models), providing comparative performance analysis. Our findings reveal consistent failure modes and identify specific instruction types posing particular challenges. This work contributes both a practical evaluation tool and one of the most comprehensive empirical analyses of instruction-following capabilities across the contemporary LLM landscape.

Knowledge benchmarks for LLMs face three issues: scaling-driven designs that do not operationalize disciplinary representativeness; flat-payment annotation that permits lazy consensus; and unaudited ranking instability under bounded test budgets. We introduce KINA, an 899-item benchmark across 261 fine-grained disciplines, with two formal results. First, we cast representativeness as a coverage-style objective over expert-elicited anchors and operationalize disciplinary representativeness through a proxy, yielding a (1-1/e) greedy approximation (Proposition 1); the guarantee applies to the proxy, not to population representativeness. Second, we prove a bonus-on-bar tournament weakly FOSD-dominates flat payment in released-review quality, with incentive-compatibility threshold B > Delta C / Delta p_min (Theorem 1). Evaluating 42 models from 13 labs, the top model, Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview, reaches 53.17%, followed by Claude-Opus-4.6 at 49.92% and GPT-5.4 at 48.55%, leaving substantial headroom below saturation. The full leaderboard shows a tiered structure rather than a smooth total order: a small frontier tier lies above 48%, a dense strong-model tier spans roughly 38-45%, and low-performing models remain only modestly above the 10% chance baseline. Tool augmentation adds up to 5.17 points across the five tool-use evaluations, with gains varying substantially across models. We report bootstrap ranking-stability statistics to make bounded-budget variance explicit and to discourage over-interpretation of adjacent ranks.

Optimizing the performance of large-scale software repositories demands expertise in code reasoning and software engineering (SWE) to reduce runtime while preserving program correctness. However, most benchmarks emphasize what to fix rather than how to fix code. We introduce SWE-fficiency, a benchmark for evaluating repository-level performance optimization on real workloads. Our suite contains 498 tasks across nine widely used data-science, machine-learning, and HPC repositories (e.g., numpy, pandas, scipy): given a complete codebase and a slow workload, an agent must investigate code semantics, localize bottlenecks and relevant tests, and produce a patch that matches or exceeds expert speedup while passing the same unit tests. To enable this how-to-fix evaluation, our automated pipeline scrapes GitHub pull requests for performance-improving edits, combining keyword filtering, static analysis, coverage tooling, and execution validation to both confirm expert speedup baselines and identify relevant repository unit tests. Empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art agents reveals significant underperformance. On average, agents achieve less than 0.15x the expert speedup: agents struggle in localizing optimization opportunities, reasoning about execution across functions, and maintaining correctness in proposed edits. We release the benchmark and accompanying data pipeline to facilitate research on automated performance engineering and long-horizon software reasoning.

Current LLM agent benchmarks, which predominantly focus on binary pass/fail tasks such as code generation or search-based question answering, often neglect the value of real-world engineering that is often captured through the iterative optimization of feasible designs. To this end, we introduce Frontier-Eng, a human-verified benchmark for generative optimization -- an iterative propose-execute-evaluate loop in which an agent generates candidate artifacts, receives executable verifier feedback, and revises them under a fixed interaction budget -- spanning 47 tasks across five broad engineering categories. Unlike previous suites, Frontier-Eng tasks are grounded in industrial-grade simulators and verifiers that provide continuous reward signals and enforce hard feasibility constraints under constrained budgets. We evaluate eight frontier language models using representative search frameworks, finding that while Claude 4.6 Opus achieves the most robust performance, the benchmark remains challenging for all models. Our analysis suggests a dual power-law decay in improvement frequency (sim 1/iteration) and magnitude (sim 1/improvement count). We further show that although width improves parallelism and diversity, depth remains crucial for hard-won improvements under a fixed budget. Frontier-Eng establishes a new standard for assessing the capacity of AI agents to integrate domain knowledge with executable feedback to solve complex, open-ended engineering problems.

Physical AI models are evaluated on suites of benchmarks that differ across model reports, leaving the model-by-benchmark matrix sparse and the relationship between benchmarks unmeasured. We construct a matrix of 51 models on 12 physical AI benchmarks, selected from a registry of 51 benchmarks and 152 models by reporting density, combining scores from model cards and benchmark papers with our own evaluation runs under each benchmark's official protocol. We measure how much information the benchmarks share and show quantitative evidence of Redundancy. Redundancy affects reported rankings: collapsing the two substitute pairs into single columns moves 22 of 51 models by three or more places under an equally weighted average. We then select benchmarks greedily under a utility combining score dispersion with variance not explained by the already-selected set, and obtain a four-benchmark subset retaining 78.5\% of the utility of all 12, on which we fit a Bradley--Terry ranking. The procedure requires only benchmark-level scores with sufficient overlap and is not specific to physical AI.

LLM-based Triton kernel generation has attracted significant interest, yet a fundamental empirical question remains unanswered: where does this capability break down, and why? We present KernelBench-X, a benchmark designed to answer this question through category-aware evaluation of correctness and hardware efficiency across 176 tasks in 15 categories. Our systematic comparison of five representative methods yields three main findings. First, task structure determines correctness more than method design. Category explains nearly three times more variance in semantic correctness than method (9.4% vs 3.3% explained deviance), and 72% of Fusion tasks fail across all five methods while Math tasks are solved consistently. Second, iterative refinement improves correctness, but not performance. Across GEAK iterations, compile rate rises from 52.3% to 68.8% while average speedup declines from 1.58times to 1.44times; newly rescued kernels consistently underperform persistently correct ones (1.16times vs 1.58times speedup in round~0to1). Third, correctness does not imply efficiency. 46.6% of correct kernels are slower than the PyTorch eager baseline, and cross-hardware speedup variance reaches 21.4times. Besides, quantization remains completely unsolved (0/30 successes) despite non-trivial compilation rates, revealing systematic misunderstanding of numerical computation contracts rather than surface-level syntax errors. These findings suggest that future progress depends on handling global coordination, explicitly modeling numerical precision, and incorporating hardware efficiency into generation. The code is available at https://github.com/BonnieW05/KernelBenchX

This study presents a novel benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) using challenges derived from the Financial Modeling World Cup (FMWC) Excel competitions. We introduce a methodology for converting 113 existing FMWC challenges into programmatically evaluable JSON formats and use this dataset to compare the performance of several leading LLMs. Our findings demonstrate significant variations in performance across different challenge categories, with models showing specific strengths in pattern recognition tasks but struggling with complex numerical reasoning. The benchmark provides a standardized framework for assessing LLM capabilities in realistic business-oriented tasks rather than abstract academic problems. This research contributes to the growing field of AI benchmarking by establishing proficiency among the 1.5 billion people who daily use Microsoft Excel as a meaningful evaluation metric that bridges the gap between academic AI benchmarks and practical business applications.

Recursive self-improvement requires turning evidence of model failures into better models. Data-centric post-training research entails diagnosing capability gaps, designing and validating training-data strategies, and learning from checkpoint feedback. Can LLM agents automate this loop? Existing benchmarks entangle research decisions with optimization, serving, evaluation, and systems implementation, obscuring agents' research capability. We introduce RSIBench-Data, a controlled benchmark of LLM agents as data-centric researchers with a fixed post-training stack. Agents iteratively revise training-data strategies for a fixed target model; training and serving use Tinker-backed services, official evaluation runs through Harbor and E2B sandboxes, and budgets are fixed across agents. We evaluate four frontier agents on six benchmarks across software engineering, terminal use, scientific question answering, and mathematics. Agents demonstrate core data-centric research capabilities: in 58.33\% of settings, they improve upon the first valid attempt by refining strategies from feedback. However, improvement is inconsistent. Among searches continuing after the best observed score, 78.26\% end with a lower-scoring final attempt, while the rest only recover the same peak. A strong candidate may therefore appear early or midway through a run even as later revisions fail. Trajectory analysis identifies four patterns in stronger runs: accurate hypotheses, validation-grounded supervision, behavior-aligned data, and preservation of strong checkpoints. These findings suggest that current agents can make useful data-centric discoveries but cannot yet translate feedback into consistent improvements. RSIBench-Data provides a measurable, auditable testbed for the research capabilities required for recursive self-improvement. We open-source our code at https://github.com/evolvent-ai/RSIBench-Data.

