Benchmark Construction

Bug validation asks a coding agent to produce an executable witness for a reported bug. The witness combines a concrete input with a testing harness and exposes faulty behavior during execution. Such evidence makes audit findings actionable, yet benchmark evaluation is difficult when cases reuse public historical bugs and witnesses or require manual construction. We present WitnessGym, an automated framework for constructing bug-validation benchmarks through bug injection. It injects bugs into test-reached paths of real projects, rebuilds each project, and retains cases exposed by a construction-time witness. Bug specifications and execution adapters allow extension to additional bug types and languages. Bug-preserving transformations vary the surrounding structure while preserving the witness behavior. Based on real-world Java projects with test suites, WitnessGym automatically constructs 1,300 benchmark cases. The injected patches resemble historical bug patches and are difficult for the two evaluated models to distinguish in blinded comparisons. We evaluate four coding agent frameworks in six framework/model pairings across bug types, execution contexts, and transformation depths. Witness construction remains difficult even when the bug pattern is known. Our framework, benchmark cases, and evaluation scripts are available.

An agent can complete a task while exhibiting undesirable behavior during execution. Developers need tests for the specific behaviors encountered in deployment, beyond fixed benchmark suites. We present TraceDance, an agent system that constructs targeted benchmarks from deployment traces for user-specified undesirable behaviors. For efficient construction, Anchor-and-Confirm combines programmable retrieval with candidate-level confirmation by a Flash large language model (LLM), while the Anchor Synthesis Loop generates and revises specifications for custom behaviors. The benchmarks use decision-point continuation to evaluate an LLM's next turn at a recorded decision point with a behavior-specific rubric, without a reference answer or environment replay. Experiments in coding and general tool use draw on 252,557 sessions and produce 107 benchmarks with 4,125 instances, fulfilling 95.3% of build-target requests. Both human annotators confirm the requested behavior in 84% of sampled instances, and the automated grader's agreement with human pass/fail judgments is comparable to that between the annotators. Nine frontier LLMs achieve a mean pass rate of only 26.7%, showing that they still struggle to respond appropriately at the evaluated decision points. Analysis across behavior-specific benchmarks further reveals weaknesses in how current LLMs behave as agents. By turning deployment problems into targeted benchmarks, TraceDance could serve as a key component of the recursive self-improvement (RSI) loop.

Global building and settlement datasets increasingly support population mapping, exposure assessment, urban monitoring, and other analyses of the built environment, yet comparative evidence remains fragmented across products, geographic regions, reference datasets, spatial scales, and evaluation methods. We benchmark seven global or near-global products, including Overture Maps, Global Building Atlas, 3D-GloBFP, Google Open Buildings 2.5D Temporal (OBT), Microsoft TEMPO, GHSL, and WSF Tracker, against harmonized reference footprints across 135 study areas. The evaluation combines complementary measures of detection, geometric agreement, and aggregate quantity accuracy, together with stratified analyses of settlement characteristics and diagnostic experiments on error size and temporal alignment. Overture achieved the highest median city-level vector F1 (0.786). Raster rankings were resolution-dependent: OBT achieved the highest median F1 at 10m (0.642), whereas WSF Tracker led at 100m (0.862). However, WSF Tracker substantially overestimated built-up area, emphasizing that when using raster products, it is important for the user to understand whether the raster identifies only buildings or includes additional impervious surfaces. Raster accuracy increased consistently with building density (Spearman \r{ho} = 0.58-0.75), while small candidate buildings were disproportionately associated with false positives in the vector products. Temporally aligning WSF Tracker with reference imagery increased mean F1 by 0.060 (median +0.037), indicating that the reported accuracies are conservative in rapidly growing areas. The study establishes a reproducible benchmark for comparing heterogeneous global urban and settlement layer datasets across geographic and settlement contexts.

We introduce the Endless Exam, a benchmark spanning fourteen parameterised families of mathematical construction problems, with verifiable scores that distinguish progress before and beyond published mathematical frontiers. Each submitted object is checked automatically for validity and assigned a relative quality score against a published frontier or construction baseline, without capping improvements at 1. The benchmark draws long-term challenges from open mathematical problems and generates larger instances by varying their parameters. Compact certificates allow large constructions to be verified without listing every element. Across nine models evaluated on 69 distinct instances, continuous quality scores distinguish performance even though none of the 30 published-frontier references is surpassed. Size-quality curves show how construction quality changes as problem size increases. We release the generators, verifiers, references, model responses and analysis to support continued measurement before and beyond human frontiers.

