Benchmark Design

Merging first-principles calculations with machine learning (ML), we aim to accelerate the exploration of catalytic behaviour in novel materials. We focus on two-dimensional (2D) Ti$_2$CT$_y$ MXenes, whose versatile surface chemistry makes them particularly compelling candidates for catalysis. Resolving their composition and structure under realistic conditions exceeds the reach of standard density functional theory (DFT) due to computational cost. To address this challenge, we generate a comprehensive dataset of 50,000 DFT calculations for training and 10,000 for testing, encompassing both Ti$_2$CT$_y$ MXene configurations and molecular systems, along with an additional test dataset with 1000 genuinely new, larger systems to investigate how well models generalise. We train and validate widely used and competitive machine learning interatomic potential (MLIP) models, including EquiformerV2, MACE, MatRIS, and UPET, that accurately predict atomic forces and formation energies -- quantities that DFT must repeatedly compute for structural and catalytic investigations -- for these 2D materials. This combined DFT-ML framework achieves computational acceleration on the order of approximately $1-4 \cdot 10^3$ (on a CPU) while maintaining desired-level accuracy (approximately +/- $10$ meV/A for forces and approximately +/- $1$ meV for per-atom energies), paving the way for more efficient investigations of MXene catalytic behaviour. Moreover, we perform an extensive qualitative evaluation of the trained models, showcasing the importance of comprehensive simulation-based comparison beyond benchmark metrics. The dataset and the trained models with the code are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/CatalystAnonymous/catalyst_mxenes.

Recursive systems can enter collapse-like regimes -- self-reinforcing amplification, persistent recursion, and narrowing diversity that mask accelerating internal degradation -- before overt failure becomes visible. We introduce Loopzero, a claim-bounded benchmark framework for testing whether recursive failures follow a directional telemetry pattern: rising gain (G), recursive persistence (p), and declining diversity ($δ$). The claim boundary is specified in Lean; the Lean artifact does not verify real telemetry, benchmark validity, or detector performance. We evaluate the bridge on two frozen public-artifact benchmarks: a segmented public-markets benchmark (Volmageddon 2018, COVID MWCB 2020) and a MovieLens-25M offline deterministic recommender replay. Detectors are evaluated under a locked equal-false-positive contract (FP $\in$ [0.03, 0.07], pre-registered) so all configurations face the same alert budget. Neither tested standard comparators nor Loopzero's pre-registered quantile detector achieved an accepted operating point. Directional witness alignment held on both canonical benchmarks, with adjacent-horizon and row-level limitations disclosed. Digitized Shumailov et al. (2024) LLM training-loop trajectories are directionally consistent with the pattern; matched-FP evaluation in that domain is deferred. The contribution is a reproducible, falsifiable benchmark framework for evaluating recursive-collapse warning claims under an explicit alert-budget contract -- non-acceptance reported as a first-class scientific outcome.

AI for scientific discovery is entering an agentic era, where protein-engineering systems are expected to prioritize future wet-lab experiments rather than merely fit static measurements. We introduce TadA-Bench, a million-variant wet-lab replay benchmark from 31 TadA directed-evolution rounds for future-round discovery toward agentic protein engineering. TadA-Bench preserves the campaign chronology and defines a fixed-data replay task: given earlier experimental rounds, models rank variants that appear only in later rounds. It provides aligned DNA, RNA, and protein views, and uses Seq2Graph, a graph-based label-unification pipeline, to reconcile noisy enrichment measurements into consistent cross-round activity labels. Random-split controls show strong interpolation, but future-round ranking and finite-budget candidate selection are much weaker. Controlled analyses suggest that evolutionary coverage is more informative than local data density, positioning TadA-Bench as a reproducible wet-lab replay substrate for future-round discovery toward agentic protein engineering; the data and code are released on Hugging Face and GitHub.

AI benchmarks have well-documented limitations, with prior work examining contamination, saturation, and construct underspecification. Aggregation has received far less attention: benchmarks are typically summarized by uniformly averaging item-level scores, implicitly treating every test item as equally valuable. We model benchmarking as a multitask principal-agent game and show that the welfare loss from a benchmark is determined jointly by three item-level primitives: alignment with normative welfare priorities, marginal improvability, and performance variance. We translate the theory into an audit framework that ranks items along each of these three axes, and apply it to OLMES items using WORKBank for welfare, the EvoLM 4B suite for improvability, and the PolyPythias 410M panel for variance. The framework surfaces items that are Pareto-inferior within OLMES subject to a pro-worker welfare operationalization. All code is available at https://github.com/stair-lab/principal-agent-benchmarks.