Advancements in LLMs have enhanced task automation in software engineering; however, current evaluations primarily focus on natural language tasks, overlooking code quality. Most benchmarks prioritize high-level reasoning over executable code and real-world performance, leaving gaps in understanding true capabilities and risks associated with these models in production. To address this issue, we propose MERA Code, a new addition to the MERA benchmark family, specifically focused on evaluating code for the latest code generation LLMs in Russian. This benchmark includes 11 evaluation tasks that span 8 programming languages. Our proposed evaluation methodology features a taxonomy that outlines the practical coding skills necessary for models to complete these tasks. The benchmark comprises an open-source codebase for users to conduct MERA assessments, a scoring system compatible with various programming environments, and a platform featuring a leaderboard and submission system. We evaluate open LLMs and frontier API models, analyzing their limitations in terms of practical coding tasks in non-English languages. We are publicly releasing MERA to guide future research, anticipate groundbreaking features in model development, and standardize evaluation procedures.

Data policies for reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) determine which rollouts are used, how strongly they are weighted, and which domains contribute to subsequent training batches. We introduce DataFlex-RL, an evaluation platform for comparing these choices under a common GRPO recipe. Our primary experiment evaluates 13 configurations across 12 matched seeds using Qwen2.5-7B-Base and 12 mathematics, logic, and science benchmarks. Uniform GRPO improves the domain-balanced average accuracy by 7.76 percentage points over the untrained checkpoint. None of the eight rollout-selection or reweighting methods achieves a paired 95% confidence interval that excludes zero relative to uniform sampling, and none of the three adaptive mixtures outperforms a fixed equal mixture at the same level of precision. A corrected 12-seed extension on Llama-3.1-8B-Base places the additional methods on the same score scale as the original controls, but does not reveal a consistent winner in terms of observed mean performance. We also quantify evaluation sensitivity by rescoring nine Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct runs using a math-heavy six-benchmark summary, consisting of five mathematics benchmarks and GPQA-Diamond but no logic benchmark, and comparing it with the domain-balanced 12-benchmark summary. The resulting rankings are negatively correlated, with a correlation coefficient of -0.33, whereas summaries that retain all 12 benchmarks largely agree. Across the controlled settings studied here, changing the data policy measurably changes the training process but does not produce a reproducible improvement over uniform training.

Spatial competence is the quality of maintaining a consistent internal representation of an environment and using it to infer discrete structure and plan actions under constraints. Prevailing spatial evaluations for large models are limited to probing isolated primitives through 3D transformations or visual question answering. We introduce the Spatial Competence Benchmark (SCBench), spanning three hierarchical capability buckets whose tasks require executable outputs verified by deterministic checkers or simulator-based evaluators. On SCBench, three frontier models exhibit monotonically decreasing accuracy up the capability ladder. Sweeping output-token caps shows that accuracy gains concentrate at low budgets and saturate quickly, and failures are dominated by locally plausible geometry that breaks global constraints. We release the task generators, verifiers, and visualisation tooling.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making, largely based on the step-by-step chain-of-thought reasoning processes. However, it has been increasingly challenging to evaluate the reasoning capability of LLMs. Concretely, existing outcome-based benchmarks begin to saturate and become less sufficient to monitor the progress. To this end, we present a process-based benchmark MR-BEN that demands a meta reasoning skill, where LMs are asked to locate and analyse potential errors in automatically generated reasoning steps. MR-BEN is a comprehensive benchmark comprising 5,975 questions collected from human experts, covering various subjects such as physics, chemistry, logic, coding, and more. Through our designed metrics for assessing meta-reasoning on this benchmark, we identify interesting limitations and weaknesses of current LLMs (open-source and closed-source models). For example, open-source models are seemingly comparable to GPT-4 on outcome-based benchmarks, but they lag far behind on our benchmark, revealing the underlying reasoning capability gap between them. Our dataset and codes are available on https://randolph-zeng.github.io/Mr-Ben.github.io/.

Code benchmarks such as HumanEval are widely adopted to evaluate Large Language Models' (LLMs) coding capabilities. However, there is an unignorable programming language bias in existing code benchmarks -- over 95% code generation benchmarks are dominated by Python, leaving the LLMs' capabilities in other programming languages such as Java and C/C++ unknown. Moreover, coding task bias is also crucial. Most benchmarks focus on code generation capability, while benchmarks for code reasoning (given input, reasoning output; and given output, reasoning input), an essential coding capability, are insufficient. Yet, constructing multi-lingual benchmarks can be expensive and labor-intensive, and codes in contest websites such as Leetcode suffer from data contamination during training. To fill this gap, we propose CRUXEVAL-X, a multi-lingual code reasoning benchmark that contains 19 programming languages. It comprises at least 600 subjects for each language, along with 19K content-consistent tests in total. In particular, the construction pipeline of CRUXEVAL-X works in a fully automated and test-guided manner, which iteratively generates and repairs based on execution feedback. Also, to cross language barriers (e.g., dynamic/static type systems in Python/C++), we formulated various transition rules between language pairs to facilitate translation. Our intensive evaluation of 24 representative LLMs reveals the correlation between language pairs. For example, TypeScript and JavaScript show a significant positive correlation, while Racket has less correlation with other languages. More interestingly, even a model trained solely on Python can achieve at most 34.4% Pass@1 in other languages, revealing the cross-language generalization of LLMs.

The increasing complexity of large language models (LLMs) raises concerns about their ability to "cheat" on standard Question Answering (QA) benchmarks by memorizing task-specific data. This undermines the validity of benchmark evaluations, as they no longer reflect genuine model capabilities but instead the effects of data leakage. While prior work has focused on detecting such leakage, little attention has been given to mitigating its impact and preserving the long-term utility of benchmarks. In this paper, we introduce LastingBench, a novel framework designed to continuously reinforce and safeguard existing benchmarks against knowledge leakage. LastingBench identifies leakage points in the context through perturbation, then rewrites the leakage points to counterfactual ones-disrupting memorization while preserving the benchmark's original evaluative intent. Evaluations of state-of-the-art QA benchmarks show significant performance gaps, highlighting the efficacy of LastingBench in reducing memorization effects. LastingBench offers a practical and scalable solution to ensure benchmark robustness over time, promoting fairer and more interpretable evaluations of LLMs.

Due to the high computational demands executing a rigorous comparison between hyperparameter optimization (HPO) methods is often cumbersome. The goal of this paper is to facilitate a better empirical evaluation of HPO methods by providing benchmarks that are cheap to evaluate, but still represent realistic use cases. We believe these benchmarks provide an easy and efficient way to conduct reproducible experiments for neural hyperparameter search. Our benchmarks consist of a large grid of configurations of a feed forward neural network on four different regression datasets including architectural hyperparameters and hyperparameters concerning the training pipeline. Based on this data, we performed an in-depth analysis to gain a better understanding of the properties of the optimization problem, as well as of the importance of different types of hyperparameters. Second, we exhaustively compared various different state-of-the-art methods from the hyperparameter optimization literature on these benchmarks in terms of performance and robustness.