Reliable agent evaluation is complicated by automatic harness optimization, which repeatedly uses a released benchmark $B_{\mathrm{rel}}$ to guide a Proposer that edits prompts, memory, retrieval, tools, and control code around a fixed foundation model. Task holdout is commonly used to guard against harness overfitting. It varies semantic tasks but leaves the benchmark protocol fixed, so a bad genius Proposer can produce a cheating harness whose improvement over the initial harness on $B_{\mathrm{rel}}$ depends on a benchmark-wide shortcut. We introduce Counterfactual Harness Search and Evolution (CHASE), which casts harness evolution as constraint generation over valid counterfactual benchmarks. After each Proposer update, a Challenger searches for an executable protocol transformation with large gain destruction. A validity firewall checks that task semantics are preserved, while a held-out confirmation set determines whether the counterfactual enters a finite archive. We formalize an ideal shortcut-neutralized benchmark $B_0$ and establish theoretical guarantees linking finite counterfactual archives to $B_0$ and characterizing sequential Challenger search. We evaluate CHASE on Syn-Ledger and OfficeQA, where CHASE retains strong released-benchmark gains while substantially reducing gain destruction under valid protocol transformations.

Adding answer options can lower multiple-choice scores without improving assessment validity. Turkish MMLU Pro examines this distinction using 12,000 Turkish-source questions across 58 sections. Each question retains its stem, five original options and source key, and receives five options copied from other questions in the same section. Sentence-embedding retrieval proposes candidates; a language model selects existing identifiers. Deterministic verification reconstructs all 60,000 additions. A 25-model calibration exposes scoring and generation-budget effects. Five evaluations produce source-key accuracies of 34.8%-81.4%. On 981 shared questions, one API-served model falls from 93.7% with five choices to 83.1% with ten; 102 of 115 lost correct responses select borrowed options. The decrease is 24.4 percentage points on heuristically flagged negative stems and 5.9 points elsewhere. A completed human-checked audit of 200 sampled questions, with undocumented reviewer tool use, yields 47 and 31 multiple-answer judgments across the two record sets, 25 of the latter unresolved. These records support concern about ambiguity, while their dependence and incomplete reviewer-method documentation limit validation. Because order and labels also change, the paired comparison measures augmentation as implemented. The contribution is a traceable construction and an analysis of its validity limits, not evidence that lower ten-choice scores measure knowledge better.

Agentic systems offer a promising way to automate embodied benchmark construction, but existing approaches typically cover isolated stages or remain specialized to predefined environments and task families. More importantly, multi-step construction produces dependent intermediate artifacts that are often passed downstream without artifact-specific verification, allowing local defects to propagate into the final benchmark. We present Embodied-BenchForge, an agentic framework that transforms user-specified evaluation intents into complete embodied benchmark artifacts. It formulates construction as Closed-Loop Benchmark Synthesis, integrating forward artifact synthesis with backward verification and repair. Skill-Orchestrated Artifact Synthesis composes typed and reusable skills into executable workflows, while an artifact dependency graph records intermediate outputs and their dependencies. Requirement-Guided Verification and Repair applies artifact-specific contracts throughout construction and uses provenance to trigger local re-execution or upstream rollback when verification fails. Embodied-BenchForge constructs six benchmarks covering diverse embodied scenarios in the Offline EQA Track, together with one interactive benchmark containing 220 executable tasks in the Interactive Embodied Track. Evaluations of representative MLLMs and embodied agents show that the benchmarks distinguish model capabilities in both observation-based understanding and closed-loop execution. Quality assessment and ablations validate benchmark quality and the effectiveness of verification and repair, while repair and skill-reuse analyses demonstrate efficient localized recovery and cross-benchmark reusability.