Reliable probability estimates are critical in many machine learning applications, yet modern classifiers are often poorly calibrated. Post-hoc calibration provides a simple and widely used solution, but the large number of proposed methods, combined with small-scale and inconsistent evaluations, makes it difficult to determine which approaches are truly effective in practice. We introduce a large-scale, standardized benchmark for post-hoc calibration, covering nearly 2000 experiments across tabular and computer vision tasks, including binary, multiclass, and large-scale classification settings. Our benchmark aggregates predictions from a diverse set of classical models, modern deep learning architectures, and foundation models, and provides unified, reproducible implementations of dozens of calibration methods within a common evaluation framework. We argue that Post-Hoc Improvement (PHI) in proper scoring rules offers a principled alternative to traditional calibration error estimators for comparing post-hoc methods, capturing both calibration quality and potential degradation to the model's predictive performance. Using this framework, we conduct the most comprehensive empirical study of post-hoc calibration to date. Our results reveal consistent patterns across domains: smooth calibration functions outperform binning-based approaches, dedicated multiclass methods are essential in high-dimensional settings, and generic machine learning models are not competitive without calibration-specific design. To facilitate future research, we release all data, code, and evaluation tools, providing a plug-and-play benchmark for developing and comparing calibration methods.

Clustering is a fundamental problem in data science with a long-standing research history, yielding numerous insightful algorithms. Despite this progress, a systematic and large-scale empirical evaluation that jointly considers conventional algorithms, deep learning-based methods, and recent foundation model-based clustering remains largely absent, leading to limited guidance on algorithm selection and deployment. To address this gap, we introduce CLUBench, a comprehensive clustering benchmark comprising 24 algorithms of diverse principles evaluated on 131 datasets across tabular, text, and image data, involving 178,815 experiments. Importantly, our analyses of (i) the impact of hyperparameter tuning,(ii) the impact of data types and characteristics,(iii) the impact of pretrained embeddings,(iv) large language model-based clustering,(v) the similarity of algorithms, and (vi) the low-rank structures of performance matrices, yield meaningful insights and promising pathways for clustering research. For instance, our study reveals that: 1) All evaluated deep clustering methods do not exhibit a significant advantage compared with the top-performing conventional clustering algorithms (e.g., KMeans, SpeClu) in terms of average performance; 2) For image and text clustering tasks, combining pretrained embeddings with conventional clustering algorithms (e.g., KMeans, SpeClu) offers effective and efficient clustering; 3) Clustering remains a challenging and nontrivial problem, even in the era of increasingly dominant foundation models. Moreover, we propose to use the low-rank structure in cross-model performance matrices to efficiently approximate the overall performance evaluation in practical applications. We further demonstrate the feasibility of model selection based on the performance matrices across all hyperparameter configurations.

As multimodal language models play an increasingly important role in scientific research, materials science offers a critical testbed due to its interdisciplinary, multimodal, and application-driven nature. However, existing materials benchmarks mainly focus on property prediction, knowledge QA, or characterization understanding, leaving the broader reasoning process from materials knowledge to application underexplored. To fill this gap, we present OmniMatBench, a human-calibrated multimodal reasoning benchmark for materials science. OmniMatBench contains 3,171 expert-curated QA and calculation problems across 19 materials-science subfields, spanning fundamental materials knowledge, structural and engineering materials, materials processing and manufacturing, and functional and applied materials. We evaluate 13 open-source and closed-source MLLMs and find that the best model achieves only a 0.372 overall score, revealing a substantial gap in current materials-science reasoning. Further analysis shows strong variation across subfields, fixed reasoning heuristics, uneven materials knowledge, and limited high-level knowledge application under formula-, retrieval-, and code-assisted settings. OmniMatBench provides crucial insights into the capabilities and limitations of current MLLMs and establishes a foundation for reliable AI assistants in materials-science research.