Large language models excel on objectively verifiable tasks such as math and programming, where evaluation reduces to unit tests or a single correct answer. In contrast, real-world enterprise work is often subjective and context-dependent: success hinges on organizational goals, user intent, and the quality of intermediate artifacts produced across long, multi-tool workflows. We introduce LH-Bench, a three-pillar evaluation design that moves beyond binary correctness to score autonomous, long-horizon execution on subjective enterprise tasks. The pillars are: (i) expert-grounded rubrics that give LLM judges the domain context needed to score subjective work, (ii) curated ground-truth artifacts that enable stepwise reward signals (e.g., chapter-level annotation for content tasks), and (iii) pairwise human preference evaluation for convergent validation. We show that domain-authored rubrics provide substantially more reliable evaluation signals than LLM-authored rubrics (kappa = 0.60 vs. 0.46), and that human preference judgments confirm the same top-tier separation (p < 0.05), evidence that expert-grounded evaluation can scale without sacrificing reliability. We release public datasets and report results on two environments: Figma-to-code (33 real .fig tasks against the Figma API via MCP) and Programmatic content (41 courses comprising 183 individually-evaluated chapters on a course platform serving 30+ daily users).

Recursive self-improvement (RSI) asks whether an AI system can improve the process that produces AI systems, so that the next system inherits the improvement. That process is the training algorithm: a better objective or update rule improves the compute-capability exchange rate for every subsequent run, including the one that produces the next agent. Whether RSI is feasible therefore turns on whether an agent can design training algorithms. No benchmark isolates that ability: existing suites are won by collecting data or by tuning hyperparameters, and none tells a change to how a run is executed apart from a change to how the model learns. We present AI4AI-Bench, 10 frozen research repositories spanning 10 training algorithm families. In each task, an agent has 4 hours on one B300 to rewrite the training algorithm; its code is then rerun from scratch for up to 12 hours and scored by a fixed evaluator hidden from the agent, against the repository's original algorithm under the same procedure. Because the 10 metrics are incommensurable, every task is mapped onto one scale on which 0 is an uninformative model, 0.1 is the algorithm the repository ships, and 1.0 is the task optimum. Across 29 configurations of 6 systems on all 10 tasks the mean score is 0.166, and the best system reaches 0.250: even the strongest closes under a fifth of the distance between the algorithm that was already there and the optimum. The submissions show where that distance went: most never change how the model learns at all, and the minority that do average 0.226 against 0.126 for the rest. More reasoning effort mostly buys the willingness to go there, taking that minority from 8% of submissions to 64% and the mean score from 0.094 to 0.196. We release the task suite, the evaluators and every scored submission, so that the measurement can be repeated as these systems change.

Agent benchmarks often evaluate only final answers even when agents run on stateful runtimes. We argue this under-specifies what is being evaluated: the proper unit is a declared model-plus-runtime configuration whose failures can occur in evidence acquisition, runtime routing, safety boundaries, or repeated execution. We present ClawProBench, a trace-aware benchmark for runtime-native agent evaluation instantiated on OpenClaw, a live agent runtime with workspace tools and native surfaces for browsing, memory, messaging, scheduling, skills, and subagents. ClawProBench defines two tracks: a 102-scenario full profile with live workspace and native-runtime routing tasks, and a frozen 68-scenario holdout with closed-world JSON output contracts for robust ranking. Trials are scored from execution traces via a safety-gated formula combining correctness, process quality, and efficiency, preserving failure evidence for audit. Our anonymous artifact includes benchmark definitions, scoring code, manifests and sanitized traces. We evaluate 68 configurations on the full profile and 37 on holdout. The top safety-gated average trace score is 0.7671. Native-runtime tasks underperform workspace-live tasks (0.5238 vs. 0.6415). On holdout, pass@k-any outperforms strict three-trial pass (0.6638 vs. 0.2890), while full-profile and holdout rankings show weak alignment (Spearman 0.1300). Rankings based purely on correctness differ substantially from process-aware, safety-gated and strict-pass views. Final-answer leaderboards may hide native-surface weaknesses, one-off successes and trace-local agent failure modes.

We present MEGA-Bench, an evaluation suite that scales multimodal evaluation to over 500 real-world tasks, to address the highly heterogeneous daily use cases of end users. Our objective is to optimize for a set of high-quality data samples that cover a highly diverse and rich set of multimodal tasks, while enabling cost-effective and accurate model evaluation. In particular, we collected 505 realistic tasks encompassing over 8,000 samples from 16 expert annotators to extensively cover the multimodal task space. Instead of unifying these problems into standard multi-choice questions (like MMMU, MMBench, and MMT-Bench), we embrace a wide range of output formats like numbers, phrases, code, \LaTeX, coordinates, JSON, free-form, etc. To accommodate these formats, we developed over 40 metrics to evaluate these tasks. Unlike existing benchmarks, MEGA-Bench offers a fine-grained capability report across multiple dimensions (e.g., application, input type, output format, skill), allowing users to interact with and visualize model capabilities in depth. We evaluate a wide variety of frontier vision-language models on MEGA-Bench to understand their capabilities across these dimensions.

The field of neuromorphic computing holds great promise in terms of advancing computing efficiency and capabilities by following brain-inspired principles. However, the rich diversity of techniques employed in neuromorphic research has resulted in a lack of clear standards for benchmarking, hindering effective evaluation of the advantages and strengths of neuromorphic methods compared to traditional deep-learning-based methods. This paper presents a collaborative effort, bringing together members from academia and the industry, to define benchmarks for neuromorphic computing: NeuroBench. The goals of NeuroBench are to be a collaborative, fair, and representative benchmark suite developed by the community, for the community. In this paper, we discuss the challenges associated with benchmarking neuromorphic solutions, and outline the key features of NeuroBench. We believe that NeuroBench will be a significant step towards defining standards that can unify the goals of neuromorphic computing and drive its technological progress. Please visit neurobench.ai for the latest updates on the benchmark tasks and metrics.

Large language models excel in general tasks, yet assessing their reliability in logic-heavy, precision-critical domains like finance, law, and healthcare remains challenging. To address this, we introduce BizFinBench, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LLMs in real-world financial applications. BizFinBench consists of 6,781 well-annotated queries in Chinese, spanning five dimensions: numerical calculation, reasoning, information extraction, prediction recognition, and knowledge-based question answering, grouped into nine fine-grained categories. The benchmark includes both objective and subjective metrics. We also introduce IteraJudge, a novel LLM evaluation method that reduces bias when LLMs serve as evaluators in objective metrics. We benchmark 25 models, including both proprietary and open-source systems. Extensive experiments show that no model dominates across all tasks. Our evaluation reveals distinct capability patterns: (1) In Numerical Calculation, Claude-3.5-Sonnet (63.18) and DeepSeek-R1 (64.04) lead, while smaller models like Qwen2.5-VL-3B (15.92) lag significantly; (2) In Reasoning, proprietary models dominate (ChatGPT-o3: 83.58, Gemini-2.0-Flash: 81.15), with open-source models trailing by up to 19.49 points; (3) In Information Extraction, the performance spread is the largest, with DeepSeek-R1 scoring 71.46, while Qwen3-1.7B scores 11.23; (4) In Prediction Recognition, performance variance is minimal, with top models scoring between 39.16 and 50.00. We find that while current LLMs handle routine finance queries competently, they struggle with complex scenarios requiring cross-concept reasoning. BizFinBench offers a rigorous, business-aligned benchmark for future research. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/HiThink-Research/BizFinBench.