Although the impact resistance of concrete has been studied extensively, a framework linking mesoscale heterogeneity to full-field stress-tensor prediction has been lacking. Data were generated with a full-scale aggregate-resolved LS-DYNA model (projectile diameter 45 mm, mass 2.13 kg, target diameter 500 mm x thickness 200 mm, mesh 10 mm), verified against published penetration experiments (Frew 2006, Hanchak 1992, Forrestal 1996) by configuration similarity. The dataset contains six-component stress-tensor fields on the X-Z mid-plane for 400 cases (4 impact velocities x 100 aggregate seeds). Three contributions are reported. First, case-by-case verification of the terminal penetration state delimited the rest-state validity of penetration depth and anchored reliable observables to rigid-body motion and field-level stress evolution. Second, a field-level graph neural operator surrogate learned the time-varying stress-field evolution and evaluated cross-velocity leave-one-out extrapolation. Third, the full-scale, aggregate-resolved, cross-velocity, per-seed database was established as a reproducible resource. Cases at 100, 135 and 200 m/s still moved at window end (negative velocity, i.e. rebound), and only one 165 m/s case arrested. Penetration depth is therefore not reported as a rest-state scalar except for the single arrested case (69.33 mm); nose-node depth differences were confirmed as numerical artifacts of displacement integration after erosion. The single-step relative L2 error was 0.6977, reported honestly; autoregressive rollout from frame 11 to 39 took about 144 ms, a speedup of about 3.6x10^3 to 4.3x10^3 relative to single-core LS-DYNA, reported as application value. Validation is bounded by configuration similarity and field-level self-consistency; the framework is a simulation-trained decision-support method within the studied parameter space.

Every engineered fill is specified by a maximum dry density and an optimum moisture content. Each determination needs a full Proctor test. Published correlations rest on one to four hundred specimens, usually from one laboratory at one compactive energy, and are seldom released. This paper releases a corpus without those limits. It holds 2,854 laboratory compaction tests from six public sources, across 162 provenance groups and four Proctor energy levels, with fines from 1.5 to 100%. Every record is audited to the Proctor method its source names, and no energy is inferred. Screening on the zero-air-voids condition removed 11.8% of harmonised records, and 5.7% of those with a measured specific gravity. A material share of published compaction data is physically impossible. The optimum degree of saturation over the corpus is 0.815 at a coefficient of variation of 11%. That is a baseline, not a constant. Both parameters are then estimated from one classification suite and the compaction standard. A tabular foundation model reaches R2 0.824 for density and 0.784 for water content under random folds. It reaches 0.727 and 0.696 with folds drawn around provenance, and 0.520 and 0.614 with a whole source held out. Compactive energy is negligible marginally yet decisive conditionally. Density on the 66 modified-Proctor records is predicted at R2 0.740 with it and -0.651 without. Symbolic regression yields closed forms coupled through a phase relation. No predicted pair can then exceed the zero-air-voids line. The predictions are for screening, not acceptance.

Scientific benchmarks are commonly built by domain experts who write tasks and cross-check one another's work, or who adapt existing material from textbooks, published papers, and online resources. These routes can produce strong evaluations, but they require substantial per-item labor. Language models can reduce this repeated work by proposing candidates quickly. The remaining problem is acceptance. We target scientific questions whose answers require computations with specialist software rather than unaided reasoning alone. A candidate is invalid if its script fails or returns a different answer, or trivial if a model answers it without the software. We present ToolGate, which treats every generated item as a proposal and keeps it only if three gates pass. First, an executable solution script must reproduce the proposed answer when run with the scientific software. Second, randomized no-tool screening rejects candidates that models can already solve from the prompt alone. Third, a tool-using agent must solve each survivor within a fixed time limit. We instantiate ToolGate in FEniCSx with 500 generation attempts. The local-verification gate retains 478 candidates. For final reporting, we rescreen this pool after generation: two randomized no-tool screens exclude 222 from the reported pool, and direct GPT-5.5 API calls at medium reasoning (the API default) exclude another 121. Of the remaining 135, a GPT-5.5 Codex CLI agent with access to FEniCSx solves 130; exact deduplication leaves 128 unique protocol survivors. ToolGate turns repeated answer checking and difficulty screening into an auditable process while leaving domain design and final review to experts.

A CAD model is not engineering-grade merely because it looks correct. It must satisfy design requirements, respond predictably to parameter changes, support controlled edits, match a reference structural response under a declared analysis, and connect to other parts through valid joints. We present CADEngBench, a two-track benchmark for these capabilities. CADEngBench-P evaluates 300 parametric parts, each used for one zero-to-CAD task and one functional-editing task (600 tasks in total), through boundary-representation (B-Rep) validity, engineering and DFM checks, parameter-family perturbations, functional editing, and matched linear-static FEA in CalculiX. CADEngBench-A evaluates 150 body pairs through ranked joint retrieval, exact face-and-edge grounding, joint-frame prediction, and kinematic verification. Across eight multimodal, code-capable models, editing supplied CAD is substantially easier than generating it, while complex edits and matched FEA remain difficult. Assembly predictions often locate the relevant region but fail to recover the recorded joint or mating entities. These results show that CAD evaluation must test engineering behavior rather than appearance alone.