Existing AI evaluation practices often fail to capture how systems actually perform in low-resource environments, where operational constraints shape usability as much as model quality. Through a structured analysis of existing benchmark families across speech, chat/RAG, and vision systems, we identify critical gaps between laboratory evaluation practices and real-world deployment conditions in low-resource environments. We argue that the meaningful unit of assessment is the deployed system rather than an isolated model and that effective evaluation frameworks must integrate task performance with deployment conditions such as noisy inputs, code-switching, intermittent connectivity, low-end hardware, and domain shift. At the same time, benchmarks should recognize that different application classes require distinct evaluation profiles rather than a single aggregate score that obscures operational differences. To support practical decision-making, we propose a shared reporting framework that preserves comparability across systems and application types while remaining sensitive to deployment context. Finally, we emphasize the need for concise and actionable reporting artifacts for policymakers, donors, and implementers, including standardized one-page benchmark cards, deployment profiles, and explicit documentation of failure handling procedures and human oversight mechanisms.

Progress in Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) is hindered by the lack of standardized and reusable evaluation practices across tasks, datasets, and application domains. Reported results are often difficult to reproduce and compare, as key protocol choices, such as data splits, preprocessing, label alignment, temporal windowing, and metrics, are often implicit or implemented ad hoc. We introduce \picid, a modular evaluation infrastructure that formalizes the PHM evaluation pipeline as an explicit, executable, and reproducible protocol. Through well-defined abstractions, \picid enforces deterministic, leakage-safe dataset construction while remaining flexible across diverse PHM settings. The framework supports fault detection, diagnostics, and prognostics through a unified interface and can be extended to new datasets and model classes without violating protocol invariants. By standardizing data contracts and evaluation boundaries, \picid also enables fair cross-task comparisons across diagnostics (classification) and prognostics (regression), allowing identical model families to be evaluated consistently across heterogeneous settings. We demonstrate \picid through an empirical evaluation of thirteen models on twelve datasets spanning batteries, bearings, turbofan engines, hydraulics, filtration systems, and buildings. This work establishes a reusable foundation for standardized, fair and reproducible evaluation in PHM.

BuddyBench introduces a privacy-constrained multi-task benchmark for pediatric social-communication personalization. Unlike existing neurodevelopmental repositories that primarily emphasize imaging, genetics, or cross-sectional clinical phenotyping, BuddyBench links drill-level learning trajectories, standardized clinical assessments, BuddyPlan self-report, and randomized-treatment endpoints within a unified benchmark schema. BuddyBench combines two cohorts: ND-03 is an observational cohort with dense drill coverage for Tasks1-2 (n = 189), and ND-02 is a randomized controlled trial cohort for Tasks3-4 (n = 86 ITT). Together, they support knowledge tracing, next-drill recommendation, clinical prediction, and causal inference, linking behavioral personalization to clinical evaluation. We additionally introduce BuddyBench-Sim, a synthetic companion dataset for reproducible evaluation. Baselines show signal across tasks while keeping pediatric clinical records protected.

AI agents are increasingly useful for biological data analysis, but existing benchmarks mostly test broad biological knowledge, executable workflows, or localized analysis steps rather than end-to-end scientific reasoning over spatial measurements. We introduce SpatialBench-Long, a benchmark for long-horizon spatial biology in which agents must recover biological claims from raw or near-raw data and calibrated experimental context without prescribed methods. SpatialBench-Long contains 24 evaluations across primary pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), engineered glioblastoma organoids and in vivo tumors, Cas9 lineage-traced lung adenocarcinoma, and mouse optic nerve aging/intervention systems, spanning CosMx, Visium, Xenium, multiplexed error-robust fluorescence in situ hybridization (MERFISH), single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), Slide-seq, Slide-tags, histology, and lineage-recording data. Candidate claims are hardened through reproduction, independent scientist review, and trajectory inspection. Final answers are graded deterministically over controlled vocabularies and symbols with companion rubrics capturing progress through key analysis chokepoints. Across the SpatialBench-Long benchmark, three model-harness pairs tie at 8/72 runs (11.1%): Gemini 3.5 Flash / Pi terminal coding harness, GPT-5.5 / Pi, and GPT-5.5 / OpenAI Codex. SpatialBench-Long tests whether agents can move beyond executing procedural analysis to deriving accurate scientific conclusions from complex spatial measurements.