Choosing the right large language model (LLM) backbone is the most consequential decision when building a vision-language model (VLM), yet it remains fundamentally unprincipled: compute-based scaling laws fail to generalize across model families, and no framework exists for directly predicting VLM performance before training begins. We propose the Capability-Driven Multimodal Scaling Law, the first cross-family framework that predicts VLM benchmark accuracy from directly observable textual capability. Given a low-dimensional capability score S extracted from LLM textual benchmarks via PCA, we model VLM performance as a function of S, with a per-backbone transfer rate and an absorption rate that quantifies data-scaling efficiency. To fit and validate the framework, we train over 150 VLMs on 34 LLMs spanning 7 model families under a strictly controlled recipe. Evaluations on more than 200 textual and 50 multimodal benchmarks show that the law accurately extrapolates transfer rate from models up to 8B parameters to 72B-scale backbones, predicts full VLM training trajectories with high fidelity, and generalizes to entirely held-out model families. Beyond the scaling law, our analysis surfaces actionable insights: certain textual benchmarks negatively correlate with multimodal performance, exposing latent benchmark-gaming behavior; base LLMs outperform instruction-tuned counterparts as VLM backbones due to higher absorption rates and lower data-scaling decay; and different model families occupy distinct positions in the transfer--absorption space. The framework turns backbone selection from costly empirical sweeps into a principled, quantitative decision. Code and data are available at https://github.com/wangq-dev/CDMScaling.

Evaluations are limited by benchmark availability. As models evolve, there is a need to create benchmarks that can measure progress on new generative capabilities. However, creating new benchmarks through human annotations is slow and expensive, restricting comprehensive evaluations for any capability. We introduce BENCHAGENTS, a framework that methodically leverages large language models (LLMs) to automate benchmark creation for complex capabilities while inherently ensuring data and metric quality. BENCHAGENTS decomposes the benchmark creation process into planning, generation, data verification, and evaluation, each of which is executed by an LLM agent. These agents interact with each other and utilize human-in-the-loop feedback from benchmark developers to explicitly improve and flexibly control data diversity and quality. We use BENCHAGENTS to create benchmarks to evaluate capabilities related to planning and constraint satisfaction during text generation. We then use these benchmarks to study seven state-of-the-art models and extract new insights on common failure modes and model differences.

Humans need to study only a handful of well-written textbooks to master a discipline and attempt its hardest problems. We argue that an ideal self-evolution method should share the same property, that is autonomously learning from raw training material for transferable problem-solving capability. However, we still lack a direct measurement for it. We introduce StudyBench, a controlled physics benchmark that directly measures how efficiently a self-evolution method converts training material into capability. We organise the test set into an Application Set, consisting of difficult textbook problems and evaluating absorption ability, and a Transfer Set, consisting of olympiad-level problems and evaluating transfer ability. Benchmarking representative self-evolution methods across three base models, we find that improvements on the Application Set rarely translate to the harder Transfer Set. A guidance ablation exposes a Guidance Gap: even the strongest method closes only a small fraction of what the same material unlocks when supplied as in-context guidance. Besides, every method hits a Compute Plateau, saturating well before exhausting its compute budget. The remaining gap is therefore a method problem rather than a data or compute problem. By offering a clean and controlled benchmark, StudyBench turns self-evolution progress from an open-ended pursuit into a measurable target for future research. Our code is released at https://github.com/thunlp/StudyBench.

Benchmark researchers and developers of large language models (LLMs) and other AI systems need to find relevant evaluations, locate their benchmark datasets and code, and understand the settings behind reported scores. We present Benchmark Radar, a living database and search engine for retrieval and discovery of AI benchmarks, covering LLM evaluation, agentic and tool-use benchmarks, coding, reasoning, safety, and domain-specific evaluations. The system combines daily discovery of benchmark papers, repositories, datasets, and releases with a searchable benchmark catalog, mentions in model cards and technical reports, and score histories. It retains source identities and citations so readers can inspect candidate benchmarks and their evaluation evidence. Daily discovery draws on 37 sources: 13 direct connectors and 24 first-party research and engineering feeds. The catalog contains 1,283 source records drawn from 4 benchmark catalogs and 12,916 numeric observations on 790 records. We describe collection and retrieval, audit the full catalog, and examine benchmark saturation, adoption trends, and the limits of score comparisons. A worked example walks through a complete prior-art search, showing how to query the catalog and inspect benchmark evidence when designing a new evaluation. We release the web dashboard with a benchmark leaderboard, a Pareto frontier view of score against measured use, saturation and trend views, daily feeds, downloadable evidence, a command-line interface (CLI) for offline queries, and reproducible analysis.

Large Language Models (LLMs) vary in their abilities on a range of tasks. Initiatives such as the Open LLM Leaderboard aim to quantify these differences with several large benchmarks (sets of test items to which an LLM can respond either correctly or incorrectly). However, high correlations within and between benchmark scores suggest that (1) there exists a small set of common underlying abilities that these benchmarks measure, and (2) items tap into redundant information and the benchmarks may thus be considerably compressed. We use data from n > 5000 LLMs to identify the most informative items of six benchmarks, ARC, GSM8K, HellaSwag, MMLU, TruthfulQA and WinoGrande (with d=28,632 items in total). From them we distill a sparse benchmark, metabench, that has less than 3% of the original size of all six benchmarks combined. This new sparse benchmark goes beyond point scores by yielding estimators of the underlying benchmark-specific abilities. We show that these estimators (1) can be used to reconstruct each original individual benchmark score with, on average, 1.5% root mean square error (RMSE), (2) reconstruct the original total score with 0.8% RMSE, and (3) have a single underlying common factor whose Spearman correlation with the total score is r = 0.93.

We present EBench, a simulation benchmark that diagnoses generalist mobile manipulation policies beyond a single success-rate scalar. EBench comprises 26 diverse and challenging manipulation tasks annotated along 5 capability dimensions and 4 generalization dimensions. We evaluate state-of-the-art generalist manipulation models including π_0, π_{0.5}, XVLA, and InternVLA-A1, and reveal that models with near success rates exhibit strikingly different capability profiles: π_{0.5} achieves the highest test success rate and the best train--test retention, whereas InternVLA-A1 dominates mobile manipulation but collapses on dexterous tasks, and XVLA exhibits strengths on a disjoint set of atomic skills compared to other policies. Beyond capability profiling, EBench analyzes the generalization ability from 4 representative perspectives, identifying the impact of different distribution shift factors. The results reveal strengths and weaknesses of models behind an overall score. We hope this benchmark offers a broad set of diagnostic signals to guide iteration on generalist manipulation models.

DARTS search space (DSS) has become a canonical benchmark for NAS whereas some emerging works pointed out the issue of narrow accuracy range and claimed it would hurt the method ranking. We observe some recent studies already suffer from this issue that overshadows the meaning of scores. In this work, we first propose and orchestrate a suite of improvements to frame a larger and harder DSS, termed LHD, while retaining high efficiency in search. We step forward to renovate a LHD-based new benchmark, taking care of both discernibility and accessibility. Specifically, we re-implement twelve baselines and evaluate them across twelve conditions by combining two underexpolored influential factors: transductive robustness and discretization policy, to reasonably construct a benchmark upon multi-condition evaluation. Considering that the tabular benchmarks are always insufficient to adequately evaluate the methods of neural architecture search (NAS), our work can serve as a crucial basis for the future progress of NAS. https://github.com/chaoji90/LHD

Large reasoning models such as OpenAI o1 and DeepSeek-R1 have achieved remarkable performance in the domain of reasoning. A key component of their training is the incorporation of verifiable rewards within reinforcement learning (RL). However, existing reward benchmarks do not evaluate reference-based reward systems, leaving researchers with limited understanding of the accuracy of verifiers used in RL. In this paper, we introduce two benchmarks, VerifyBench and VerifyBench-Hard, designed to assess the performance of reference-based reward systems. These benchmarks are constructed through meticulous data collection and curation, followed by careful human annotation to ensure high quality. Current models still show considerable room for improvement on both VerifyBench and VerifyBench-Hard, especially smaller-scale models. Furthermore, we conduct a thorough and comprehensive analysis of evaluation results, offering insights for understanding and developing reference-based reward systems. Our proposed benchmarks serve as effective tools for guiding the development of verifier accuracy and the reasoning capabilities of models trained via RL in reasoning tasks.