Accurate estimation of building energy use is essential for achieving carbon neutral and sustainable buildings. To better understand the influence of design decisions on building energy use and calibrate machine learning models that can give architects and engineers rapid design feedback, large-scale datasets are needed that explicitly map building geometry to performance. We present ArchEGraph, a large-scale benchmark dataset that represents buildings as heterogeneous graphs with aligned geometry, topology, weather, and zone-level thermal loads. The dataset contains 5,481 buildings and 49,326 validated building-weather simulation cases. In total, it includes over 133,000 space nodes and 1.44 million face nodes, reflecting substantial geometric and topological complexity. Based on ArchEGraph, we define two benchmark tasks: (i) graph reconstruction from polygonal meshes, aiming to recover topological structure from geometric representations; and (ii) topology-informed load prediction, which leverages graph structure and temporal weather conditions to forecast zone-level response time series. We further introduce standardized evaluation protocols for both tasks and conduct cross-building and cross-climate generalization experiments to assess model robustness. ArchEGraph provides a unified testbed for studying geometry-topology-physics coupling in building energy modeling, enabling the development and evaluation of scalable and generalizable surrogate models.

Coding-agent benchmarks increasingly cover long-horizon, end-to-end, and interactive development, but typically retain one requested outcome or a fixed change sequence. Sequential policies can process a pull-request (PR) queue one candidate at a time, but when queued PRs interact, maximizing safe delivery can require jointly deciding which changes to merge and in what order. We introduce BulkPR-Bench, an executable benchmark in which an agent must recover consequential PR relations and return a large safe subset in executable order under a rolling-release protocol. The suite contains 581 newly authored candidate PRs on frozen snapshots of 18 real repositories. Registered state-by-state repository execution, including hidden safety checks, validates the gold relation graph; an exact oracle then computes the largest safe subset. Our primary metric, Relational Delivery Score (RDS), scores safe delivery and correct rejection over relation groups from the realized merge trace; Global Safety-Gated Yield (Global-SGY) separately measures strict delivery of the realized whole-queue plan. Under the buffered primary protocol with batch size $K=32$, the three highest RDS estimates among the six models are 66.6%, 62.0%, and 57.9%, compared with 53.1% for the strongest sequential baseline. Only 8 of 324 model runs complete a queue exactly. Critical-relation recall ranges from 35.2% to 57.7%, and diagnostic runs supplied with the gold relations show substantial remaining headroom. Gains on relation groups therefore do not yet translate into dependable whole-queue governance.

Platform teams hosting agent-extensibility surfaces face a regression-economics paradox: every onboarding customer ships an evaluation set tuned to their domain, but the platform's regression set must live under a hard query-count ceiling bounded by release cadence. To our knowledge, no published industrial pipeline addresses this platform-side curation problem: existing evaluation frameworks are customer-side, and benchmark-compression work treats benchmarks as fixed pools rather than streams of incoming sets. We describe a capability-taxonomy-driven curation pipeline applied to declarative agents with custom actions in Microsoft 365 Copilot. It takes an agent specification and a customer's eval set as input, projects each query into a platform-owned capability taxonomy, and outputs per-query decisions (admit, drop, swap, or human review), under the philosophy that a healthy regression set is the minimal set of queries capturing the maximal spread of capability signatures -- distinct combinations of capabilities a query exercises together. Three components instantiate this: a classifier producing per-(query, capability) verdicts via a hybrid of deterministic specification-based extraction and large-language-model (LLM) semantic inference; an Invocation Quality (IQ) rater scoring how thoroughly a query exercises each capability, so a new query sharing a signature with an existing entry can still be recognized as a better test and displace it; and a consolidator comparing incoming queries against the regression set on coverage and quality through a rule-based decision cascade, backed by a conservative curator that only suggests evictions. The mechanism is taxonomy-agnostic and applies to any regression eval-set curation problem with a typed capability taxonomy, including taxonomies that evolve in response to the very evidence the pipeline surfaces.

