Benchmark Design

Fixed benchmarks are costly to renew and cannot adapt their questions to model-specific failures. We ask whether LLMs can instead discover one another's weaknesses and turn those observations into an evaluation process. To study this question, we introduce \textbf{LivingArena}, an automated peer-probing framework in which models take turns testing one another. Using the interaction history, each questioner identifies potential weaknesses of its opponent and constructs targeted, verifiable questions to probe them. A 3,600-round tournament of ten models reveals a clear role asymmetry: strong answerers are not always reliable questioners, because they may generate internally inconsistent tests or fail to verify their own reference answers. After a questioner exposes an answerer's failure, it is more likely to pursue the same capability domain, while the answerer's weakness recurs on independently generated questions, including questions written by different models. These findings show that peer probing can reveal persistent model-specific weaknesses while separately evaluating answering and reliable test construction. By automating this process and allowing test difficulty to evolve with model capabilities, LivingArena provides a "living" benchmark for model development, red-teaming, and capability-aware multi-agent coordination. We publicly release our code: https://github.com/galaxyChen/LivingArena

Current AI-driven game development has made substantial progress in asset generation, gameplay design, and web-based game coding, yet project-level code engineering on professional game engines remains largely unexplored due to the absence of large-scale datasets and deterministic evaluation methods. We present JamSet and JamBench, the first project-level game code framework dataset and benchmark built on a professional game engine. Our key insight is that Game Jam competitions, community events where developers build complete games under tight time constraints, yield thousands of open-source projects suitable for this purpose. Building on the Godot engine's text-based format and headless execution mode, we design a deterministic verification pipeline from file integrity to runtime behavior collection, distilling 8,133 verified projects from over 240,000 repositories. Of these, 300 manually verified projects form JamBench; the rest constitute JamSet. JamBench defines theme-driven generation and code completion tasks, evaluated through a pipeline combining compilation pass rates, Structural Completeness Score (SCS), and Behavioral Alignment Score (BAS). Evaluation of 9 frontier models reveals a capability cliff as project scale increases, with runtime pass rates dropping from 80.4% on small projects to 5.7% on large ones (Task2a). Code Agents improve compilation rates yet yield no gains in runtime behavioral quality, indicating that the bottleneck lies in architectural design rather than syntactic correctness. Experiments validate JamSet as effective training data. All data and code are publicly available.

Reliable benchmarking is critical for developing machine learning models for tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) based molecule discovery. Subtle issues in experimental design and model evaluation procedures can degrade the trustworthiness of such benchmarks and lead to erroneous conclusions. We conduct a thorough review of model evaluation issues in the recent MS/MS machine learning literature, using the standard MassSpecGym benchmark suite as a case study to illustrate the impact of these issues. We find evaluation issues in at least 17 of 26 papers reporting MassSpecGym benchmark results in the first year of its adoption. We isolate three classes of failures: (i) data leakage, (ii) shortcut learning, and (iii) implementation bugs and metric divergence. Through extensive experimentation and code replication, we quantify the impact of these issues and show how they corrupt the evaluation standards MassSpecGym was designed to enforce. We distill our findings into recommendations generalizable to MS/MS challenges, benchmarks, and custom evaluation setups. We also release MassSpecGym v1.5, an implementation of our recommendations in the MassSpecGym benchmarking suite which addresses the failure modes identified in this audit. MassSpecGym v1.5 is publicly available at https://github.com/pluskal-lab/MassSpecGym.

We introduce StaminaBench, a benchmark that measures the stamina of coding agents: how many consecutive interaction turns (change requests) they can handle before failing. Unlike the prevailing fraction-of-tasks-solved metric, this matches real vibe-coding where sessions run dozens or hundreds of turns. In StaminaBench, agents implement a REST API server and modify it across a tunable number of procedurally generated follow-up change requests - 100 in our experiments, resulting in codebases of up to 6,000 lines. Tests are generated fully programmatically without LLM involvement, ensuring reproducibility and reliability; change sequences are drawn from either a hardcoded or LLM-driven sampler, both constrained to a structured action space to ensure changes are valid. The agent and the server run in an isolated environment and communicate with the benchmark through HTTP, making testing fully black-box and language-agnostic. We evaluate six agent harnesses paired with seven open-source LLMs across 20 scenarios of 100 turns each and find that: (1) all the tested models fail within 5-6 turns, confirming that vibe-coding-style programming without thorough testing produces bugs; (2) passing test feedback back to the agent and allowing it to retry improves passed turn count by up to 12x; and (3) a good harness is required for strong performance: stronger models exhibit up to a 6x gap between their best and worst harness, while weaker models fail with any harness. We release the benchmark and the generated tasks to enable further research into multi-turn coding agent behavior. Benchmark code and data: github.com/amazon-science/StaminaBench.

