Daily Papers

LLM agents hold significant promise for advancing scientific research. To accelerate this progress, we introduce AIRS-Bench (the AI Research Science Benchmark), a suite of 20 tasks sourced from state-of-the-art machine learning papers. These tasks span diverse domains, including language modeling, mathematics, bioinformatics, and time series forecasting. AIRS-Bench tasks assess agentic capabilities over the full research lifecycle -- including idea generation, experiment analysis and iterative refinement -- without providing baseline code. The AIRS-Bench task format is versatile, enabling easy integration of new tasks and rigorous comparison across different agentic frameworks. We establish baselines using frontier models paired with both sequential and parallel scaffolds. Our results show that agents exceed human SOTA in four tasks but fail to match it in sixteen others. Even when agents surpass human benchmarks, they do not reach the theoretical performance ceiling for the underlying tasks. These findings indicate that AIRS-Bench is far from saturated and offers substantial room for improvement. We open-source the AIRS-Bench task definitions and evaluation code to catalyze further development in autonomous scientific research.

In natural language processing tasks, pure reinforcement learning (RL) fine-tuning methods often suffer from inefficient exploration and slow convergence; while supervised fine-tuning (SFT) methods, although efficient in training, have limited performance ceiling and less solid theoretical foundation compared to RL. To address efficiency-capability trade-off, we propose the Guess-Think-Answer (GTA) framework that combines the efficiency of SFT with the capability gains of RL in a unified training paradigm. GTA works by having the model first produce a provisional guess (optimized via cross-entropy loss), then reflect on this guess before generating the final answer, with RL rewards shaping both the final output and the format of the entire GTA structure. This hybrid approach achieves both faster convergence than pure RL and higher performance ceiling than pure SFT. To mitigate gradient conflicts between the two training signals, we employ loss masking and gradient constraints. Empirical results on four text classification benchmarks demonstrate that GTA substantially accelerates convergence while outperforming both standalone SFT and RL baselines.

Representations from transformer-based unidirectional language models are known to be effective at predicting brain responses to natural language. However, most studies comparing language models to brains have used GPT-2 or similarly sized language models. Here we tested whether larger open-source models such as those from the OPT and LLaMA families are better at predicting brain responses recorded using fMRI. Mirroring scaling results from other contexts, we found that brain prediction performance scales log-linearly with model size from 125M to 30B parameter models, with ~15% increased encoding performance as measured by correlation with a held-out test set across 3 subjects. Similar log-linear behavior was observed when scaling the size of the fMRI training set. We also characterized scaling for acoustic encoding models that use HuBERT, WavLM, and Whisper, and we found comparable improvements with model size. A noise ceiling analysis of these large, high-performance encoding models showed that performance is nearing the theoretical maximum for brain areas such as the precuneus and higher auditory cortex. These results suggest that increasing scale in both models and data will yield incredibly effective models of language processing in the brain, enabling better scientific understanding as well as applications such as decoding.

While effective post-training integrates Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning (RL), the optimal mechanism for utilizing expert trajectories remains unresolved. We propose the Plasticity-Ceiling Framework to theoretically ground this landscape, decomposing performance into foundational SFT performance and the subsequent RL plasticity. Through extensive benchmarking, we establish the Sequential SFT-then-RL pipeline as the superior standard, overcoming the stability deficits of synchronized approaches. Furthermore, we derive precise scaling guidelines: (1) Transitioning to RL at the SFT Stable or Mild Overfitting Sub-phase maximizes the final ceiling by securing foundational SFT performance without compromising RL plasticity; (2) Refuting ``Less is More'' in the context of SFT-then-RL scaling, we demonstrate that Data Scale determines the primary post-training potential, while Trajectory Difficulty acts as a performance multiplier; and (3) Identifying that the Minimum SFT Validation Loss serves as a robust indicator for selecting the expert trajectories that maximize the final performance ceiling. Our findings provide actionable guidelines for maximizing the value extracted from expert trajectories.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit plateauing performance on conventional benchmarks, a pivotal challenge persists: evaluating their proficiency in complex, open-ended tasks characterizing genuine expert-level cognition. Existing frameworks suffer from narrow domain coverage, reliance on generalist tasks, or self-evaluation biases. To bridge this gap, we present XpertBench, a high-fidelity benchmark engineered to assess LLMs across authentic professional domains. XpertBench consists of 1,346 meticulously curated tasks across 80 categories, spanning finance, healthcare, legal services, education, and dual-track research (STEM and Humanities). These tasks are derived from over 1,000 submissions by domain experts--including researchers from elite institutions and practitioners with extensive clinical or industrial experience--ensuring superior ecological validity. Each task uses detailed rubrics with mostly 15-40 weighted checkpoints to assess professional rigor. To facilitate scalable yet human-aligned assessment, we introduce ShotJudge, a novel evaluation paradigm that employs LLM judges calibrated with expert few-shot exemplars to mitigate self-rewarding biases. Our empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs reveals a pronounced performance ceiling: even leading models achieve a peak success rate of only ~66%, with a mean score around 55%. Models also exhibit domain-specific divergence, showing non-overlapping strengths in quantitative reasoning versus linguistic synthesis.. These findings underscore a significant "expert-gap" in current AI systems and establish XpertBench as a critical instrument for navigating the transition from general-purpose assistants to specialized professional collaborators.