Benchmark datasets are central to evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs), yet they are typically conceived as monolithic tasks, obscuring substantial variation in the demands of individual samples. We introduce a dataset-centric meta-evaluation framework that audits benchmark datasets at the sample level along five latent dimensions: 1. Cognitive and Knowledge Demands, 2. Language and Content Quality, 3. Task Properties, 4. Context, and 5. Ethics, Safety, and Fairness. Applying this framework, we annotate five influential benchmarks -- MMLU, ARC, WinoGrande, HellaSwag, and TruthfulQA -- revealing pronounced internal heterogeneity that is not captured by aggregate accuracy scores. We show how these annotations enable criterion-driven orchestration of composite benchmark subsets across datasets, supporting targeted evaluation of model capabilities such as Reasoning Depth or Ethical Sensitivity. This approach reframes benchmark evaluation as dataset introspection, providing a principled methodology for analyzing and re-composing existing benchmarks to better reflect diverse evaluation needs.

Construction-safety models must handle concrete deployment risks, such as a worker standing near a scaffold edge without guardrails, rather than only recognize common objects in curated images. Yet real inspection archives are redundant, long-tailed, and collected across changing sites and months. We introduce SafeBuild-Bench, a metadata-driven benchmark for evaluating multimodal large language models on construction safety under realistic temporal and site variation. It is mined from 100K+ industrial image-text records and contains 3,314 task instances from over 3,000 expert-verified images, covering multiple-choice hazard identification and free-form hazard description. To make expert verification scalable, we develop GEMS, a graph-enhanced multimodal selection pipeline that combines a proxy-model confusion signal with graph-based diversity to identify informative candidates from redundant streams. On public instruction-tuning data, GEMS-selected subsets preserve robustness-oriented performance under small data budgets. On SafeBuild-Bench, current MLLMs remain far from reliable construction-safety understanding, with the best overall score near 60. We release the benchmark, evaluation scripts, and GEMS codebase at https://github.com/safebuild/gems.

Quantum Architecture Search (QAS) automates the design of parameterized quantum circuits for variational quantum algorithms, yet existing benchmarks organize instances by molecular identity or qubit count -- criteria agnostic to Hamiltonian structure -- and rely solely on energy accuracy, which cannot detect structural failures such as over-parameterization on near-product ground states. We introduce HamQASBench, a Hamiltonian-informed diagnostic benchmark organizing 11 molecules into five structural tiers via fingerprints derived from the Pauli operator basis, computational basis representation, and ground-state entanglement. A post-hoc critical-structure extraction procedure identifies minimal circuits consistent with each tier's requirements, complementing energy-based evaluation with per-qubit entanglement analysis and pairwise state fidelity. Benchmarking five QAS methods across four paradigms reveals failure modes invisible to conventional metrics: over-parameterization in the minimalism regime, eigenstate commitment under degeneracy, a representation bottleneck in strongly correlated systems, topology-induced routing failure, and circuit search space growth as a scalability bottleneck.

Evaluation benchmarks are essential for assessing vision-language models (VLMs), but most multimodal benchmarks are static, making them vulnerable to temporal staleness, data contamination, and costly maintenance. We present MMBench-Live, a continuously evolving multimodal benchmark built by a multi-agent-driven automated pipeline. Our framework treats benchmark evolution as task-guided dataset construction, integrating structured benchmark specification, feedback-controlled real-time data acquisition, and verifiable QA generation with executable reasoning. To maintain cross-version comparability, we introduce a distribution-consistent update strategy that extracts task-related visual patterns from the original benchmark to guide data collection and filtering. Instantiated from MMBench, MMBench-Live contains 5.9K newly generated evaluation instances with a high answer correctness rate, while each update costs about USD 30 and takes 1-2 hours. Extensive evaluations show that MMBench-Live preserves stable model rankings, maintains semantic alignment with the original benchmark, and exhibits weaker contamination-related memorization signals, suggesting a practical and scalable paradigm for sustainable multimodal benchmark evolution. The project is available at https://github.com/PRIS-CV/MMBench-Live.