Static visual question answering (VQA) benchmarks age quickly: Once the items leak into training corpora, scores can reflect memorization rather than genuine visual ability, thus obscuring real progress. Rebuilding high-quality benchmarks such as VBench requires substantial human annotation, yet each static release can quickly become another leaked artifact. We propose ReKey, a live benchmark protocol that randomly regenerates the answer-bearing local detail, or visual key, in real images at evaluation time. Using human-validated edit slots, ReKey samples fresh instances with new answers, construction-grounded labels, and controlled visual-search difficulty. On VBench, the ReKey regenerated benchmark reveals a sharp score jump across eight frontier vision-language models (VLMs): The original items score 9.5--18.8 percentage points higher than the regenerated variants. By making the visual key renewable, ReKey keeps evaluation fresh as models and training data evolve.

Glucose forecasting algorithms are an important aspect of glycemic control management in type 1 diabetes. So far, the research community has developed numerous algorithms and models for forecasting. However, it is well-recognized that the lack of standardized model performance evaluation benchmarks makes fair comparison difficult and hinders further innovation, and thus benchmark standardization is in urgent need. Furthermore, many published glucose forecasting algorithms are limited to CGM data alone, ignoring other multimodal signals such as insulin dosing and carbohydrate intake. Here, we introduce MetaboNet-Bench, a benchmark for multimodal glucose forecasting for patients with type 1 diabetes that provides an extensible open-source evaluation framework for comparison of glucose forecasting algorithms that leverage glucose, insulin, and carbohydrate data. We then demonstrate its utility by benchmarking several recently published glucose forecasting models and a custom multimodal time-series model, representing different model architectures. The results show that the benefit of adding data modalities is conditioned on the complexity of the model and that incorporating more clinical metrics helps identify meaningful gaps to fill for future research.

Single-photon LiDAR (SPL) based on single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) sensing enables time-resolved photon measurements with extreme sensitivity, offering unique potential for active 3D perception in photon-starved scenarios.However, real-world single photon perception remains fundamentally challenging due to unique measurement noise and complex multi-return transient phenomena, which jointly complicate geometric reconstruction and semantic scene understanding. Despite growing interest in SPAD-based sensing, existing studies are largely limited to simulated data or small-scale controlled captures. As a result, systematic evaluation of real-world single photon perception across depth estimation, multi-view reconstruction, and 3D semantic understanding remains underexplored. To bridge this gap, we introduce SP-TransientBench (STB), a real-captured multi-task benchmark for single photon perception. SP-TransientBenc comprises 10 diverse scenes and 10,297 views captured using a solid-state single-photon LiDAR at $256\times192$ resolution. Each view provides full time-of-flight histograms with multi-return behavior,standardized metadata, and calibrated camera poses for multi-view evaluation. We further provide 13-class 3D semantic annotations for selected scenes. By providing dedicated data splits and evaluation protocols for each task, STB enables consistent and reproducible benchmarking of real-world single photon perception across multiple 3D vision problems. The dataset and code will be released upon acceptance.

Legal AI benchmark research frequently invokes the assumption that large language models can improve access to justice, including for people who cannot access lawyers in order to understand and exercise their legal rights. We argue that current benchmarks are not equipped to support this assumption because they evaluate legal reasoning over inputs that have already been preprocessed by legal experts, which measures the upper bound of model performance. Access to justice depends on a lower bound: how models perform when inputs come from pro se litigants, whose prompts may contain noisy narratives, buried facts, omissions, folk-legal assumptions, and surface-level errors. These degradations are comparable to conditions under which LLMs are known to degrade in the general machine learning literature, including long-context sensitivity, underspecification, hallucination, and typographical perturbations. We connect evidence from pro se literature with this body of machine learning research and present a small perturbation experiment on LEXam, a legal benchmark, to illustrate the gap between these two bounds. If model development continues to focus on benchmarks that measure only the upper bound, this gap may remain hidden or even widen. We conclude by calling for legal benchmarks that directly measure robustness under pro se-like inputs so that access-to-justice claims about legal AI can become empirically testable.