The development of state-of-the-art systems in different applied areas of machine learning (ML) is driven by benchmarks, which have shaped the paradigm of evaluating generalisation capabilities from multiple perspectives. Although the paradigm is shifting towards more fine-grained evaluation across diverse tasks, the delicate question of how to aggregate the performances has received particular interest in the community. In general, benchmarks follow the unspoken utilitarian principles, where the systems are ranked based on their mean average score over task-specific metrics. Such aggregation procedure has been viewed as a sub-optimal evaluation protocol, which may have created the illusion of progress. This paper proposes Vote'n'Rank, a framework for ranking systems in multi-task benchmarks under the principles of the social choice theory. We demonstrate that our approach can be efficiently utilised to draw new insights on benchmarking in several ML sub-fields and identify the best-performing systems in research and development case studies. The Vote'n'Rank's procedures are more robust than the mean average while being able to handle missing performance scores and determine conditions under which the system becomes the winner.

Large language models (LLMs) now perform strongly on many public math suites, yet frontier separation within mathematics increasingly suffers from ceiling effects. We present two complementary benchmarks: SKYLENAGE-ReasoningMATH, a 100-item, structure-aware diagnostic set with per-item metadata on length, numeric density, and symbolic complexity; and SKYLENAGE-MATH, a 150-item contest-style suite spanning four stages from high school to doctoral under a seven-subject taxonomy. We evaluate fifteen contemporary LLM variants under a single setup and analyze subject x model and grade x model performance. On the contest suite, the strongest model reaches 44% while the runner-up reaches 37%; accuracy declines from high school to doctoral, and top systems exhibit a doctoral-to-high-school retention near 79%. On the reasoning set, the best model attains 81% overall, and hardest-slice results reveal clear robustness gaps between leaders and the mid-tier. In summary, we release SKYLENAGE-ReasoningMATH and report aggregate results for SKYLENAGE-MATH; together, SKYLENAGE provides a hard, reasoning-centered and broadly covering math benchmark with calibrated difficulty and rich metadata, serving as a reference benchmark for future evaluations of mathematical reasoning.

The rapid advancements in computing dramatically increase the scale and cost of training Large Language Models (LLMs). Accurately predicting downstream task performance prior to model training is crucial for efficient resource allocation, yet remains challenging due to two primary constraints: (1) the "emergence phenomenon", wherein downstream performance metrics become meaningful only after extensive training, which limits the ability to use smaller models for prediction; (2) Uneven task difficulty distributions and the absence of consistent scaling laws, resulting in substantial metric variability. Existing performance prediction methods suffer from limited accuracy and reliability, thereby impeding the assessment of potential LLM capabilities. To address these challenges, we propose a Clustering-On-Difficulty (COD) downstream performance prediction framework. COD first constructs a predictable support subset by clustering tasks based on difficulty features, strategically excluding non-emergent and non-scalable clusters. The scores on the selected subset serve as effective intermediate predictors of downstream performance on the full evaluation set. With theoretical support, we derive a mapping function that transforms performance metrics from the predictable subset to the full evaluation set, thereby ensuring accurate extrapolation of LLM downstream performance. The proposed method has been applied to predict performance scaling for a 70B LLM, providing actionable insights for training resource allocation and assisting in monitoring the training process. Notably, COD achieves remarkable predictive accuracy on the 70B LLM by leveraging an ensemble of small models, demonstrating an absolute mean deviation of 1.36% across eight important LLM evaluation benchmarks.

Ranking and scoring are ubiquitous. We consider the setting in which an institution, called a ranker, evaluates a set of individuals based on demographic, behavioral or other characteristics. The final output is a ranking that represents the relative quality of the individuals. While automatic and therefore seemingly objective, rankers can, and often do, discriminate against individuals and systematically disadvantage members of protected groups. This warrants a careful study of the fairness of a ranking scheme. In this paper we propose fairness measures for ranked outputs. We develop a data generation procedure that allows us to systematically control the degree of unfairness in the output, and study the behavior of our measures on these datasets. We then apply our proposed measures to several real datasets, and demonstrate cases of unfairness. Finally, we show preliminary results of incorporating our ranked fairness measures into an optimization framework, and show potential for improving fairness of ranked outputs while maintaining accuracy.

Existing research has identified three structural performance bottlenecks in AI research agents: (1) synchronous single-GPU execution constrains sample throughput, limiting the benefit of search; (2) a generalization gap where validation-based selection causes performance to degrade over extended search horizons; and (3) the limited capability of fixed, single-turn LLM operators imposes a ceiling on search performance. We introduce AIRA_2, which addresses these bottlenecks through three architectural choices: an asynchronous multi-GPU worker pool that increases experiment throughput linearly; a Hidden Consistent Evaluation protocol that delivers a reliable evaluation signal; and ReAct agents that dynamically scope their actions and debug interactively. On MLE-bench-30, AIRA_2 achieves a mean Percentile Rank of 71.8% at 24 hours - surpassing the previous best of 69.9% - and steadily improves to 76.0% at 72 hours. Ablation studies reveal that each component is necessary and that the "overfitting" reported in prior work was driven by evaluation noise rather than true data memorization.