Electroencephalography (EEG) foundation models increasingly rely on multi-dataset training and evaluation, yet public EEG datasets still lack a shared task specification layer that can turn heterogeneous recordings into reusable benchmark units. Existing standards organize files, metadata, and provenance, but they do not specify EEG tasks under a common language and rulebook, leaving critical task semantics scattered across papers, code, and manual interpretation. We investigate whether heterogeneous public EEG datasets can be standardized through a structured task specification language paired with a shared rulebook. Our methodology represents each benchmark entry as a task document synchronized with an executable task kernel, with the rulebook defining task fields, evidence requirements, document-kernel alignment, review states, and machine-checkable constraints. Using this methodology, we release a community-reviewed EEG benchmark corpus centered on 53 completed and reviewed entries with 245 task definitions spanning diverse paradigms, and we introduce NeuroDoc and NeuroAudit as the operational support layer for rulebook-guided drafting, upgrading, review, amendment, and release management. We further examine whether the resulting benchmark units can be instantiated in a shared downstream setting across four EEG foundation model backbones, providing execution-based evidence for reusable, auditable, and executable EEG benchmarking infrastructure.

We introduce CFAgentBench, a reproducible, self-hostable environment and benchmark for autonomous construction-finance agents: a CFO/controller-class agent operating across the real software stack a US construction finance team runs - ERP, project management, email, documents, pay applications, payroll, certified payroll, lien waivers, and bank/treasury portals. It contains 1,014 machine-gradeable task specifications across 8 domains and 77 families, every family grounded in a real source; a self-validated subset of 40 tasks (54 with a project-management extension) is compiled into oracle-validated executable evaluators, the runnable suite reported here. Following WebArena, the benchmark runs on an executable environment rather than static traces: 35 mock applications (31 reconciled to one company book, plus 4 PM platforms) over 9 archetypes, each implementing a uniform self-hostable app contract, so every task is graded by functional correctness - a state diff plus forbidden-side-effect checks plus required-output regexes - with an LLM judge used only for reply quality, never as reward. A distinguishing principle is a money-movement guard: 278 instances embed a payment, payroll, e-signature, or e-filing step where the correct behavior is to stop and stage for human approval, and executing even the correct transaction fails the task. The public split (n=711) is sized for a 95% Wilson half-width of +/-4.1%; a private, contamination-protected split (n=303) is reserved for remote scoring. In a first three-model open-weight sweep (k=5), the strongest agent reaches pass^1 = 0.67 but only pass^5 = 0.38 - losing 43% of its successes when required to repeat them under temperature-0 decoding. The within-model pass^1 to pass^5 collapse and sharp per-domain heterogeneity are clear evidence that single-attempt accuracy overstates deployable construction-finance competence.

Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) in Chinese Cultural Heritage (CCH) requires fine-grained reasoning over visual, textual, stylistic, and historical clues. However, existing CCH benchmarks mainly emphasize final-answer accuracy, while the accuracy and completeness of reasoning processes remain underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce CulMind and CulMind-R: a high-quality benchmark for multimodal CCH covering 50 tasks from collections of more than 100 museums, and a 24-task reasoning subset that adaptively defines task-specific dimensions for reasoning process evaluation. To evaluate reasoning quality, we propose ReaScore, a task-adaptive metric that evaluates reasoning by automatically weighting task-relevant dimensions. Experiments on 14 leading MLLMs reveal a substantial gap between answers and reasoning, especially on challenging tasks. Further analysis shows that task-adaptive dimension selection and weighting better align evaluation results with expert judgments. Overall, our benchmark and metric support a more expert-aligned assessment of CCH understanding and offer a transferable reference for broader evaluations of cultural heritage. We publicly release the data, code, and evaluation scripts at https://github.com/ZevTsao/CulMind to facilitate reproducible research.

Embodied intelligence now spans navigation, household assistance, manipulation, autonomous driving, aerial agents, and multimodal large-model control. This expansion has made benchmark construction a central bottleneck for reliable evaluation. Unlike static datasets, embodied benchmarks combine task specifications, environments, robot data, demonstrations, annotations, metrics, evaluation scripts, and release policies into a single evaluation system. This survey reviews the literature through a five-stage construction pipeline: requirement and task construction, data acquisition, data cleaning and annotation, benchmark suite generation and metric definition, and evaluation execution with diagnostic feedback. For each stage, the survey analyzes the transition from manual curation to traditional automation, foundation-model assistance, and agentic closed-loop workflows. It also compares qualitative construction costs across human labor, data and asset acquisition, compute and simulation, validation and debugging, governance and maintenance, and rework risk. The main conclusion is that automation does not simply reduce benchmark cost. Instead, it often shifts cost toward validation, auditability, version control, and long-term governance. Progress in embodied evaluation will therefore depend not only on larger benchmark suites, but also on construction pipelines that are diagnosable, auditable, and responsibly refreshable.