Benchmark quality is critical for meaningful evaluation and sustained progress in time series forecasting, particularly given the recent rise of pretrained models. Existing benchmarks often have narrow domain coverage or overlook important real-world settings, such as tasks with covariates. Additionally, their aggregation procedures often lack statistical rigor, making it unclear whether observed performance differences reflect true improvements or random variation. Many benchmarks also fail to provide infrastructure for consistent evaluation or are too rigid to integrate into existing pipelines. To address these gaps, we propose fev-bench, a benchmark comprising 100 forecasting tasks across seven domains, including 46 tasks with covariates. Supporting the benchmark, we introduce fev, a lightweight Python library for benchmarking forecasting models that emphasizes reproducibility and seamless integration with existing workflows. Usingfev, fev-bench employs principled aggregation methods with bootstrapped confidence intervals to report model performance along two complementary dimensions: win rates and skill scores. We report results on fev-bench for various pretrained, statistical and baseline models, and identify promising directions for future research.

As LLM agents are increasingly built around reusable skills, a central challenge is no longer only whether agents can use provided skills, but whether they can generate correct, reusable, and executable skills from repositories and documents. Existing benchmarks primarily evaluate the efficacy of given skills or the ability of agents to solve downstream tasks from raw context, but they do not isolate skill generation itself as the object of study. We introduce SkillGenBench, a benchmark for evaluating skill generation pipelines under a unified and controlled protocol. In SkillGenBench, a generator receives raw corpora and produces standardized skill artifacts, which are then executed under fixed harnesses and assessed with unified evaluation procedures. The benchmark covers two generation regimes: task-conditioned generation, where a task-specific skill is synthesized after the task is revealed, and task-agnostic generation, where a reusable skill library must be distilled before downstream tasks are known. It also spans two complementary procedural sources: repository-grounded instances, where procedures are distributed across code, configuration, and scripts, and document-grounded instances, where procedures and constraints must be distilled from long-form text. We provide standardized task specifications, pinned environments, and evaluation protocols centered on deterministic execution-based checks, supplemented by auxiliary signals for diagnosis. Experiments across a range of skill-generation methods and backbones show substantial performance variation, highlight the difficulty of reusable skill distillation, and reveal distinct failure modes in skill generation from software repositories versus long-form documents. SkillGenBench establishes a reproducible testbed for studying skill generation as an independent research problem in agent systems.

DevBench is a telemetry-driven benchmark designed to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) on realistic code completion tasks. It includes 1,800 evaluation instances across six programming languages and six task categories derived from real developer telemetry and synthesized using generator models from multiple provider families to mitigate single-source bias. Unlike prior benchmarks, it emphasizes ecological validity, avoids training data contamination, and enables detailed diagnostics. The evaluation combines functional correctness, similarity-based metrics, and LLM-judge assessments focused on usefulness and contextual relevance. 9 state-of-the-art models were assessed, with the strongest achieving only 43.5% Pass@1, confirming the benchmark remains challenging and revealing differences in syntactic precision, semantic reasoning, and practical utility. Our benchmark provides actionable insights to guide model selection and improvement, detail that is often missing from other benchmarks but is essential for both practical deployment and targeted model development.

As language models improve and become capable of performing more complex tasks across modalities, evaluating them automatically becomes increasingly challenging. Developing strong and robust task-specific automatic metrics gets harder, and human-annotated test sets -- which are expensive to create -- saturate more quickly. A compelling alternative is to design reliable strategies to automate the creation of test data and evaluation, but previous attempts either rely on pre-existing data, or focus solely on individual tasks. We present Zero-shot Benchmarking (ZSB), a framework for creating high-quality benchmarks for any task by leveraging language models for both synthetic test data creation and evaluation. ZSB is simple and flexible: it requires only the creation of a prompt for data generation and one for evaluation; it is scalable to tasks and languages where collecting real-world data is costly or impractical; it is model-agnostic, allowing the creation of increasingly challenging benchmarks as models improve. To assess the effectiveness of our framework, we create benchmarks for five text-only tasks and a multi-modal one: general capabilities in four languages (English, Chinese, French, and Korean), translation, and general vision-language capabilities in English. We then rank a broad range of open and closed systems on our benchmarks. ZSB rankings consistently correlate strongly with human rankings, outperforming widely-adopted standard benchmarks. Through ablations, we find that strong benchmarks can be created with open models, and that judge model size and dataset variety are crucial drivers of performance. We release all our benchmarks, and code to reproduce our experiments and to produce new benchmarks.

This paper introduces the Fair Fairness Benchmark (FFB), a benchmarking framework for in-processing group fairness methods. Ensuring fairness in machine learning is critical for ethical and legal compliance. However, there exist challenges in comparing and developing of fairness methods due to inconsistencies in experimental settings, lack of accessible algorithmic implementations, and limited extensibility of current fairness packages and tools. To address these issues, we introduce an open-source, standardized benchmark for evaluating in-processing group fairness methods and provide a comprehensive analysis of state-of-the-art methods to ensure different notions of group fairness. This work offers the following key contributions: the provision of flexible, extensible, minimalistic, and research-oriented open-source code; the establishment of unified fairness method benchmarking pipelines; and extensive benchmarking, which yields key insights from 45,079 experiments. We believe our work will significantly facilitate the growth and development of the fairness research community. The benchmark, including code and running logs, is available at https://github.com/ahxt/fair_fairness_benchmark

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have greatly improved code generation, specifically at the function level. For instance, GPT-4 has achieved an 88.4% pass rate on HumanEval. However, this draws into question the adequacy of existing benchmarks in thoroughly assessing function-level code generation capabilities. Our study analyzed two common benchmarks, HumanEval and MBPP, and found that these might not thoroughly evaluate LLMs' code generation capacities due to limitations in quality, difficulty, and granularity. To resolve this, we introduce the Mostly Hard Python Problems (MHPP) dataset, consisting of 140 unique human-curated problems. By focusing on the combination of natural language and code reasoning, MHPP gauges LLMs' abilities to comprehend specifications and restrictions, engage in multi-step reasoning, and apply coding knowledge effectively. Initial evaluations of 22 LLMs using MHPP showed many high-performing models on HumanEval failed to achieve similar success on MHPP. Moreover, MHPP highlighted various previously undiscovered limitations within various LLMs, leading us to believe that it could pave the way for a better understanding of LLMs' capabilities and limitations. Dataset and code are available at https://github.com/SparksofAGI/MHPP.