Frontier model progress is often measured by academic benchmarks, which offer a limited view of performance in real-world professional contexts. Existing evaluations often fail to assess open-ended, economically consequential tasks in high-stakes domains like Legal and Finance, where practical returns are paramount. To address this, we introduce Professional Reasoning Bench (PRBench), a realistic, open-ended, and difficult benchmark of real-world problems in Finance and Law. We open-source its 1,100 expert-authored tasks and 19,356 expert-curated criteria, making it, to our knowledge, the largest public, rubric-based benchmark for both legal and finance domains. We recruit 182 qualified professionals, holding JDs, CFAs, or 6+ years of experience, who contributed tasks inspired by their actual workflows. This process yields significant diversity, with tasks spanning 114 countries and 47 US jurisdictions. Our expert-curated rubrics are validated through a rigorous quality pipeline, including independent expert validation. Subsequent evaluation of 20 leading models reveals substantial room for improvement, with top scores of only 0.39 (Finance) and 0.37 (Legal) on our Hard subsets. We further catalog associated economic impacts of the prompts and analyze performance using human-annotated rubric categories. Our analysis shows that models with similar overall scores can diverge significantly on specific capabilities. Common failure modes include inaccurate judgments, a lack of process transparency and incomplete reasoning, highlighting critical gaps in their reliability for professional adoption.

The rapid proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) and diverse specialized benchmarks necessitates a shift from fragmented, task-specific metrics to a holistic, competitive ranking system that effectively aggregates performance across multiple ability dimensions. Primarily using static scoring, current evaluation methods are fundamentally limited. They struggle to determine the proper mix ratio across diverse benchmarks, and critically, they fail to capture a model's dynamic competitive fitness or its vulnerability when confronted with sequential, high-stakes tasks. To address this, we introduce the novel Competitive Swiss-System Dynamics (CSD) framework. CSD simulates a multi-round, sequential contest where models are dynamically paired across a curated sequence of benchmarks based on their accumulated win-loss record. And Monte Carlo Simulation (N=100,000 iterations) is used to approximate the statistically robust Expected Win Score (E[S_m]), which eliminates the noise of random pairing and early-round luck. Furthermore, we implement a Failure Sensitivity Analysis by parameterizing the per-round elimination quantity (T_k), which allows us to profile models based on their risk appetite--distinguishing between robust generalists and aggressive specialists. We demonstrate that CSD provides a more nuanced and context-aware ranking than traditional aggregate scoring and static pairwise models, representing a vital step towards risk-informed, next-generation LLM evaluation.

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.)

The foundational pretraining phase determines a model's capability ceiling, as post-training struggles to overcome capability foundations established during pretraining, yet it remains critically under-explored. This stems from a structural paradox: organizations with computational resources operate under commercial pressures that inhibit transparent disclosure, while academic institutions possess research freedom but lack pretraining-scale computational resources. daVinci-LLM occupies this unexplored intersection, combining industrial-scale resources with full research freedom to advance the science of pretraining. We adopt a fully-open paradigm that treats openness as scientific methodology, releasing complete data processing pipelines, full training processes, and systematic exploration results. Recognizing that the field lacks systematic methodology for data processing, we employ the Data Darwinism framework, a principled L0-L9 taxonomy from filtering to synthesis. We train a 3B-parameter model from random initialization across 8T tokens using a two-stage adaptive curriculum that progressively shifts from foundational capabilities to reasoning-intensive enhancement. Through 200+ controlled ablations, we establish that: processing depth systematically enhances capabilities, establishing it as a critical dimension alongside volume scaling; different domains exhibit distinct saturation dynamics, necessitating adaptive strategies from proportion adjustments to format shifts; compositional balance enables targeted intensification while preventing performance collapse; how evaluation protocol choices shape our understanding of pretraining progress. By releasing the complete exploration process, we enable the community to build upon our findings and systematic methodologies to form accumulative scientific knowledge in pretraining.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in accelerating the scientific research pipeline. A key capability for this process is the ability to generate novel research ideas, and prior studies have found settings in which LLM-generated research ideas were judged as more novel than human-expert ideas. However, a good idea should not simply appear to be novel, it should also result in better research after being executed. To test whether AI-generated ideas lead to better research outcomes, we conduct an execution study by recruiting 43 expert researchers to execute randomly-assigned ideas, either written by experts or generated by an LLM. Each expert spent over 100 hours implementing the idea and wrote a 4-page short paper to document the experiments. All the executed projects are then reviewed blindly by expert NLP researchers. Comparing the review scores of the same ideas before and after execution, the scores of the LLM-generated ideas decrease significantly more than expert-written ideas on all evaluation metrics (novelty, excitement, effectiveness, and overall; p < 0.05), closing the gap between LLM and human ideas observed at the ideation stage. When comparing the aggregated review scores from the execution study, we even observe that for many metrics there is a flip in rankings where human ideas score higher than LLM ideas. This ideation-execution gap highlights the limitations of current LLMs in generating truly effective research ideas and the challenge of evaluating research ideas in the absence of execution outcomes.

Reinforcement learning (RL) systems have countless applications, from energy-grid management to protein design. However, such real-world scenarios are often extremely difficult, combinatorial in nature, and require complex coordination between multiple agents. This level of complexity can cause even state-of-the-art RL systems, trained until convergence, to hit a performance ceiling which they are unable to break out of with zero-shot inference. Meanwhile, many digital or simulation-based applications allow for an inference phase that utilises a specific time and compute budget to explore multiple attempts before outputting a final solution. In this work, we show that such an inference phase employed at execution time, and the choice of a corresponding inference strategy, are key to breaking the performance ceiling observed in complex multi-agent RL problems. Our main result is striking: we can obtain up to a 126% and, on average, a 45% improvement over the previous state-of-the-art across 17 tasks, using only a couple seconds of extra wall-clock time during execution. We also demonstrate promising compute scaling properties, supported by over 60k experiments, making it the largest study on inference strategies for complex RL to date. Our experimental data and code are available at https://sites.google.com/view/inf-marl.