Coding agents have become a major mode of software engineering, but the benchmarks we use to compare them were designed in a pre-agent era: they collapse model, harness, and environment into a single end-to-end score, typically computed against one reference solution, with no component-level signal for iteration. We argue that current coding benchmarks are misaligned with agentic software engineering. A coding agent in practice is not a model: it is a system harness -- a composite of models, harnesses, contexts, environments, and feedback signals, any one of which can move the benchmark score by margins comparable to those between adjacent model generations. We discuss three symptoms: (i) benchmark scores conflate the model with the rest of the harness; (ii) grading against a single reference solution penalises equally valid alternatives; and (iii) the absence of signal at the level of individual harness components makes the end-to-end system score difficult to iterate on.

Algorithmic recourse methods provide counterfactual explanations that inform individuals of the actions required to overturn an unfavorable model decision. Despite rapid methodological progress, principled comparison remains elusive; existing frameworks are often difficult to extend and lack both interoperability and systematic verification that integrated methods faithfully reproduce their originally reported results. We introduce \emph{RecourseBench}, a unified evaluation framework built around three commitments namely, modularity, reproducibility, and interactivity. The framework decomposes the pipeline into five fully decoupled layers -- Data, Preprocessing, Model, Recourse Method, and Evaluation -- governed by abstract interfaces and a dynamic registry. To address the reproducibility gap in prior benchmarks, we introduce a four-tier classification system in which every integrated method is validated by an automated test suite against its originally reported results. We further provide an interactive web interface for flexible, configuration-driven comparison across methods, datasets, and model architectures. Our framework currently integrates 28 state-of-the-art recourse methods and, to our knowledge, constitutes the first recourse benchmark to explicitly enforce method-level reproducibility through automated, quantitative testing.

Existing financial-NLP benchmarks mostly evaluate prepared artifacts such as filings, tables, or extracted values. Real accounting begins earlier: source documents must be reconciled into cited journal entries, aggregated into a balance sheet, and checked for contradictions. We introduce FinBalance, a multi-document accounting reconciliation benchmark built from source-document bundles across eight industries, three period types, and five difficulty levels. Human-authored business scenarios, accounting policies, tax/FX treatments, document schemas, distractors, and inconsistency templates are composed by a deterministic generator whose ledger produces journal entries,balance sheets, and 23 inconsistency-code labels. On a 710-record evaluation split, six contemporary LLMs reach at most 46% exact final-balance-sheet accuracy. Four models show a 26-41 pp gap between BS_exact, the model's reported balance sheet, and BS_recon, the balance sheet obtained by replaying its entries through our ledger. Models often recover numerically plausible entries but fail to bind them to supporting documents and aggregate them consistently. Citation-pressure prompting barely changes document-linking errors, while ledger-feedback ablations substantially improve reported balance sheets and expose inconsistency-detection trade-offs. Expert finance reviewers validate the benchmark design and labels.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have made notable progress in automated theorem proving, yet existing formal benchmarks remain limited in both mathematical coverage and difficulty. Most are concentrated in areas that are easier to formalize, such as algebra and elementary number theory, and provide limited coverage of subfields that require deeper reasoning, including mathematical analysis. To address this gap, we introduce MA-ProofBench, to the best of our knowledge, the first formal theorem-proving benchmark dedicated to Mathematical Analysis. The benchmark contains 200 formalized theorems covering 6 core topics and 27 subcategories, including measure and integration theory, complex analysis, and functional analysis. The problems are divided into two difficulty levels, an undergraduate level (Level I, 100 problems) and a Ph.D. qualifying level (Level II, 100 problems), to evaluate how well LLMs perform formal reasoning at different mathematical depths. Each problem is constructed through a human-led, LLM-assisted formalization pipeline followed by independent expert review, ensuring that the formal statements remain faithful to the original mathematics. We evaluate a range of recent general-purpose reasoning models and formal theorem provers on MA-ProofBench. However, most models perform poorly: even the best-performing model, GPT-5.5, achieves only 16% Pass@8 on Level I and 5% on Level II, while most models stay close to 0% on Level II. Further analysis identifies Mathlib hallucinations and incomplete proofs as the two dominant failure modes, while an evaluation on the natural-language version of the benchmark exposes a clear gap between informal and formal reasoning. MA-ProofBench is intended to serve as a reliable reference for tracking progress in formal mathematical reasoning in advanced domains.