While spatial foundation models have demonstrated impressive performance on standard datasets, a critical question remains: are they truly all-round players capable of generalizing robustly across diverse downstream tasks, arbitrary viewpoints, shifting scene domains, varying input densities, and specific hardware constraints? Answering this overarching question requires a holistic assessment, yet current models are mainly evaluated on specific domains for which they were specifically designed or trained. Such evaluations are intrinsically limited by narrow paradigm coverage, limited scene domains, and arbitrary frame sampling, making it fundamentally difficult to assess their true generalization capabilities. To address this gap, we present SpatialBench, a cross-paradigm, domain-diverse benchmark for spatial foundation models with deterministic sampling. SpatialBench features unprecedented scale and rigorous deterministic design, comprising 19 datasets and 546 scenes across 5 diverse spatial domains. It comprehensively evaluates 41 models across 6 paradigms on 5 task suites under 4 different input density settings. Our extensive evaluation reveals that current models are not yet all-round players, and uncovers crucial insights for future advancement. Specifically, we demonstrate that full-context attention maximizes accuracy while bounded-memory strategies unlock long-sequence scalability. Moreover, our empirical evaluations in challenging embodied and egocentric tasks demonstrate that strict domain alignment and high data quality are far more critical to performance than simple dataset scaling. Furthermore, to address the largest data gap identified in our analysis, we go beyond evaluation by introducing a large-scale dataset, DA-Next-5M, and a strong baseline model, DA-Next, pushing the boundaries of spatial representation learning.

With the rapid advancement of large language models, evaluating human-likeness in open-ended conversation has become increasingly important. However, human-likeness is a form of tacit knowledge that humans perceive intuitively, yet the underlying criteria resist explicit formulation. Human judgments vary widely, with strong agreement on some cases and legitimate disagreement on others. Meanwhile, the criteria behind human judgments remain implicit, leaving no clear basis for constructing cases. Further, what counts as human-likeness is not static, but evolving with model capability and human expectations. Despite progress in evaluation methods such as expert-authored benchmarks, Reward Models, and self-evolving benchmarks, none addresses all three challenges simultaneously. Therefore, we propose GrowLoop, a self-evolving conversation evaluation system that continuously adapts as models advance and scenarios shift. Starting from minimal human seed annotations, LLM agents iteratively extract and refine evaluation rubrics through Heuristic Learning. Human-AI agreement is required where annotators converge, while only plausibility is expected where they diverge. Moreover, the Rubric-Case co-evolution mechanism enables continuous evolution. When the evaluation target shifts, new human seeds expand the system's coverage accordingly. When applied to human-likeness evaluation in open-ended conversation, the AI judge guided by these rubrics not only substantially outperforms existing methods in alignment with human judgments, but also uncovers issues that annotators overlook. The resulting benchmark effectively discriminates models across capability tiers and reveals where they fall short, while generalizing to new scenarios and adapting as models advance. Our work shifts the benchmarking paradigm from manual updates or difficulty scaling to comprehensive, continuous self-evolution.

Assertion-based verification (ABV) is a cornerstone of modern hardware design, yet manually translating design intent into formal SystemVerilog Assertions (SVAs) remains labor-intensive and error-prone. While Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise for automating this process, existing benchmarks remain limited by unrealistic task formulations, weak specification inputs, and oversimplified evaluation. To address these limitations, we introduce AssertLLM2, an open-source benchmark for realistic assertion generation in hardware verification. AssertLLM2 contains 83 real-world designs across 13 functional categories. For each design, the benchmark provides a structured design specification, a verified dependency-complete golden RTL, and systematically mutated buggy RTL variants. These support two practical settings: bug-prevention, where assertions are generated from specifications to guard against design errors, and bug-hunting, where assertions are generated to expose discrepancies between intended behavior and faulty implementations. To the best of our knowledge, AssertLLM2 is the first benchmark to explicitly use buggy RTL as input to evaluate bug-detection capability. AssertLLM2 further adopts a more rigorous evaluation framework spanning syntactic validity, formal provability, coverage, and mutation-based bug detection. Our benchmark enables a more realistic and extensive assessment of assertion generation and establishes rigorous baselines for state-of-the-art LLMs in practical hardware verification.

