We introduce SWE-Serve, a benchmark for evaluating agents on production inference engineering tasks. Implementing an inference feature can require coordinating multiple changes across the serving stack, including model support, runtime execution, and public APIs. Existing benchmarks provide limited coverage of production inference engineering: repository-level software engineering benchmarks do not target inference, while general terminal-agent benchmarks include only a few inference tasks. Dedicated inference benchmarks, meanwhile, focus primarily on isolated kernel generation or performance optimization rather than repository-scale production feature implementation. SWE-Serve provides 53 repository-grounded tasks derived from recent production changes to SGLang, spanning six inference engineering families. Each task executes on either CPU or a single GPU (H100) and is evaluated with hidden functional and regression tests, including, where applicable, end-to-end (E2E) serving tests and calibrated performance gates. Executable no-op and oracle controls, adversarial verifier review, and closed-book execution support task validity and evaluation integrity. Across 11 models and 31 model-effort configurations, the best-performing configuration achieves 75% mean pass@1. SWE-Serve exposes a substantial gap between completing tasks locally and achieving production correctness. On 19 tasks with end-to-end coverage, model-serving E2E tests reject roughly one-third of patches that pass every other test (45.9% under the verifier versus 69.4% with E2E tests excluded from scoring), with pass rate increasing for each model's best-performing configuration. By making the production correctness gap directly measurable, SWE-Serve enables the field to track whether future agents move beyond completing tasks locally to achieving production correctness.
Large language model agents tune GPU kernels and serving engines through a closed loop of propose, measure, and keep, but the measurements behind this loop are not trustworthy. We characterize four failure modes from a four-day pilot corpus of 619 model calls: strawman baselines manufacture speedups, absolute times do not transfer across machines, saturated tasks nullify comparisons, and infrastructure defects impersonate science. We present AutoTuneBench, a benchmark and measurement protocol that makes trust architectural. The protocol is frozen as code with test-enforced provenance; a database-level validator rejects out-of-protocol results; anti-cheat checks run outside the agent's modification surface; comparisons follow pre-registered readouts; and measurements anchor to externally published results, grounded in paired-seed statistics with a 5% cross-run coefficient-of-variation cap. Honest measurement rewrites the headlines: our best kernel reads 10.6x against a naive baseline but 2.03x against the honest one; one configuration delivers 1.174x on one machine and 1.0049x on another; a pre-registered on/off comparison nulls at a shared wall (2.4840 vs 2.4957,ms); and the KernelBench Level-1 suite admits 51% of tasks with median speedup 1.0001x over PyTorch eager. The protocol, the two-engine corpus (vLLM and SGLang), and its audit trail are released as open artifacts.
DeepSWE is a benchmark of 113 original, long-horizon software engineering tasks for evaluating coding agents. Most public agentic coding benchmarks follow SWE-bench in mining merged fixes from public GitHub repositories, which creates two problems: the fixes and their discussion were likely seen during pretraining, so a high score can reflect recall rather than problem-solving; and each task is graded by the tests that shipped with its merged fix, which were written to confirm one specific fix rather than grade an arbitrary solution, so they can fail a correct alternative or pass an incomplete one. DeepSWE avoids both. Its tasks are written from scratch across 91 active open-source repositories and five languages and are never contributed back upstream, so their reference solutions stay out of the public record that model training scrapes; and each task is graded by a hand-written verifier that checks the requested functionality and accepts any implementation that provides it. When an independent LLM judge re-reviews graded runs, it disagrees with DeepSWE's verifier about an order of magnitude less often than with SWE-Bench Pro's inherited tests (1.4% versus 32.4%). Despite being about half the length of SWE-Bench Pro's prompts, DeepSWE's prompts describe tasks whose reference solutions touch 5.5x more code, and the benchmark separates frontier agents across a wider score band than the leaderboards on which they otherwise cluster. We release the benchmark, its verifiers, and the full record of evaluation trajectories.
Post-training is becoming a service (PTaaS): a customer hands an operator data and a goal, and a forward-deployed engineer (FDE) returns a fine-tuned, evaluated, and deployed model under a budget, a human-approval gate, and reproducibility requirements. Seating an LLM agent in the FDE seat raises a question existing benchmarks cannot answer: not whether an agent can raise a metric, but whether it can be trusted to deliver. We answer it on a governed delivery plane, where an agent drives ten stages and an oracle scores each stage from platform-recorded facts. The central silent failure is the run that trains but does not learn (TBDL): loss falls, every signal stays green, and the delivered model is no better than the base. An operator-run acceptance gate catches every such run before payment, and a detector calibrated on known-corrupted runs flags severe corruption mid-run. We ran four frontier agents (Claude Opus 5, GPT-5.6-luna, Gemini 3.7 Flash, DeepSeek V4-Pro) end to end on metered L40S, A100, and H200 GPUs across 8B to 70B open bases, certifying every scenario before scoring. We also ran a human FDE arm under the same oracle and compare every agent against it.