LLM agents are rapidly evolving from coding assistants into autonomous software engineering systems. However, existing evaluation methodologies remain largely centered on static, isolated, and short-horizon benchmarks that fail to capture the dynamic complexity of real-world production workflows. As a result, benchmark performance may poorly reflect practical capability under realistic runtime environments involving long execution chains, tool interactions, dependency management, and iterative feedback loops. We thus present RAMP, a production-grounded infrastructure for assessing long-horizon software engineering agents. Built upon the YatCC integrated platform, RAMP provides a unified runtime assessment architecture through standardized orchestration and execution interfaces. RAMP introduces realistic compiler-construction workloads with serial dependencies and complex toolchain interactions, together with a staged recovery mechanism for analyzing execution behavior under partial workflow failure. The framework further incorporates utility-oriented multi-dimensional metrics that jointly evaluate outcome quality and process efficiency. We conduct runtime assessments across 15 mainstream models and observe substantial capability degradation that remains largely invisible to conventional isolated benchmarks. Task completion rates progressively collapse across serial workflows, dropping from 100% in the initial stage to only 20% in the final stage, while none of the evaluated models successfully completes the entire pipeline. Runtime analysis reveals systematic failure propagation and significant resource inefficiencies, with computational costs differing by up to three orders of magnitude among comparable models. These findings suggest RAMP advances agentic model evaluation toward continuous, runtime-observable, and production-grounded assessment.

Existing benchmarks have proven effective for assessing the performance of fully trained large language models. However, we find striking differences in the early training stages of small models, where benchmarks often fail to provide meaningful or discriminative signals. To explore how these differences arise, this competition tackles the challenge of designing scientific knowledge evaluation tasks specifically tailored for measuring early training progress of language models. Participants are invited to develop novel evaluation methodologies or adapt existing benchmarks to better capture performance differences among language models. To support this effort, we provide three pre-trained small models (0.5B, 1B, and 3B parameters), along with intermediate checkpoints sampled during training up to 200B tokens. All experiments and development work can be run on widely available free cloud-based GPU platforms, making participation accessible to researchers with limited computational resources. Submissions will be evaluated based on three criteria: the quality of the performance signal they produce, the consistency of model rankings at 1 trillion tokens of training, and their relevance to the scientific knowledge domain. By promoting the design of tailored evaluation strategies for early training, this competition aims to attract a broad range of participants from various disciplines, including those who may not be machine learning experts or have access to dedicated GPU resources. Ultimately, this initiative seeks to make foundational LLM research more systematic and benchmark-informed from the earliest phases of model development.

Software testing is a critical aspect of software development, yet generating test cases remains a routine task for engineers. This paper presents a benchmark, CLOVER, to evaluate models' capabilities in generating and completing test cases under specific conditions. Spanning from simple assertion completions to writing test cases that cover specific code blocks across multiple files, these tasks are based on 12 python repositories, analyzing 845 problems with context lengths ranging from 4k to 128k tokens. Utilizing code testing frameworks, we propose a method to construct retrieval contexts using coverage information. While models exhibit comparable performance with short contexts, notable differences emerge with 16k contexts. Notably, models like GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 can effectively leverage relevant snippets; however, all models score below 35\% on the complex Task III, even with the oracle context provided, underscoring the benchmark's significance and the potential for model improvement. The benchmark is containerized for code execution across tasks, and we will release the code, data, and construction methodologies.

Terminal-agent benchmarks have become a primary signal for measuring the coding and system-administration capabilities of large language models. As the market for evaluation environments grows, so does the pressure to ship tasks quickly, often without thorough adversarial review of the verification logic. This paper is a guideline for writing good benchmark tasks, drawn from over a year of contributing to and reviewing tasks for Terminal Bench. Most people write benchmark tasks the way they write prompts. They shouldn't. A prompt is designed to help the agent succeed; a benchmark is designed to find out if it can. We argue that good tasks are adversarial, difficult, and legible, and that a large class of common failure modes -- AI-generated instructions, over-prescriptive specifications, clerical difficulty, oracle solutions that assume hidden knowledge, tests that validate the wrong things, and reward-hackable environments -- are predictable consequences of treating task authoring as prompt authoring. We catalog these failure modes, argue that real difficulty is conceptual rather than environmental, and discuss recent empirical evidence that over 15% of tasks in popular terminal-agent benchmarks are reward-hackable. We hope this serves as a useful reference for benchmark maintainers, task contributors, and researchers using benchmark scores as evidence.

Instruction-tuning data are judged by quality metrics, and tuned models are judged by benchmarks, but both judgments pass through an output interface: the surface format in which an answer is written. Using gradient signatures across 12 tasks, four semantically equivalent interfaces, three model families, and controlled corruptions, we show that this interface confounds both measurements. Spectral statistics such as effective rank are provably invariant to interface rotation and empirically blind to semantic corruption, while the direction of the update carries the quality signal. The interface-varying residual is not noise: it identifies each unit's own target task perfectly across all three families. Capability itself is stored relative to the training interface: a skill that raises accuracy by more than 40 points under the training format can be nearly invisible under every other, and correcting a single generation budget flips the measured effect of fine-tuning on GSM8K from a gain into a large loss. Pre-registered interventions delimit where this geometry stops short of control. Data quality and model capability are interface-conditioned quantities, and current practice often reports the interface instead of the content.

We introduce EQ-Bench, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate aspects of emotional intelligence in Large Language Models (LLMs). We assess the ability of LLMs to understand complex emotions and social interactions by asking them to predict the intensity of emotional states of characters in a dialogue. The benchmark is able to discriminate effectively between a wide range of models. We find that EQ-Bench correlates strongly with comprehensive multi-domain benchmarks like MMLU (Hendrycks et al., 2020) (r=0.97), indicating that we may be capturing similar aspects of broad intelligence. Our benchmark produces highly repeatable results using a set of 60 English-language questions. We also provide open-source code for an automated benchmarking pipeline at https://github.com/EQ-bench/EQ-Bench and a leaderboard at https://eqbench.com

Large language models~(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs in different aspects. Despite that a number of high-quality benchmarks have been released, the concerns about the appropriate use of these benchmarks and the fair comparison of different models are increasingly growing. Considering these concerns, in this paper, we discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results. Specially, we focus on a special issue that would lead to inappropriate evaluation, \ie benchmark leakage, referring that the data related to evaluation sets is occasionally used for model training. This phenomenon now becomes more common since pre-training data is often prepared ahead of model test. We conduct extensive experiments to study the effect of benchmark leverage, and find that it can dramatically boost the evaluation results, which would finally lead to an unreliable assessment of model performance. To improve the use of existing evaluation benchmarks, we finally present several guidelines for both LLM developers and benchmark maintainers. We hope this work can draw attention to appropriate training and evaluation of LLMs.

Code generation benchmarks such as HumanEval are widely adopted to evaluate LLMs' capabilities. However, after consolidating the latest 24 benchmarks, we noticed three significant imbalances. First, imbalanced programming language. 95.8% of benchmarks involve Python, while only 5 benchmarks involve Java. Second, imbalanced code granularity. Function-/statement-level benchmarks account for over 83.3% of benchmarks. Only a mere handful extends to class-/project-levels, and all are limited to Python. Third, lacking advanced features. Existing benchmarks primarily assess basic coding skills, while overlooking advanced Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) features (i.e., encapsulation, inheritance, and polymorphism). To fill these gaps, we propose JavaBench, a project-level Java benchmark that exercises OOP features. It comprises four Java projects with 389 methods in 106 Java classes. The test coverage is up to 92%, and JavaBench is attested by 282 undergraduate students, reaching a 90.93/100 average score (i.e., pass rate against the test suite), ensuring the quality of documentation, code skeleton, and tests. To better evaluate LLM's capability against JavaBench, we introduce a systematic evaluation design covering three context settings and five synthesis strategies at two granularities using three hierarchical metrics. Our extensive experiment yields several interesting findings. First, we noticed that regarding project-level Java programming, LLMs are far behind undergraduate students (no project can be correctly completed by any studied LLMs, and at most 41.17% Pass@5 in a more relaxed evaluation). Second, using method signature as prompt context may strike an ideal balance for project-level code generation. JavaBench is publicly available at https://github.com/java-bench/JavaBench.