Large language model (LLM) agents have achieved strong performance on a wide range of benchmarks, yet most evaluations assume static environments. In contrast, real-world deployment is inherently dynamic, requiring agents to continually align their knowledge, skills, and behavior with changing environments and updated task conditions. To address this gap, we introduce EvoArena, a benchmark suite that models environment changes as sequences of progressive updates across terminal, software, and social domains. We further propose EvoMem, a patch-based memory paradigm that records memory evolution as structured update histories, enabling agents to reason about environmental evolution through changes in their memory. Experiments show that current agents struggle on EvoArena, achieving an average accuracy of 39.6% across evolving terminal, software, and social-preference domains. EvoMem consistently improves performance, yielding an average gain of 1.5% on EvoArena and also improving standard benchmarks such as GAIA and LoCoMo by 6.1% and 4.8%. Beyond individual tasks, EvoMem further improves chain-level accuracy by 3.7% on EvoArena, where success requires completing a consecutive sequence of related evolutionary subtasks. Mechanistic analysis shows that EvoMem improves evidence capture in the memory, indicating better preservation of complete evolving environment states. Our results highlight the importance of modeling evolution in both evaluation and memory for reliable agent deployment.

Evaluating retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems requires benchmarks that capture diverse question characteristics, yet practitioners lack empirical guidance on which dimensions to vary and at what granularity. We present HieraRAG, a hierarchical framework for studying granularity in RAG benchmark construction, defining optimal granularity as the level that maximizes discriminative power (the standard deviation of generation quality across categories) within a given RAG configuration. As a case study, we generate 5,872 synthetic question-answer (QA) pairs from FineWeb-10BT across 3 dimensions (Question Complexity, Answer Type, Linguistic Variation) at 3 granularity levels (2, 4, and 8 categories). With a BM25+Falcon-3-10B pipeline, optimal granularity varies by dimension: complexity benefits from fine-grained distinctions (discriminative power: 0.053) while answer type and linguistic variation peak at medium granularity. We introduce a Coherence Ratio metric to quantify whether fine-grained splits cleanly subdivide parent categories, revealing structural differences across dimensions (Question Complexity: 0.40 vs. Answer Type: 1.44). Human evaluation of 110 stratified QA pairs confirms synthetic quality. While these specific findings reflect a single configuration, HieraRAG provides a portable procedure and validation metric for practitioners to determine evaluation granularity within their own RAG settings.

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.

Combinatorics is central to Olympiad-level mathematical problem solving, requiring deep discrete reasoning, creative constructions, and rigorous structural insight. Recent evidence suggests that even today's strongest frontier models remain uneven on Olympiad combinatorics, revealing a gap in creative mathematical reasoning. We introduce ComBench, an Olympiad-level combinatorics benchmark for evaluating and diagnosing the combinatorial reasoning capabilities of large language models. ComBench contains 100 human-annotated competition-level problems organized around two complementary settings: analysis-centric problems, which primarily require rigorous mathematical arguments, and construction-centric problems, which require explicit constructions in addition to correctness justifications. The evaluation protocol combines rubric-guided proof grading with deterministic construction verification, exposing cases where proof quality and construction validity diverge. Experiments on frontier open- and closed-source models show that ComBench is far from saturated: the strongest model reaches 65.4% overall Avg. and 75.3% overall Best@4. We further find that Rigorous Proof Reasoning and Constructive Realization are distinct capabilities: Kimi-K2.6 trails GPT-5.5 on analysis-centric proof grading but surpasses it on construction-centric Best@4, while Existence and Construction problems remain consistently hardest across representative frontier models.