Recent advances in mixture-of-experts architectures have shown that individual experts models can be trained federatedly, i.e., in isolation from other experts by using a common base model to facilitate coordination. However, we hypothesize that full-sized experts may not be necessary for all domains and that instead low-rank adapters may be sufficient. Here, we introduce FlexMoRE, a Flexible Mixture of Rank-heterogenous Experts, which may be either full-sized experts or adapters of a suitable rank. We systematically investigate the trade-off between expert rank and downstream task performance by evaluating 6 experts with ranks 2^0 to 2^{14} resulting in experiments covering 150 mixtures (96 with 2 experts, 54 with 7 experts) that are evaluated across 120 tasks. For our experiments, we build on FlexOlmo and turn its pre-trained experts into low-rank versions. Our regression analysis from expert rank to downstream task performance reveals that the best-performing rank is substantially higher for reasoning-heavy benchmarks than for knowledge-heavy benchmarks. These findings on rank sensitivity come with direct implications for memory efficiency: Using optimal ranks, FlexMoRE yields improved downstream task performance (average score 47.18) compared to the baseline FlexOlmo-style mixture of full-sized experts (average score 45.46) at less than one third the parameters (10.75B for FlexMoRE vs. 33.27B for FlexOlmo). All code will be made available.

In this position paper, we argue that human baselines in foundation model evaluations must be more rigorous and more transparent to enable meaningful comparisons of human vs. AI performance, and we provide recommendations and a reporting checklist towards this end. Human performance baselines are vital for the machine learning community, downstream users, and policymakers to interpret AI evaluations. Models are often claimed to achieve "super-human" performance, but existing baselining methods are neither sufficiently rigorous nor sufficiently well-documented to robustly measure and assess performance differences. Based on a meta-review of the measurement theory and AI evaluation literatures, we derive a framework with recommendations for designing, executing, and reporting human baselines. We synthesize our recommendations into a checklist that we use to systematically review 115 human baselines (studies) in foundation model evaluations and thus identify shortcomings in existing baselining methods; our checklist can also assist researchers in conducting human baselines and reporting results. We hope our work can advance more rigorous AI evaluation practices that can better serve both the research community and policymakers. Data is available at: https://github.com/kevinlwei/human-baselines

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.

We introduce the AI Productivity Index for Software Engineering (APEX-SWE), a benchmark for assessing whether frontier AI models can execute economically valuable software engineering work. Unlike existing evaluations that focus on narrow, well-defined tasks, APEX-SWE assesses two novel task types that reflect real-world software engineering: (1) Integration tasks (n=100), which require constructing end-to-end systems across heterogeneous cloud primitives, business applications, and infrastructure-as-code services, and (2) Observability tasks (n=100), which require debugging production failures using telemetry signals such as logs and dashboards, as well as unstructured context. We evaluated eleven frontier models for the APEX-SWE leaderboard. Claude Opus 4.6 leads the APEX-SWE leaderboard with 40.5% Pass@1, followed by Claude Opus 4.5 at 38.7%. Our analysis shows that strong performance is primarily driven by epistemic discipline, defined as the capacity to distinguish between assumptions and verified facts. It is often combined with systematic verification prior to acting. We open-source the APEX-SWE evaluation harness and a dev set (n=50).

In Brazil, all legal professionals must demonstrate their knowledge of the law and its application by passing the OAB exams, the national bar exams. The OAB exams therefore provide an excellent benchmark for the performance of legal information systems since passing the exam would arguably signal that the system has acquired capacity of legal reasoning comparable to that of a human lawyer. This article describes the construction of a new data set and some preliminary experiments on it, treating the problem of finding the justification for the answers to questions. The results provide a baseline performance measure against which to evaluate future improvements. We discuss the reasons to the poor performance and propose next steps.

Comprehensively understanding and accurately predicting the performance of large language models across diverse downstream tasks has emerged as a pivotal challenge in NLP research. The pioneering scaling law on downstream works demonstrated intrinsic similarities within model families and utilized such similarities for performance prediction. However, they tend to overlook the similarities between model families and only consider design factors listed in the original scaling law. To overcome these limitations, we introduce a novel framework, Collaborative Performance Prediction (CPP), which significantly enhances prediction accuracy by leveraging the historical performance of various models on downstream tasks and other design factors for both model and task. We also collect a collaborative data sourced from online platforms containing both historical performance and additional design factors. With the support of the collaborative data, CPP not only surpasses traditional scaling laws in predicting the performance of scaled LLMs but also facilitates a detailed analysis of factor importance, an area previously overlooked.