Inverse design of materials has significantly advanced target-driven formulation optimization, yet existing materials machine learning benchmarks remain limited to forward property prediction, failing to systematically evaluate inverse optimization and generation algorithms, a critical gap that hinders the progress of target-driven materials design. To address this limitation, we propose MatFormBench, a novel benchmarking ecosystem tailored to evaluate and guide generative strategies for target-driven formulation. MatFormBench integrates a physics-driven formulation generation scheme to generate synthetic samples that faithfully emulate realistic materials structure-property response relationships, complemented by five escalating difficulty levels to quantify the complexity of these relationships. To rigorously assess algorithm performance, we further propose MatFormScore, a multi-dimensional metric that comprehensively quantifies performance across five critical axes: target success, search efficiency, exploratory capacity, robustness, and stability. We validate MatFormBench by evaluating 39 diverse inverse design algorithms, covering classical surrogate-assisted black-box search, state-of-the-art deep generative models, and increasingly popular Large Language Model (LLM)-based recommendation strategies. Across 1170 standardized algorithm-task evaluations, diffusion-based models demonstrate the strongest overall performance, while Variational Autoencoder (VAE)-based and Genetic Algorithm (GA)-based methods exhibit distinct advantages in specific scenarios. By establishing a unified evaluation standard for target-driven materials formulation, MatFormBench enables reproducible benchmarking, principled algorithm comparison, and diagnostic analysis of inverse design strategies, providing a foundational tool for advancing materials inverse design.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become critical for knowledge-intensive applications, yet evaluating its performance in vertical domains remains difficult due to domain complexity, diverse context scales, and heavy reliance on expert assessments that are costly, inconsistent, and non-scalable. We introduce FAB-Bench, an end-to-end framework for adaptive benchmarking of RAG systems in semiconductor manufacturing. FAB-Bench defines six diagnostic metrics measuring factual accuracy, contextual utilization, completeness, retrieval relevance, technical depth, and reasoning consistency. The framework couples retriever diagnostics with generator-level reasoning analysis across context windows of 4K-32K tokens, quantifying how retrieval precision and generative fidelity co-evolve as contextual scope expands. From over 1,300 generated candidates, we curated a high-quality benchmark of 200 query-answer pairs spanning three synthesis strategies: needle-in-haystack, intra-document multi-topic, and cross-document multi-hop. Systematic evaluation across four LLMs and four RAG frameworks reveals three distinct context-scaling behaviors: logarithmic growth, early saturation, and cold-start dynamics, and identifies attention dilution as the primary mechanism behind performance degradation at extreme context lengths. Cross-framework validation on three additional production RAG systems confirms evaluation portability.

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.

Benchmarks increasingly guide deployment, procurement and scientific screening, yet a score supports only the response it records, not necessarily the deployment action. We introduce deployment-complete benchmarking, which tests whether benchmark evidence determines a deployment action. A benchmark is complete for a claim exactly when the action is constant on each evidence fiber; mixed fibers expose missing deployment information, and completion curves quantify the evidence required to resolve ambiguity. In controlled response spaces, benchmark-channel conformal coverage of 94.98% transferred poorly to an unmeasured deployment channel (10.07%), whereas response-rank intervals achieved 94.91% coverage; even zero benchmark error certified only 45.4% of candidates at the largest residual size. Public audits revealed incompleteness, including 97.9% mixed Tox21 fibers and zero median certifiable fraction in main Matbench and JARVIS audits. In held-out replays, certify-then-acquire reduced false decisions from 1.19% to 0.027% in Tox21 and from 20.3% to 0.128% in JARVIS, while changing model choice and identifying deployment-relevant probes. Deployment-ready benchmarks should report evidence, supported actions, ambiguity and completion cost rather than scores alone.

Dynamic multi-objective optimization with a changing number of objectives has recently attracted increasing attention due to its relevance to real-world problems whose evaluation criteria may evolve over time. However, existing benchmark test suites for this problem setting suffer from a fundamental limitation: when the number of objectives changes, the objective functions themselves also change implicitly. This makes it difficult to isolate and evaluate an algorithm's capability to handle dynamics in the number of objectives alone. In this paper, we analyze this issue in detail and show that several theoretical properties claimed in prior studies rely on an assumption that is violated by commonly used test suites. To address this problem, we propose a scalable benchmark test suite in which the objective functions are fixed throughout the optimization process, while the number of active objectives changes over time. Our benchmark is constructed by defining a maximum-objective problem and dynamically selecting subsets of objectives. To avoid degeneracy issues in classical DTLZ and WFG problems, we adopt Minus-DTLZ and Minus-WFG formulations, in which all objectives are mutually conflicting. Extensive benchmark studies using representative algorithms from the literature demonstrate the usefulness and flexibility of the proposed test suite.