Recent advances have made long-form report-generating systems widely available. This has prompted evaluation frameworks that use LLM-as-judge protocols and claim verification, along with meta-evaluation frameworks that seek to validate these methods. Many of the meta-evaluations estimate an evaluation quality's by comparing its assessments against human pairwise preferences. Prior work, however, suggests that human pairwise preference may be overly simplistic and can fail to capture nuances of expert expectations. We conduct a case study in meta-evaluation for long-form QA benchmarks using ScholarQA-CS2, a benchmark designed for assessing retrieval-augmented deep-research QA in the scientific domain. We comprehensively validate the benchmark through human pairwise preference judgments, then critically examine the strengths, weaknesses, and confounders of this approach. We show that pairwise preference rankings are best suited for system-level evaluation, while explicit metric-wise annotations and expert annotators are critical for reliable metric-level assessment, with subjectivity remaining a key challenge. Based on our findings, we offer practical guidelines for designing future meta-evaluations that better align evaluation methods, annotator expertise, and reporting practices. By surfacing these methodological challenges, we aim to advance evaluation standards for deep-research systems.

Standardized benchmarks drive progress in machine learning. However, with repeated testing, the risk of overfitting grows as algorithms over-exploit benchmark idiosyncrasies. In our work, we seek to mitigate this challenge by compiling ever-expanding large-scale benchmarks called Lifelong Benchmarks. As exemplars of our approach, we create Lifelong-CIFAR10 and Lifelong-ImageNet, containing (for now) 1.69M and 1.98M test samples, respectively. While reducing overfitting, lifelong benchmarks introduce a key challenge: the high cost of evaluating a growing number of models across an ever-expanding sample set. To address this challenge, we also introduce an efficient evaluation framework: Sort \& Search (S&S), which reuses previously evaluated models by leveraging dynamic programming algorithms to selectively rank and sub-select test samples, enabling cost-effective lifelong benchmarking. Extensive empirical evaluations across 31,000 models demonstrate that S&S achieves highly-efficient approximate accuracy measurement, reducing compute cost from 180 GPU days to 5 GPU hours (1000x reduction) on a single A100 GPU, with low approximation error. As such, lifelong benchmarks offer a robust, practical solution to the "benchmark exhaustion" problem.

Learnable embedding vector is one of the most important applications in machine learning, and is widely used in various database-related domains. However, the high dimensionality of sparse data in recommendation tasks and the huge volume of corpus in retrieval-related tasks lead to a large memory consumption of the embedding table, which poses a great challenge to the training and deployment of models. Recent research has proposed various methods to compress the embeddings at the cost of a slight decrease in model quality or the introduction of other overheads. Nevertheless, the relative performance of these methods remains unclear. Existing experimental comparisons only cover a subset of these methods and focus on limited metrics. In this paper, we perform a comprehensive comparative analysis and experimental evaluation of embedding compression. We introduce a new taxonomy that categorizes these techniques based on their characteristics and methodologies, and further develop a modular benchmarking framework that integrates 14 representative methods. Under a uniform test environment, our benchmark fairly evaluates each approach, presents their strengths and weaknesses under different memory budgets, and recommends the best method based on the use case. In addition to providing useful guidelines, our study also uncovers the limitations of current methods and suggests potential directions for future research.

We document empirical capability ceilings in decoder-only autoregressive language models across knowledge-intensive tasks. Systematic evaluation of OPT and Pythia model families (70M-30B parameters, spanning 240 times scaling) reveals that knowledge retrieval tasks show negligible accuracy improvement despite smooth loss reduction. On MMLU mathematics benchmarks, accuracy remains flat at 19-20% (below 25% random chance) across all scales while cross-entropy loss decreases by 31%. In contrast, procedural tasks like arithmetic show conventional scaling where both metrics improve together. Attention intervention experiments reveal high sensitivity to perturbation: swapping attention patterns between models causes catastrophic performance collapse (complete accuracy loss) rather than graceful degradation. These measurements have immediate engineering implications: for knowledge-intensive applications using OPT and Pythia architectures, parameter scaling beyond 1-2B offers minimal accuracy gains despite continued loss improvement. Our findings quantify capability-specific scaling failures in these model families to inform resource allocation decisions. Whether these patterns reflect fundamental constraints of decoder-only architectures or implementation-specific limitations remains an open question requiring investigation across diverse architectural approaches.

The ``LLM-as-a-judge'' paradigm has become a standard method for evaluating open-ended generation. To address the quadratic scalability costs of pairwise comparisons, popular benchmarks like Arena-Hard and AlpacaEval compare all models against a single anchor. However, despite its widespread use, the impact of anchor selection on the reliability of the results remains largely unexplored. In this work, we systematically investigate the effect of anchor selection by evaluating 22 different anchors on the Arena-Hard-v2.0 dataset. We find that the choice of anchor is critical: a poor anchor can dramatically reduce correlation with human rankings. We identify that common anchor choices (best-performing and worst-performing models) make poor anchors. Because these extreme anchors are consistently better or worse than all other models, they are seldom indicative of the relative ranking of the models. We further quantify the effect size of anchor selection, showing it is comparable to the selection of a judge model. We conclude with actionable recommendations. First, we conduct a power analysis, and compute sufficient benchmark sizes for anchor-based evaluation, finding that standard benchmark sizes are insufficient for pairwise evaluation and fail to distinguish between competitive models reliably. Second, we provide guidelines for selecting informative anchors to ensure reliable and efficient evaluation practices.

Prior benchmarks for evaluating the domain-specific knowledge of large language models (LLMs) lack the scalability to handle complex academic tasks. To address this, we introduce ScholarBench, a benchmark centered on deep expert knowledge and complex academic problem-solving, which evaluates the academic reasoning ability of LLMs and is constructed through a three-step process. ScholarBench targets more specialized and logically complex contexts derived from academic literature, encompassing five distinct problem types. Unlike prior benchmarks, ScholarBench evaluates the abstraction, comprehension, and reasoning capabilities of LLMs across eight distinct research domains. To ensure high-quality evaluation data, we define category-specific example attributes and design questions that are aligned with the characteristic research methodologies and discourse structures of each domain. Additionally, this benchmark operates as an English-Korean bilingual dataset, facilitating simultaneous evaluation for linguistic capabilities of LLMs in both languages. The benchmark comprises 5,031 examples in Korean and 5,309 in English, with even state-of-the-art models like o3-mini achieving an average evaluation score of only 0.543, demonstrating the challenging nature of this benchmark.