Verbal confidence elicitation is widely used to extract uncertainty estimates from LLMs. We tested whether seven instruction-tuned open-weight models (3-9B parameters, four families) produce verbalised confidence that meets minimal validity criteria for item-level Type-2 discrimination under minimal numeric elicitation with greedy decoding. In a pre-registered study (OSF: osf.io/azbvx), 524 TriviaQA items were administered under numeric (0-100) and categorical (10-class) elicitation to eight models at Q5_K_M quantisation on consumer hardware, yielding 8,384 deterministic trials. A psychometric validity screen was applied to each model-format cell. All seven instruct models were classified Invalid on numeric confidence (H2 confirmed, 7/7 vs. predicted >=4/7), with a mean ceiling rate of 91.7% (H1 confirmed). Categorical elicitation did not rescue validity. Instead, it disrupted task performance in six of seven models, producing accuracy below 5% (H4 not confirmed). Token-level logprobability did not usefully predict verbalised confidence under the observed variance regime (H5 confirmed, mean cross-validated R^2 < 0.01). Within the reasoning-distilled model, reasoning-trace length showed a strong negative partial correlation with confidence (rho = -0.36, p < .001), consistent with the Reasoning Contamination Effect. These results do not imply that internal uncertainty representations are absent. They show that minimal verbal elicitation fails to preserve internal signals at the output interface in this model-size regime. Psychometric screening should precede any downstream use of such signals.

Many platforms on the web present ranked lists of content to users, typically optimized for engagement-, satisfaction- or retention- driven metrics. Advances in the Learning-to-Rank (LTR) research literature have enabled rapid growth in this application area. Several popular interfaces now include nested lists, where users can enter a 2nd-level feed via any given 1st-level item. Naturally, this has implications for evaluation metrics, objective functions, and the ranking policies we wish to learn. We propose a theoretically grounded method to incorporate 2nd-level feedback into any 1st-level ranking model. Online experiments on a large-scale recommendation system confirm our theoretical findings.

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.

What makes a good Large Language Model (LLM)? That it performs well on the relevant benchmarks -- which hopefully measure, with some validity, the presence of capabilities that are also challenged in real application. But what makes the model perform well? What gives a model its abilities? We take a recently introduced type of benchmark that is meant to challenge capabilities in a goal-directed, agentive context through self-play of conversational games, and analyse how performance develops as a function of model characteristics like number of parameters, or type of training. We find that while there is a clear relationship between number of parameters and performance, there is still a wide spread of performance points within a given size bracket, which is to be accounted for by training parameters such as fine-tuning data quality and method. From a more practical angle, we also find a certain degree of unpredictability about performance across access methods, possible due to unexposed sampling parameters, and a, very welcome, performance stability against at least moderate weight quantisation during inference.

Reflecting the recent rise in Japanese basketball's competitiveness and pivotal outcomes in international tournaments, clutch-time performance has become increasingly critical. We examine clutch-time performance in Japan's B.League using play-by-play and box-score data from the 2023-24 season. Defining clutch time as the final five minutes with a score margin within five points, we compare efficiency and shot selection between clutch and non-clutch windows. We focus on effective field-goal percentage (eFG%) by spatial category, including In the Paint, Mid-Range, and 3-Point, and investigate league-wide and team-level trends. We further profile player archetypes in clutch minutes via K-means clustering on filtered box-score features. Results show that paint touches and clean three-point looks remain comparatively efficient under pressure, whereas mid-range outcomes are more context-dependent. Championship games exhibit tighter defense and scouting, moderating three-point accuracy for many teams. Our findings highlight the need for tactical flexibility, balancing efficient shot selection with adaptive counters to defensive pressure. We discuss strategic implications for late-game play-calling, spacing, and lineup choices, and outline limitations and future directions.

We introduce the first version of KWBench (Knowledge Work Bench), a benchmark for unprompted problem recognition in large language models: can an LLM identify a professional scenario before attempting to solve it. Existing frontier benchmarks have saturated, and most knowledge-work evaluations to date reduce to extraction or task completion against a specification. KWBench targets the step before that: recognizing the governing structure of the situation from raw inputs alone. The benchmark contains 223 tasks sourced from practitioners across acquisitions, contract negotiations, clinical pharmacy, organizational politics, fraud analysis, and incentive design. Each task encodes a formal game-theoretic pattern (principal-agent conflict, signaling, mechanism design failure, strategic omission, coalitional dynamics, strategic interdependence) and carries structured ground truth recording the expert reading of the situation and the anticipated failure modes. Models receive raw data and a task prompt with no indication of problem type. Scoring is a three-tier rubric gated by a mandatory conjunctive check. Mandatory criteria encode the predicted wrong paths. We evaluate 16 models. The best model passes on 27.9% of tasks. The top two models agree on only 31.7% of their passes. Among the top 8, 44 tasks are solved by exactly one model; routing across the top 8 covers 50.7% of the benchmark, nearly double the best single model. Conditional on passing, quality scores converge (approx 83% across models); unconditional scores do not. Same models articulate the relevant game-theoretic concept correctly when asked, then fail to apply it unprompted. We release KWBench to shift how frontier models are evaluated on knowledge work, scoring them on whether they recognize the right problem from the situation alone, not only on how well they execute once the problem has been framed for them.

The Growth-at-Risk (GaR) framework has garnered attention in recent econometric literature, yet current approaches implicitly assume a constant Pareto exponent. We introduce novel and robust econometrics to estimate the tails of GaR based on a rigorous theoretical framework and establish validity and effectiveness. Simulations demonstrate consistent outperformance relative to existing alternatives in terms of predictive accuracy. We perform a long-term GaR analysis that provides accurate and insightful predictions, effectively capturing financial anomalies better than current methods.