LLMs have recently achieved strong results on formal proving benchmarks. However, existing evaluations remain heavily concentrated on competition-style problems and often fail to capture how models behave on longer, more dependency-rich mathematical developments. We introduce TheoremBench, a Lean4 benchmark designed to evaluate theorem provers beyond contest settings. The benchmark is built from nearly one hundred classical theorems and is released in two complementary forms: a plain main version containing one target theorem per instance, and a premised version that expands each theorem into a structured family of related proving tasks consisting of the main theorem together with automatically extracted supporting subtheorems. This design enables evaluation of not only whether the final theorem was proved from scratch, but also of partial progress through the internal proof structure of a theorem. Our experiments show that explicit premises substantially improve performance for Lean4-capable prover models. To provide a comprehensive evaluation, we introduce theorem-level coverage and token-efficiency metrics that expose qualitative differences in proof behavior. The results show that current provers remain strongly biased toward easy subtheorems and often solve theorems through long and inefficient tactic traces rather than compact proof plans. TheoremBench therefore provides a more fine-grained view of formal reasoning ability and highlights the importance of structural benchmark design for evaluating Lean4 theorem provers.

Equation discovery aims to automate the discovery of scientific models in the form of mathematical equations from data. Technically, equation discovery is implemented by symbolic regression algorithms. Performance of symbolic regression for equation discovery is measured along two dimensions: Prediction accuracy on test data, and recovery of known groundtruth formulas. For standard regression, accuracy is typically measured on in-domain test data, for instance, by splitting a data set randomly into training and test data. While this makes sense for in-domain interpolation, which is the common goal in ordinary regression, it can be a misleading proxy for true model discovery and generalization. The obvious alternative is to measure out-of-domain accuracy. However, obtaining challenging out-of-domain test data is a non-trivial problem. Therefore, we focus on equation recovery for evaluating symbolic regression algorithms for equation discovery. The rationale is that symbolic regression algorithms that perform well in recovering known groundtruth formulas are good candidates to perform well in unknown equation discovery. Existing benchmarks for symbolic regression include equation recovery tasks, however, with only a small number of groundtruth formulas that are publicly known. Moreover, these benchmarks place less emphasis on evaluating the robustness of algorithms in terms of their behavior under changing dimensionality, sampling size, sampling distribution and sampling domain. This, however, is of central importance to practitioners wanting to discover equations for modeling natural phenomena, since data is almost certainly noisy and comes from diverse domains, distributions, and sample sizes. To fill this gap, we introduce the Equation Recovery Benchmark (ERBench), a new evaluation framework designed to rigorously assess algorithms explicitly targeting the task of equation discovery.

LLM-based RTL generation and reasoning is a promising direction for hardware design automation. High-quality benchmarks are critical infrastructure for tracking progress in this direction. However, existing RTL benchmarks face inherent limitations in both scale and task scope. The designs they cover are typically small and simple, and the tasks focus almost entirely on specification-to-RTL generation. Frontier models' performance already saturates on the existing benchmarks. Scaling these benchmarks up is fundamentally difficult because aligned labels are required for benchmarking, such as specifications and testbenches. Such aligned high-quality data are rarely available for real-world designs. We introduce RTL-BenchLS, a large-scale benchmark addressing both limitations above. It contains over 10,000 formally verified Verilog designs, covering substantially larger and more complex designs than existing benchmarks. Beyond specification-to-RTL generation, we propose three novel tasks that jointly evaluate reasoning and generation: round-trip reasoning, masked-content reasoning, and repository-issue reasoning. The first two are self-supervised, which directly resolves the scaling bottleneck. All tasks are verified through formal equivalence checking without any manual testbenches. We evaluate eight LLMs on RTL-BenchLS. Even the best model reaches only 23% on natural-language round-trip reasoning, 28% on masked-content reasoning, and 12% on repository-issue fixing. RTL-BenchLS is substantially more challenging than existing benchmarks. It leaves ample room for future improvement and offers guidance for developing LLM-based methods for hardware design.

Enterprise property graphs vary widely in schema structure, internal terminology, domain assumptions, governance constraints, and user interaction patterns. A deployment-relevant Text2Cypher benchmark therefore reflects the questions users and agents actually ask of that graph. Creating such a benchmark is difficult because schemas and values are unique, and graph structure changes over time. Each NL-query pair must also be executable, use real graph entities, preserve diversity, and remain balanced across query types and difficulty levels. We present PIPE-Cypher, a local benchmark-generation pipeline that turns a live property graph and optional seed queries from customer questions, analyst logs, or agent tool calls into balanced NL-to-Cypher benchmarks. PIPE-Cypher combines schema profiling, reverse-query grounding, constrained generation, deterministic Cypher governance, execution validation, redaction, diversity controls, and a calibrated local LLM judge. Using local Qwen3.5-9B generation and judging, PIPE-Cypher exports 3,000 accepted FinBench/SNB examples, completes three audited ablation suites, calibrates judge behavior with human labels, and evaluates 11 local downstream models. The resulting benchmark is deliberately discriminative: zero-shot transfer is weak, while a few-shot control shows that schema-specific example banks can help compatible model families. Together, PIPE-Cypher makes Text2Cypher benchmarking a repeatable process that evolves with the graph, its users, and its target workloads.