Automated software engineering has been greatly empowered by the recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) for programming. While current benchmarks have shown that LLMs can perform various software engineering tasks like human developers, the majority of their evaluations are limited to short and self-contained algorithmic tasks. Solving challenging and practical programming tasks requires the capability of utilizing diverse function calls as tools to efficiently implement functionalities like data analysis and web development. In addition, using multiple tools to solve a task needs compositional reasoning by accurately understanding complex instructions. Fulfilling both of these characteristics can pose a great challenge for LLMs. To assess how well LLMs can solve challenging and practical programming tasks, we introduce Bench, a benchmark that challenges LLMs to invoke multiple function calls as tools from 139 libraries and 7 domains for 1,140 fine-grained programming tasks. To evaluate LLMs rigorously, each programming task encompasses 5.6 test cases with an average branch coverage of 99%. In addition, we propose a natural-language-oriented variant of Bench, Benchi, that automatically transforms the original docstrings into short instructions only with essential information. Our extensive evaluation of 60 LLMs shows that LLMs are not yet capable of following complex instructions to use function calls precisely, with scores up to 60%, significantly lower than the human performance of 97%. The results underscore the need for further advancements in this area.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, the need for up-to-date and well-organized benchmarks becomes increasingly critical. However, many existing datasets are scattered, difficult to manage, and make it challenging to perform evaluations tailored to specific needs or domains, despite the growing importance of domain-specific models in areas such as math or code. In this paper, we introduce BenchHub, a dynamic benchmark repository that empowers researchers and developers to evaluate LLMs more effectively. BenchHub aggregates and automatically classifies benchmark datasets from diverse domains, integrating 303K questions across 38 benchmarks. It is designed to support continuous updates and scalable data management, enabling flexible and customizable evaluation tailored to various domains or use cases. Through extensive experiments with various LLM families, we demonstrate that model performance varies significantly across domain-specific subsets, emphasizing the importance of domain-aware benchmarking. We believe BenchHub can encourage better dataset reuse, more transparent model comparisons, and easier identification of underrepresented areas in existing benchmarks, offering a critical infrastructure for advancing LLM evaluation research.

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 , 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.

The rapid development of large language models and multimodal large language models has accelerated the emergence of proactive agents capable of operating everyday tools and assisting users in real-world environments. However, existing benchmarks struggle to evaluate such agents effectively, as they often rely on sandboxed environments and single-turn evaluation paradigms. Moreover, their scenario-based task taxonomies mix multiple model capabilities within the same task category, making it difficult to identify the root causes of agent failures. To address these limitations, we introduce UniClawBench, the first capability-driven benchmark designed to evaluate proactive agents in dynamic, real-world settings. UniClawBench is built around five foundational model capabilities: Skill Usage, Exploration, Long-Context Reasoning, Multimodal Understanding, and Cross-Platform Coordination. Based on these capabilities, we design 400 bilingual real-world tasks. Unlike previous benchmarks that rely on static, pre-recorded answers, our benchmark evaluates agents in live Docker containers using fine-grained, step-by-step completion checkpoints. Furthermore, we design a closed-loop evaluation strategy comprising an executor agent, a hidden supervisor agent, and a user agent to simulate realistic multi-turn human feedback without leaking grading criteria. To disentangle base model capabilities from framework-level design choices, we evaluate state-of-the-art models under multiple agent frameworks. Through comprehensive comparisons across both models and frameworks, we show how base model capabilities and agent framework designs jointly shape performance in real-world environments. To facilitate future research, we make our benchmark and code publicly available at https://github.com/HKU-MMLab/UniClawBench.

As language models (LMs) become capable of handling a wide range of tasks, their evaluation is becoming as challenging as their development. Most generation benchmarks currently assess LMs using abstract evaluation criteria like helpfulness and harmlessness, which often lack the flexibility and granularity of human assessment. Additionally, these benchmarks tend to focus disproportionately on specific capabilities such as instruction following, leading to coverage bias. To overcome these limitations, we introduce the BiGGen Bench, a principled generation benchmark designed to thoroughly evaluate nine distinct capabilities of LMs across 77 diverse tasks. A key feature of the BiGGen Bench is its use of instance-specific evaluation criteria, closely mirroring the nuanced discernment of human evaluation. We apply this benchmark to assess 103 frontier LMs using five evaluator LMs. Our code, data, and evaluation results are all publicly available at https://github.com/prometheus-eval/prometheus-eval/tree/main/BiGGen-Bench.

Benchmarks are often used as a standard to understand LLM capabilities in different domains. However, aggregate benchmark scores provide limited insight into compositional skill gaps of LLMs and how to improve them. To make these weaknesses visible, we propose Scaffolded Task Design (STaD) framework. STaD generates controlled variations of benchmark tasks based on the concept of scaffolding, which introduces structured, incremental support in a step-by-step manner. Rather than inspecting failures individually, this approach enables systematic and scalable probing of model behavior by identifying the specific reasoning skill compositions they lack. Treating the LLM as a black box, our experiments on six models of varying sizes reveal multiple failure points in three reasoning benchmarks and highlight each model's unique and distinct skill gaps.

Benchmarks for large multimodal language models (MLMs) now serve to simultaneously assess the general capabilities of models instead of evaluating for a specific capability. As a result, when a developer wants to identify which models to use for their application, they are overwhelmed by the number of benchmarks and remain uncertain about which benchmark's results are most reflective of their specific use case. This paper introduces Task-Me-Anything, a benchmark generation engine which produces a benchmark tailored to a user's needs. Task-Me-Anything maintains an extendable taxonomy of visual assets and can programmatically generate a vast number of task instances. Additionally, it algorithmically addresses user queries regarding MLM performance efficiently within a computational budget. It contains 113K images, 10K videos, 2K 3D object assets, over 365 object categories, 655 attributes, and 335 relationships. It can generate 750M image/video question-answering pairs, which focus on evaluating MLM perceptual capabilities. Task-Me-Anything reveals critical insights: open-source MLMs excel in object and attribute recognition but lack spatial and temporal understanding; each model exhibits unique strengths and weaknesses; larger models generally perform better, though exceptions exist; and GPT4o demonstrates challenges in recognizing rotating/moving objects and distinguishing colors.

Developing high-performance software is a complex task that requires specialized expertise. We introduce GSO, a benchmark for evaluating language models' capabilities in developing high-performance software. We develop an automated pipeline that generates and executes performance tests to analyze repository commit histories to identify 102 challenging optimization tasks across 10 codebases, spanning diverse domains and programming languages. An agent is provided with a codebase and performance test as a precise specification, and tasked to improve the runtime efficiency, which is measured against the expert developer optimization. Our quantitative evaluation reveals that leading SWE-Agents struggle significantly, achieving less than 5% success rate, with limited improvements even with inference-time scaling. Our qualitative analysis identifies key failure modes, including difficulties with low-level languages, practicing lazy optimization strategies, and challenges in accurately localizing bottlenecks. We release the code and artifacts of our benchmark along with agent trajectories to enable future research.

Repository-level performance-optimization benchmarks such as GSO, SWE-Perf and SWE-fficiency evaluate coding agents by applying patches to real repositories and comparing runtime against unoptimized baselines and official reference patches. Their leaderboard scores are increasingly used as evidence of coding-agent progress, but those scores can conflate runtime instability, benchmark-specific scoring rules, and how many tasks are already solved by at least one public submission. We audit these issues across the three benchmarks. First, we replay the official reference patches for 740 code optimization tasks across four common types of Google Cloud machines. Most benchmark tasks can be replayed, but their reference patches satisfy the original benchmark validity rules in every cross-machine replay for only 39/102 GSO tasks, 11/140 SWE-Perf tasks, and 411/498 SWE-fficiency tasks; SWE-Perf is especially fragile because many reference patches produce close-to-zero runtime changes. Second, we show that public submission rankings depend strongly on the benchmark scoring rule. Among eight public submissions shared by GSO and SWE-fficiency, the official rankings disagree on 9 of 28 pairwise submission comparisons, and SWE-fficiency's leaderboard scoring rule assigns the worst ten tasks overly high score weights of 58.5%-82.8%. Third, looking across 10 public submissions for each task, we find that at least one submission matches or beats the reference patch on 85.3% (384/450) of replay-valid GSO and SWE-fficiency tasks, and beats the unoptimized base code on 99.8% (449/450). Our study complements leaderboard scores by identifying tasks with more reliable performance signals, quantifying per-task score contributions, and exposing the remaining performance gaps that are hidden by aggregate rankings.