This is a planning-method note with an unpaired pilot audit. We adapt the classical paired-binary sample-size calculation (Miettinen, 1968) to quantization benchmarks, giving a conservative minimum detectable effect (MDE) bound $δ^{*} \le (z_{1-α/2}+z_{1-β})\sqrt{ρ_d/m}$ in the paired item count $m$ and the FP16-NF4 disagreement rate $ρ_d$. The bound turns "how reliable is my quantization claim?" into a one-line budget a benchmark designer can commit to before running. We illustrate the bound on four models and four benchmarks ($k=5$ splits of $n=100$), and add a parallel MMLU prompt-template study to put the bound's quantization-noise scale alongside the prompt-noise scale. Assuming $ρ_d=0.10$ (an unmeasured planning value), all observed NF4-FP16 deltas fall below the implied MDE, and most cross-split SDs lie within $\pm 1.5$ pp of the binomial reference $\sqrt{p(1-p)/n}$, so much of the variance reported as "benchmark unreliability" on $n=100$ subsamples is binomial sampling noise. The single borderline cell (OPT-WinoGrande, $|Δ|=3.2$ pp) is below the implied MDE at $ρ_d=0.10$ but above it at $ρ_d=0.05$, illustrating the planning trade-off the bound makes explicit. On MMLU, prompt-template ranges of 2-10 pp meet or exceed the largest observed quantization delta (3.2 pp), so a quantization audit that does not first fix the prompt template absorbs template variance into its noise floor. We complement the bound with a five-line pre-registration template.

Pairwise model comparisons drawn from foundation-model benchmarks ("A is safer than B") are read as quantitative verdicts but hinge on harness choices benchmark papers under-specify. We close one theory-benchmark loop on this primitive: a finite-envelope proposition tying a measurable pairwise-disagreement rate to whether the strict ordering admits a configuration-pair reversal, paired with a commit-stamped evaluation protocol that operationalises it on widely cited alignment benchmarks. On every benchmark we test, configuration choice alone can flip the pairwise verdict; the proposition isolates this strict-reversal failure mode.

Nucleotide sequences constitute the fundamental genetic basis of biological systems, rendering viral genomic analysis critical for biomedical advancement. Despite progress in biological foundation models, specifically nucleotide foundation models (NFMs), the field lacks a unified standard for viral genomics to facilitate community development and enforce biosecurity constraints. To address this, we introduce ViroBench, the first comprehensive and large-scale benchmark specifically designed for NFMs in viral settings. ViroBench evaluates models across two critical dimensions: biological understanding and latent biosecurity risk, covering 18 diverse scenarios within 4 task types. Extensive evaluation of 66 NFMs across diverse architectures yields three critical conclusions. Firstly, NFMs exhibit a performance degradation in biological understanding under phylogenetic and temporal shifts, indicating weak extrapolation capabilities. Secondly, generation tasks reveal a decoupling between statistical likelihood and biological functional validity, posing latent biosecurity risks. Thirdly, controlled ablation studies reveal that taxonomic diversity in pretraining data outweighs parameter scale. Specifically, a lightweight baseline trained on diverse data achieves a 67.5% performance gain over its original model. Overall, ViroBench provides interpretable, diagnostic evaluations and a reproducible measurement framework for future research on viral nucleotide foundation models. The datasets and code are publicly available at https://github.com/QIANJINYDX/ViroBench.

While aggregate leaderboard scores drive AI development, they contain substantial measurement noise whose sources and magnitudes remain unquantified, making it unclear when rankings reflect genuine capability differences versus evaluation artifacts. We introduce a framework for measuring the latent landscape in AI benchmark ecosystems. Applying Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Generalizability Theory to 4,000+ models from the Open LLM Leaderboard, we decompose sources of ranking variance and establish: (1) structures assumed in current reporting practice underestimate the strength of relationships between benchmarks; (2) evidence of local dependence among leaderboard items, undermining uses of benchmarks as measurement instruments under current scoring systems; (3) contributor metadata explains more rank-relevant variance ($\approx9\%$) than architecture or deployment categories in this context; (4) a manifest-score "scaling law" slope has low reliability ($R_β=0.53$); by contrast, the latent general-factor size slope is highly stable across ecosystem controls ($R_g=0.97$). We are able to provide unique insights into benchmark dynamics, such as which benchmarks are a function of LLM size and which can be oppositely impacted by post-training practices. We provide actionable diagnostics to determine how benchmark rankings can be trusted and how benchmark design can be improved.