Although some very common test beds exist for assessing the performance of clustering methods, large scale benchmarking is typically limited to relatively simplistic simulation set-ups. Here we describe the production and curation of close to 3000 synthetic data sets, derived from more than 200 publicly available data sets; the majority of which arose from real-world applications. By fitting a flexible non-parametric distribution to each base data set we are able to retain much of the nuance in real-world data which is difficult to reproduce in standard simulations, while also producing data sets whose sizes are sometimes substantially greater than the data sets from which they are derived. The synthetic data sets, plus an accompanying R package, are available for download from https://github.com/DavidHofmeyr/ClusBench.

This paper introduces the Event-Shifted Acoustic Scene (ESAS) dataset, a novel benchmark for evaluating the robustness of Acoustic Scene Classification (ASC) systems against unknown sound events. Existing ASC datasets typically contain recordings of clean and consistent audio, while real-world environments often include diverse and unexpected sound events. To bridge this gap, ESAS simulates real-world acoustic variability by injecting foreground sound events into background scenes with the assistance of large language models. In this work, we present the construction methodology, dataset statistics, and evaluation protocols. Furthermore, a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art ASC systems is conducted using the ESAS benchmark. Experimental results reveal that existing ASC models suffer significant performance degradation when facing the event-shift challenge. The introduction of the ESAS dataset aims to drive future research toward event-robust ASC.

We dream of AI agents that can read arbitrary designs and construct real-world objects from reusable building blocks. As a first step toward this vision, we study whether multimodal large language models (MLLMs) possess the visual grounding and spatial reasoning capabilities required for brick assembly. We formulate brick assembly as a sequential decision-making problem, where each step involves two subtasks: brick selection, identifying the target brick from candidate components, and brick pose estimation, predicting where and how the selected brick should be placed. To support this study, we introduce BC-Bench (Brick Construction Benchmark), the first benchmark for evaluating MLLMs on assembly with diverse bricks. Experiments show that current state-of-the-art MLLMs remain far from reliable builders, struggling with fine-grained brick selection and failing at precise pose estimation. To bridge this gap, we propose Brick-Composer, a learning framework that equips MLLMs with assembly skills through three complementary signals: Human Design Sparks, which provide affordance-rich construction demonstrations; World Feedback, which grounds predicted actions in visual and physical consequences; and Synthetic Experience, which scales learning beyond existing object designs. Brick-Composer improves brick selection accuracy by over three times, substantially reduces pose estimation errors, and raises strict step-level assembly success from less than 1% to around 15%. After training, a Qwen-3-8B can correctly compose up to 42% of the steps for a complete object, suggesting that MLLMs can acquire assembly capabilities through targeted, physically grounded learning.

Solubility prediction is a standard benchmark in computational chemistry, yet multi-solvent models which reportedly approach the experimental-noise ceiling (i.e. the aleatoric limit) are not yet reliable enough to be deployed. We argue that this gap is partly artefactual: published benchmarks differ in curation policies, evaluate on count-weighted RMSE that hides failure on tail-heavy solvent distributions, and treat the widely cited 0.6-0.8 log S inter-laboratory figure as the aleatoric ceiling even though it reflects worst-case, not expected, disagreement. We introduce SC3, a multi-solvent solubility benchmark built on BigSolDB v2.1 with three contributions: (i) a reproducible curation pipeline yielding 101,535 measurements over 1,327 solutes and 206 solvents, with a recalibrated aleatoric floor of 0.106 log S-roughly 6 times tighter than the conventional figure; (ii) nested Gold/Silver/Bronze consensus tiers with per-point standard deviation, three leakage-checked splits, and a multi-solvent metric suite (PS-RMSE, Z-RMSE); and (iii) a 31-model benchmark across six families, whose best Bronze PS-RMSE sits at 5 times the aleatoric limit, and we observe this is a gap unclosed by any deep alternative tested. We perform three follow-on analyses: data scaling, transfer from quantum-chemistry solvation energies, and feature-level attribution, which demonstrates that calibrated per-point uncertainty is a reusable infrastructure for diagnosis beyond point prediction.