Accelerating scientific discovery requires the identification of which experiments would yield the best outcomes before committing resources to costly physical validation. While existing benchmarks evaluate LLMs on scientific knowledge and reasoning, their ability to predict experimental outcomes - a task where AI could significantly exceed human capabilities - remains largely underexplored. We introduce SciPredict, a benchmark comprising 405 tasks derived from recent empirical studies in 33 specialized sub-fields of physics, biology, and chemistry. SciPredict addresses two critical questions: (a) can LLMs predict the outcome of scientific experiments with sufficient accuracy? and (b) can such predictions be reliably used in the scientific research process? Evaluations reveal fundamental limitations on both fronts. Model accuracies are 14-26% and human expert performance is approx20%. Although some frontier models exceed human performance model accuracy is still far below what would enable reliable experimental guidance. Even within the limited performance, models fail to distinguish reliable predictions from unreliable ones, achieving only approx20% accuracy regardless of their confidence or whether they judge outcomes as predictable without physical experimentation. Human experts, in contrast, demonstrate strong calibration: their accuracy increases from approx5% to approx80% as they deem outcomes more predictable without conducting the experiment. SciPredict establishes a rigorous framework demonstrating that superhuman performance in experimental science requires not just better predictions, but better awareness of prediction reliability. For reproducibility all our data and code are provided at https://github.com/scaleapi/scipredict

The scientific scale-up of large language models (LLMs) necessitates a comprehensive understanding of their scaling properties. However, the existing literature on the scaling properties only yields an incomplete answer: optimization loss decreases predictably as the model size increases, in line with established scaling law; yet no scaling law for task has been established and the task performances are far from predictable during scaling. Task performances typically show minor gains on small models until they improve dramatically once models exceed a size threshold, exemplifying the ``emergent abilities''. In this study, we discover that small models, although they exhibit minor performance, demonstrate critical and consistent task performance improvements that are not captured by conventional evaluation strategies due to insufficient measurement resolution. To measure such improvements, we introduce PassUntil, an evaluation strategy through massive sampling in the decoding phase. We conduct quantitative investigations into the scaling law of task performance. Firstly, a strict task scaling law is identified, enhancing the predictability of task performances. Remarkably, we are able to predict the performance of the 2.4B model on code generation with merely 0.05\% deviation before training starts. Secondly, underpinned by PassUntil, we observe concrete evidence of emergent abilities and ascertain that they are not in conflict with the continuity of performance improvement. Their semblance to break-through is that their scaling curve cannot be fitted by standard scaling law function. We then introduce a mathematical definition for the emergent abilities. Through the definition, we refute a prevalent ``multi-step reasoning hypothesis'' regarding the genesis of emergent abilities and propose a new hypothesis with a satisfying fit to the observed scaling curve.

Comparing human and model performance offers a valuable perspective for understanding the strengths and limitations of embedding models, highlighting where they succeed and where they fail to capture meaning and nuance. However, such comparisons are rarely made, as human performance on embedding tasks is difficult to measure. To fill this gap, we introduce HUME: Human Evaluation Framework for Text Embeddings. While frameworks like MTEB provide broad model evaluation, they lack reliable estimates of human performance, limiting the interpretability of model scores. We measure human performance across 16 MTEB datasets spanning reranking, classification, clustering, and semantic textual similarity across linguistically diverse high- and low-resource languages. Humans achieve an average performance of 77.6% compared to 80.1% for the best embedding model, although variation is substantial: models reach near-ceiling performance on some datasets while struggling on others, suggesting dataset issues and revealing shortcomings in low-resource languages. We provide human performance baselines, insight into task difficulty patterns, and an extensible evaluation framework that enables a more meaningful interpretation of the model and informs the development of both models and benchmarks. Our code, dataset, and leaderboard are publicly available at https://github.com/embeddings-benchmark/mteb.

We introduce HRMCR (HAE-RAE Multi-Step Commonsense Reasoning), a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models' ability to perform multi-step reasoning in culturally specific contexts, focusing on Korean. The questions are automatically generated via templates and algorithms, requiring LLMs to integrate Korean cultural knowledge into sequential reasoning steps. Consistent with prior observations on emergent abilities, our experiments reveal that models trained on fewer than \(2 \cdot 10^{25}\) training FLOPs struggle to solve any questions, showing near-zero performance. Beyond this threshold, performance improves sharply. State-of-the-art models (e.g., O1) still score under 50\%, underscoring the difficulty of our tasks. Notably, stepwise analysis suggests the observed emergent behavior may stem from compounding errors across multiple steps rather than reflecting a genuinely new capability. We publicly release the benchmark and commit to regularly updating the dataset to prevent contamination.

Current agentic AI benchmarks predominantly evaluate task completion accuracy, while overlooking critical enterprise requirements such as cost-efficiency, reliability, and operational stability. Through systematic analysis of 12 main benchmarks and empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art agents, we identify three fundamental limitations: (1) absence of cost-controlled evaluation leading to 50x cost variations for similar precision, (2) inadequate reliability assessment where agent performance drops from 60\% (single run) to 25\% (8-run consistency), and (3) missing multidimensional metrics for security, latency, and policy compliance. We propose CLEAR (Cost, Latency, Efficacy, Assurance, Reliability), a holistic evaluation framework specifically designed for enterprise deployment. Evaluation of six leading agents on 300 enterprise tasks demonstrates that optimizing for accuracy alone yields agents 4.4-10.8x more expensive than cost-aware alternatives with comparable performance. Expert evaluation (N=15) confirms that CLEAR better predicts production success (correlation ρ=0.83) compared to accuracy-only evaluation (ρ=0.41).