The ranking of recommendation algorithms is a challenging problem since model performance is sensitive to dataset characteristics such as sparsity, sequential structure, and scale. This drives a demand for a proper methodology for fair comparison between algorithms. Naive aggregation of performance metrics (e.g., averaging NDCG over benchmarks) can yield misleading rankings, undermining practical selection. To address this problem, we introduce a novel, data-driven ranking methodology based on Bradley-Terry (BT) model. We demonstrate that the obtained ranking depends on key dataset statistics. Additionally, we propose a novel metric for evaluating ranking consistency and demonstrate robustness of our ranking to incomplete data. Finally, we introduce a dataset-specific methodology for ranking algorithms on unseen datasets without running the models, relying on extensions of the Bradley-Terry framework, including BT trees and BT models with covariates.

Document parsing systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes, regulated workflows such as mortgage underwriting, financial reporting, supply-chain logistics, and clinical records. Yet most public benchmarks evaluate parsers on clean academic layouts or synthetic prose, and report a single OCR or markdown-level similarity score. Such documents and metrics correlate poorly with what downstream agents actually need: the correct value for a specific field on a messy real-world page. We introduce RealDocBench, a two-track benchmark built from real regulated documents. The QA track contains 1,356 field-level questions over 581 documents spanning four domains, where each question is paired with a typed gold_dict of key-to-value answers and parsers are scored on both per-field and strict per-question accuracy. The layout track contains 1,500 human-verified page images annotated with COCO-style bounding boxes under a nine-class public taxonomy, scored with a Hungarian matcher that includes adjacency-aware split/merge recovery. We evaluate eighteen systems, spanning commercial parsing APIs, general-purpose VLMs, and open-source OCR models, under a uniform extraction-and-scoring protocol, and report accuracy alongside per-page cost and cache-busted latency. RealDocBench exposes a wide performance spread that single-number benchmarks hide, a persistently hard medical sub-domain, and sharp cost/latency trade-offs across operating points. We release the datasets, parser adapters, and evaluation harness to support reproducible, field-level comparison of document parsing systems.

Physics-informed machine learning is often assessed by curve error, although engineering use depends on downstream decisions: ranking candidates, avoiding infeasible designs and limiting regret. We introduce pinn-gym, an open benchmark for material-conditioned lattice design that couples a transparent reduced-order crush-and-impact oracle with five printable polymer cards, dimensionless force-response targets and a protocol spanning curve fidelity, physical admissibility, top-k retrieval and mass regret. Across per-material, pooled and cross-material settings, low nRMSE is frequently insufficient to identify useful design selections. Physics-informed losses alter trade-offs rather than monotonically improving all metrics, and dimensionless conditioning improves comparability without making transfer symmetric. The benchmark is not a certified material model; within the released oracle, candidate generator and material cards, pinn-gym provides a reproducible testbed for evaluating PIML surrogates as decision systems rather than curve predictors alone.

While generative AI models have demonstrated remarkable success in structure-based drug design, they predominantly rely on deep binding pockets and struggle to sample effective ligands for challenging low-pocketability targets, such as the historically "undruggable" oncology targets KRAS and MYC. To address this gap, we introduce ShallowBench, a strictly curated benchmark of 5,780 shallow-pocket targets extracted from CrossDocked2020. By computing the difference between an Alpha Shape "lid" volume and the underlying protein atom voxel volume, we successfully isolated targets with low concavity while ensuring sufficient surface area for binding. Evaluating various state-of-the-art generative models reveals weaker predicted binding affinity on these low-concavity interfaces. ShallowBench therefore provides a rigorous benchmark for generative biology models and highlights the necessity of new architectural innovations or loss functions capable of navigating these challenging targets.