Ground truth datasets play a fundamental role as reference values in the training and evaluation of machine learning models. This position paper argues that ground truths are not neutral objective measurements that are naturally given, but instead that they are constructed by arrangements of humans and technologies. We argue that the ML community will benefit from articulating and discussing these often invisible or unreported choices and acknowledging that reference data sets are contingent, not universal. Focusing on the situated and context-dependent nature of ground truths can improve reliability by enabling a better informed perspective on where, when, and how the datasets, and the models they have shaped, can best be used. We argue for increasing `situated reliability' which includes articulating the limits and strengths of models and their truth claims. Finally, paying more attention to the construction of ground truths can support transparency, accountability, and interdisciplinary work.

As agent capabilities advance, existing benchmarks, such as $τ^2$-Bench, are becoming increasingly saturated. Yet constructing new benchmark tasks remains complex, costly, and labor-intensive. Moreover, the standard approach, in which scenarios are first written in natural language and then mapped to tool sequences, captures only a narrow subset of the tool-use patterns agents exercise. In this paper, we address these problems by reversing the task construction process. We propose TASTE: Task Synthesis from Tool Sequence Evolution, an automatic method that generates challenging tasks with broader tool-use coverage. TASTE utilizes an Adaptive Contrastive $n$-gram model trained on LLM-judged validity signals. This enables sampling valid tool sequences that cover a vast range of tool combinations. TASTE then selects representative sequences from the pool via clustering, instantiates them into complete benchmark tasks, and refines them through iterative difficulty evolution. Using TASTE, we construct $τ^c$-Bench, a challenging extension of the three domains of $τ^2$-Bench. We evaluate $11$ agent/user LLM pairs and find that models nearly saturating $τ^2$-Bench suffer severe performance drops on our tasks (e.g., Gemini-3-Flash falls from $0.82\!-\!0.94$ to $0.28\!-\!0.61$). Beyond increasing difficulty, our generated tasks more than double the number of unique tool combinations agents must execute. Our results suggest high scores on existing benchmarks often reflect saturation rather than robust task-solving ability. By automating the generation of difficult, high-coverage benchmarks, TASTE enables continuous, scalable evaluation of future agents.

Long-context language models now advertise context windows up to millions of tokens, yet evaluations typically report a single length or a narrow task family, masking two failure modes: performance can collapse as length grows, and strong retrieval need not transfer to downstream use. We present ATLAS, a benchmarking framework that redefines long-context evaluation as length-dependent capability profiling. ATLAS contributes three methodological principles:(i) a layered taxonomy separating foundational operations from application workloads so failures can be attributed, (ii) length-aware AUC scoring that integrates score-length curves over a fixed 8K-1M grid, replacing single-point metrics with full degradation profiles, and (iii) ATLAScore, a harmonic-mean aggregate over taxonomy categories that penalizes imbalanced profiles, with end-to-end uncertainty propagation from subset scores through the nonlinear final aggregate. We instantiate the framework across eight capability dimensions with nine auditable components and 6,438 instances, and evaluate 26 models. Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview leads at 128K, Claude-Opus-4.6 leads at 1M. Rankings reshuffle substantially between ATLASscore@8K-128K and ATLASscore@8K-1M: 7 models move by at least two ranks, and the two taxonomy layers share only 61% of cross-model variance, with individual rank gaps up to 12 positions. These results support reporting long-context quality by capability and length, not by a single headline score.

Constraint Acquisition (CA) and related research on the validation and enhancement of Mathematical Programming (MP) models from domain knowledge artifacts are currently limited by inadequate benchmarks. This deficiency impedes reproducibility and cross-study comparability, slowing the maturation of CA methods. Existing benchmarks were designed for solver evaluation rather than for assessing CA algorithms. They are loosely organized, treat individual problems inconsistently, and omit the domain knowledge artifacts required by CA methods. This work presents MPMMine, a benchmark suite designed to assess algorithms that discover, validate, and enhance MP models using diverse domain knowledge artifacts. MPMMine is guided by consistency, standardization, completeness, extensibility, openness, and version control. It adopts a uniform structure and relies on open formats: MiniZinc, CommonMark, and JSON. It provides multiple models per problem, tens of instances per model, and thousands of solutions and non-solutions in both integer and continuous domains, alongside natural-language descriptions to support text-to-model methods.