We present an extended version of the AI Productivity Index (APEX-v1-extended), a benchmark for assessing whether frontier models are capable of performing economically valuable tasks in four jobs: investment banking associate, management consultant, big law associate, and primary care physician (MD). This technical report details the extensions to APEX-v1, including an increase in the held-out evaluation set from n = 50 to n = 100 cases per job (n = 400 total) and updates to the grading methodology. We present a new leaderboard, where GPT5 (Thinking = High) remains the top performing model with a score of 67.0%. APEX-v1-extended shows that frontier models still have substantial limitations when performing typical professional tasks. To support further research, we are open sourcing n = 25 non-benchmark example cases per role (n = 100 total) along with our evaluation harness.

Deep research -- producing comprehensive, citation-grounded reports by searching and synthesizing information from hundreds of live web sources -- marks an important frontier for agentic systems. To rigorously evaluate this ability, four principles are essential: tasks should be (1) user-centric, reflecting realistic information needs, (2) dynamic, requiring up-to-date information beyond parametric knowledge, (3) unambiguous, ensuring consistent interpretation across users, and (4) multi-faceted and search-intensive, requiring search over numerous web sources and in-depth analysis. Existing benchmarks fall short of these principles, often focusing on narrow domains or posing ambiguous questions that hinder fair comparison. Guided by these principles, we introduce LiveResearchBench, a benchmark of 100 expert-curated tasks spanning daily life, enterprise, and academia, each requiring extensive, dynamic, real-time web search and synthesis. Built with over 1,500 hours of human labor, LiveResearchBench provides a rigorous basis for systematic evaluation. To evaluate citation-grounded long-form reports, we introduce DeepEval, a comprehensive suite covering both content- and report-level quality, including coverage, presentation, citation accuracy and association, consistency and depth of analysis. DeepEval integrates four complementary evaluation protocols, each designed to ensure stable assessment and high agreement with human judgments. Using LiveResearchBench and DeepEval, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 17 frontier deep research systems, including single-agent web search, single-agent deep research, and multi-agent systems. Our analysis reveals current strengths, recurring failure modes, and key system components needed to advance reliable, insightful deep research.

Progress in large language models is constrained by an evaluation bottleneck: build a benchmark, evaluate models and settings, then iterate. We therefore ask a simple question: can we forecast outcomes before running any experiments? We study text-only performance forecasting: estimating a model's score from a redacted task description and intended configuration, with no access to dataset instances. To support systematic study, we curate PRECOG, a corpus of redacted description-performance pairs spanning diverse tasks, domains, and metrics. Experiments show the task is challenging but feasible: models equipped with a retrieval module that excludes source papers achieve moderate prediction performance with well-calibrated uncertainty, reaching mean absolute error as low as 8.7 on the Accuracy subset at high-confidence thresholds. Our analysis indicates that stronger reasoning models engage in diverse, iterative querying, whereas current open-source models lag and often skip retrieval or gather evidence with limited diversity. We further test a zero-leakage setting, forecasting on newly released datasets or experiments before their papers are indexed, where GPT-5 with built-in web search still attains nontrivial prediction accuracy. Overall, our corpus and analyses offer an initial step toward open-ended anticipatory evaluation, supporting difficulty estimation and smarter experiment prioritization.

As language models (LMs) are increasingly adopted across domains, high-quality benchmarking frameworks that accurately estimate performance are essential for guiding deployment decisions. While frameworks such as Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM) enable broad evaluation across tasks, they often rely on fixed prompts that fail to generalize across LMs, yielding unrepresentative performance estimates. Unless we approximate each LM's ceiling (maximum achievable via changes to the prompt), we risk underestimating performance. Declarative prompting frameworks, such as DSPy, offer a scalable alternative to manual prompt engineering by crafting structured prompts that can be optimized per task. However, such frameworks have not been systematically evaluated across established benchmarks. We present a reproducible DSPy+HELM framework that introduces structured prompting methods which elicit reasoning, enabling more accurate LM benchmarking. Using four prompting methods, we evaluate four frontier LMs across seven benchmarks (general/medical domain) against existing HELM baseline scores. We find that without structured prompting: (i) HELM underestimates LM performance (by 4% average), (ii) performance estimates vary more across benchmarks (+2% standard deviation), (iii) performance gaps are misrepresented (leaderboard rankings flip on 3/7 benchmarks), and (iv) introducing chain-of-thought reduces LM sensitivity to prompt design (smaller Δ across prompts). To our knowledge, this is the first benchmarking study to systematically integrate structured prompting into an established evaluation framework, demonstrating how scalable performance-ceiling approximation yields more robust, decision-useful benchmarks. We open-source (i) DSPy+HELM Integration (https://github.com/stanford-crfm/helm/pull/3893) and (ii) Prompt Optimization Pipeline (https://github.com/StanfordMIMI/dspy-helm).

Language model (LM) benchmarking faces several challenges: comprehensive evaluations are costly, benchmarks often fail to measure the intended capabilities, and evaluation quality can degrade due to labeling errors and benchmark saturation. Although various strategies have been proposed to mitigate these issues, they tend to address individual aspects in isolation, neglecting broader questions about overall evaluation quality. Here, we introduce Fluid Benchmarking, a new evaluation approach that advances LM benchmarking across multiple dimensions. Inspired by psychometrics, Fluid Benchmarking is based on the insight that the relative value of benchmark items depends on an LM's capability level, suggesting that evaluation should adapt to each LM. Methodologically, Fluid Benchmarking estimates an item response model based on existing LM evaluation results and uses the inferred quantities to select evaluation items dynamically, similar to computerized adaptive testing in education. In our experiments, we compare Fluid Benchmarking against the common practice of random item sampling as well as more sophisticated baselines, including alternative methods grounded in item response theory. We examine four dimensions -- efficiency, validity, variance, and saturation -- and find that Fluid Benchmarking achieves superior performance in all of them (e.g., higher validity and less variance on MMLU with fifty times fewer items). Our analysis shows that the two components of Fluid Benchmarking have distinct effects: item response theory, used to map performance into a latent ability space, increases validity, while dynamic item selection reduces variance. Overall, our results suggest that LM benchmarking can be substantially improved by moving beyond static evaluation.