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

Repository-level coding benchmarks face a trade-off between task difficulty and evaluation reliability: tasks that challenge frontier models often involve large codebases with incomplete test coverage, while human review does not scale. We introduce TensorBench, a benchmark of 199 feature-addition and refactoring tasks on an open-source compiler-based tensor framework that extends PyTorch with first-class support for dense and sparse tensors. Tasks cover new sparse formats, dense optimization passes, IR transformations, scheduler changes, runtime components, and high-level numerical operators. TensorBench grades each run by applying the agent's patch and running the framework's test suite, which includes the pre-existing randomized regression tests and any tests the agent adds. For feature-addition tasks, a pass means that the patched repository preserves the tested pre-existing behavior and satisfies the agent-added checks for the requested feature. We evaluate seven coding agents spanning three frontier model families and one open-weight model. Pass rates under this criterion range from $64.8\%$ for the strongest agent to $22.1\%$ for the weakest. Agents pass different subsets of tasks: pairwise Cohen's $κ$ ranges from $-0.07$ to $0.43$, with $κ= 0.05$ for the two strongest agents.

Progress in genomic foundation models is difficult to assess due to fragmented benchmarks, incompatible evaluation protocols, and task-specific reporting. As a result, claims of superiority or generality across models are often not directly comparable. We introduce GENEB, a large-scale diagnostic benchmark that evaluates frozen representations from 40 genomic foundation models across 100 tasks spanning 13 functional categories under a unified probing-based protocol, including few-shot regimes. GENEB enables controlled comparison across model scale, architecture, tokenization, and pretraining data while explicitly exposing task-level trade-offs. Our analysis shows that aggregate leaderboards are unstable: model rankings vary sharply across task categories, scale provides only modest and inconsistent gains, and architectural and pretraining alignment frequently outweigh parameter count. These results highlight limitations of current evaluation practices and position GENEB as a reference framework for principled comparison and category-aware model selection in genomic machine learning.

Concept bottleneck models predict outcomes from high-level concepts detected in inputs. Although concepts provide a simple way to reap benefits from interpretability, very few datasets include concept labels. This limits researchers' ability to determine which problems are suitable for these models, isolate the factors that drive their performance or lead to failures, or uncover which algorithms perform well. In this paper, we develop synthetic benchmarks for concept-bottleneck models, focusing on their two main use cases: decision support, in which models assist humans in making better decisions, and automation, in which models handle routine tasks without supervision. Our benchmarks can generate labeled datasets while controlling for properties that affect performance, including data modality, concept choice, annotation quality, and completeness. We demonstrate how the benchmarks can be used to evaluate representative classes of concept bottleneck models. Our demonstrations show how the benchmarks can diagnose failure modes and guide follow-up testing.

A robotics benchmark score measures success under one fixed evaluation setup, yet is routinely treated as evidence of general manipulation capability. We identify four failure modes, each of which weakens or invalidates a benchmark's role as a valid proxy for that capability: shortcut solvability, lack of statistical significance, creeping overfitting, and data-source dependence. We propose one diagnostic per failure mode. We audit LIBERO, CALVIN, SimplerEnv, RoboCasa, and RoboTwin 2.0 under these diagnostics. LIBERO and CALVIN fail multiple diagnostics. RoboCasa and RoboTwin 2.0 fail fewer, despite appearing far less often in recent progress claims. On LIBERO, a 0.09B probe with no language encoder scores at or near reported SOTA, and most reported gains are not provably statistically significant. On CALVIN, randomizing block poses within the training range drops performance for every tested policy. We release the four diagnostics with reference implementations for authors and reviewers to apply before treating a benchmark score as evidence of progress. Code and artifacts are available at https://ripl.github.io/manipulation_benchmark_audit/.

We introduce HighTide, an evolving AI-assisted benchmark suite. Specifically, the contributions are: (i) a diverse open-source suite spanning multiple design languages and technology nodes, (ii) Bazel-based incremental RTL-to-GDS compilation with remote caching, (iii) AI-assisted design curation through twelve agent skills covering the design lifecycle, flow optimization, tool reference, and meta-maintenance, backed by per-design decision logs that serve as long-term memory of tuning rationale across the suite, and (iv) an infrastructure with RTL compilation verification for stable releases. The suite is publicly available and designed to grow with the open-source hardware ecosystem.