DelistBench: Evaluating Search-Enabled LLMs for Auditable Corporate-Event Database Completion

We present a fully automated multi-agent framework for corporate due diligence and market analysis in venture capital. The system runs on an event-driven orchestration architecture, combining Large Language Models (LLMs) with real-time web retrieval to synthesize unstructured data into structured investment intelligence. A central technical contribution is a programmatic extraction pipeline that reverse-engineers the frontend-to-backend communication of the Greek Business Registry ($Γ$.E.MH.), querying dynamic endpoints to retrieve official financial filings that are then parsed using a layout-aware OCR extractor. A structural fallback mechanism explicitly flags data absence rather than generating unverified figures, directly targeting hallucination in financial contexts. All workflow artifacts are publicly available to support replication.

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 leak parametric knowledge of what followed a historical date into decision tasks indexed by that date -- not necessarily a lookup of the realized outcome, but knowledge of the period all the same. Existence is settled; what users lack is a cheap way to audit a given model. We present HindsightBench, a black-box audit protocol that profiles parametric hindsight in any time-indexed LLM decision task at probe-level cost (no backtests, no logprobs, no corpus access). It chains a four-arm date-manipulation matrix (revealed/date-only/masked/transplanted), dual memory probes (date recovery; outcome recall), and six metrics -- trigger strength, transplant effect, post-cutoff placebo, recoverability, behaviorally effective cutoff, and recall-accuracy dissociation -- with explicit gates where identifiability is data-dependent. Applied to 15 models from seven vendors on a 258-node vintage-correct macro panel, it yields three patterns: (i) the date-trigger reflex is not a scale phenomenon -- it tracks training recency, though what installs it is not identified here: absent across every 2024 open-weight row where it is measurable, including a 70B tier with cutoff-aligned recall propensity, present in every tested 2026-generation model, and switching on within one vendor lineage (Qwen3 -> Qwen3.6) in the same MoE family at ~3B active; (ii) effective cutoffs span 22 months across vendors and precede vendor-reported dates by up to eight months, invalidating calendar-window placebos; (iii) results are not invariant to serving -- BF16 serving of an FP8-referenced model breaks the trigger estimate's stability while AWQ-INT4 preserves it, and a provider-locked reasoning regime makes one probe non-convergent -- so the protocol pins quantization and thinking regime as part of its contract. We release the panel, preregistrations, audit rows, transcripts, and one-command regeneration.