Language-model agents are increasingly used as persistent coworkers that assist users across multiple working days. During such workflows, the surrounding environment may change independently of the agent: new emails arrive, calendar entries shift, knowledge-base records are updated, and evidence appears across images, scanned PDFs, audio, video, and spreadsheets. Existing benchmarks do not adequately evaluate this setting because they typically run within a single static episode and remain largely text-centric. We introduce , a benchmark for coworker agents built around multi-turn multi-day tasks, a stateful sandboxed service environment whose state evolves between turns, and rule-based verification. The current release contains 100 tasks across 13 professional scenarios, executed against five stateful sandboxed services (filesystem, email, calendar, knowledge base, spreadsheet) and scored by 1537 deterministic Python checkers over post-execution service state; no LLM-as-judge is invoked during scoring. We benchmark seven frontier agent systems. The strongest model reaches 75.8 weighted score, but the best strict Task Success is only 20.0\%, indicating that partial progress is common while complete end-to-end workflow completion remains rare. Turn-level analysis shows that performance drops after the first exogenous environment update, highlighting adaptation to changing state as a key open challenge. We release the benchmark, evaluation harness, and construction pipeline to support reproducible coworker-agent evaluation.

Benchmarks shape scientific conclusions about model capabilities and steer model development. This creates a feedback loop: stronger benchmarks drive better models, and better models demand more discriminative benchmarks. Ensuring benchmark reliability is therefore essential for trustworthy evaluation and meaningful progress. In this work, we study benchmark reliability from a distributional perspective and introduce benchmark harmony, which measures how uniformly a model's performance is distributed across the subdomains of a benchmark. We posit that high harmony is a desirable benchmark property, indicating that the aggregate metric reflects uniform competence across subdomains. Across 19 multiple-choice benchmarks and five model families, we map each benchmark onto a mean-variance plane of harmony computed across models, where high mean and low variance signal more reliable evaluation. Our analysis shows that less harmonious benchmarks can give misleading results, since overall accuracy may be disproportionately influenced by specific subdomains. For instance, ARC-Easy is overwhelmed by questions on Biological Concepts, overshadowing other critical subdomains such as Geography, Physics, Chemistry, and Environmental Science. By recommending that harmony should be reported alongside accuracy, we reframe evaluation from simple performance averages to a more robust, distributionally reliable measurement of performance.

Deep reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms are predominantly evaluated by comparing their relative performance on a large suite of tasks. Most published results on deep RL benchmarks compare point estimates of aggregate performance such as mean and median scores across tasks, ignoring the statistical uncertainty implied by the use of a finite number of training runs. Beginning with the Arcade Learning Environment (ALE), the shift towards computationally-demanding benchmarks has led to the practice of evaluating only a small number of runs per task, exacerbating the statistical uncertainty in point estimates. In this paper, we argue that reliable evaluation in the few run deep RL regime cannot ignore the uncertainty in results without running the risk of slowing down progress in the field. We illustrate this point using a case study on the Atari 100k benchmark, where we find substantial discrepancies between conclusions drawn from point estimates alone versus a more thorough statistical analysis. With the aim of increasing the field's confidence in reported results with a handful of runs, we advocate for reporting interval estimates of aggregate performance and propose performance profiles to account for the variability in results, as well as present more robust and efficient aggregate metrics, such as interquartile mean scores, to achieve small uncertainty in results. Using such statistical tools, we scrutinize performance evaluations of existing algorithms on other widely used RL benchmarks including the ALE, Procgen, and the DeepMind Control Suite, again revealing discrepancies in prior comparisons. Our findings call for a change in how we evaluate performance in deep RL, for which we present a more rigorous evaluation methodology, accompanied with an open-source library rliable, to prevent unreliable results from stagnating the field.

LLM-judged benchmarks are increasingly used to evaluate complex model behaviors, yet their design introduces failure modes absent in conventional ground-truth based benchmarks. We argue that without tight objectives and verifiable constructions, benchmark rankings can produce high-confidence rankings that are in fact largely noise. We introduce two mechanisms to diagnose these issues. Schematic adherence quantifies how much of a judge's overall verdict is explained by the explicit evaluation schema, revealing unexplained variance when judges deviate from their own rubric. Psychometric validity aggregates internal consistency and discriminant validity signals to quantify irreducible uncertainty in any benchmarking run. Applying these tools to Arena-Hard Auto, we find severe schema incoherence and factor collapse across popular judges: for example, unexplained variance exceeding 90 percent for DeepSeek-R1-32B and factor correlations above 0.93 for most criteria. We also show that the ELO-style aggregation used by Arena-Hard Auto collapses and masks genuine ranking uncertainty. Our results highlight design failures that undermine validity and offer actionable principles for building better-scoped, reliability-aware LLM-judged benchmarks. We release our code at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/judgment-to-noise-947D/README.md