Accurate evaluation of weather forecasting models is critical for their reliable deployment in real-world applications. However, existing benchmarks predominantly rely on reanalysis products such as ERA5, which are generated through delayed data assimilation and do not reflect the constraints of real-time operational forecasting, thereby resulting in a systematic mismatch between benchmark performance and real-world forecasting. In this work, we introduce RealBench, a next-generation benchmark for AI weather forecasting that emphasizes realistic evaluation under operational conditions. RealBench features a strictly out-of-distribution test set spanning 2025 to eliminate data leakage and capture recent atmospheric regimes. It integrates multiple data sources, including low-latency operational analysis and a large-scale global in-situ observation dataset comprising over 10,000 stations, enabling direct evaluation against real atmospheric measurements. Beyond standard global metrics, RealBench provides a comprehensive evaluation framework for high-impact extreme events, including heatwaves, cold surges, and tropical cyclones, using event-specific metrics that better reflect real-world forecasting priorities. The evaluation results reveal substantial discrepancies between reanalysis-based metrics and real-world performance, particularly concerning extreme events. By highlighting the limitations of existing benchmarks, this work establishes a more faithful and operationally relevant evaluation paradigm, providing a rigorous foundation for advancing next-generation AI weather forecasting systems. The benchmark implementation is available at: https://github.com/lixruize-del/NWP-Benchmark.

LiDAR model selection is a critical issue in roadside sensing systems, as it directly determines both perception capability and deployment cost. However, the lack of empirical benchmarks for comparing perception performance across different LiDAR configurations has greatly constrained scientific sensor selection and deployment planning. To address this gap, we present MR-LiDAR, a controlled multi-resolution LiDAR benchmark for roadside perception diagnostics. Using 16-, 32-, 80-, and 128-beam LiDARs in identical roadside scenarios, we collect point clouds and ground-truth annotations for diverse traffic participants, including vehicles and vulnerable road users (VRUs), across varying distances. This controlled design isolates intrinsic LiDAR specifications, particularly beam count and beam distribution, as the key variables for precise performance diagnostics. Based on MR-LiDAR, we conduct systematic empirical analyses to examine how beam count, beam distribution, target distance, object category, and vehicle occlusion affect LiDAR perception performance. The results reveal that all of these factors have substantial impacts. In particular, contrary to the common assumption that higher beam counts always yield better perception, we show that an 80-beam LiDAR with optimized beam distribution can match or even outperform a 128-beam LiDAR with uniform beam distribution. In addition, we provide a practical reference guide for LiDAR selection, including target point-count statistics and detection performance comparisons based on two widely used detection algorithms. This work offers a diagnostic benchmark and practical guidance for determining cost-effective LiDAR configurations in roadside perception applications.

Streaming intrusion-detection studies assemble evaluation streams from network captures by interleaving capture days, pooling captures, or replaying records round robin. We show on two benchmarks that this assembly is an uncontrolled experimental treatment changing what the evaluation measures. On CICIDS2017, reordering an identical record multiset under a fixed positional 70/15/15 split yields held-out samples sharing only 32.5% of their records, at prevalences of 68.235% and 25.2396% (42.9954 points apart), and reverses the measured ordering of the two deterministic scorers. Restricting both arms to the 78000 records both held out removes the reversal, so it is attributable to which records the assembly hands to the test set, not to the order in which the detector saw its history. That attribution assumes that history contributes no more on the records the arms do not share than on those they do. On LITNET-2020, pooling three temporally disjoint captures reports one 6.4982% operating point, the equal-weight mean of per-capture held-out prevalences from 0.176% to 15.7747%, an identity presented as an audit check. The evaluated detector's reset posterior P(r_t=0) equals the hazard rate exactly below the run-length cap, though evaluations spend nearly all their length at or beyond it, and its evaluated score is a function of P(r<=5), not of P(r=0). Its deployed max composition ranks worse than its tail term alone (0.103477 AP, 0.302658 AUC-ROC) because the auxiliary branch is inverted (AUC-ROC 0.281890) and the maximum lets it set the score wherever the tail is small. With evaluated records and fitted model fixed, changing only the accompanying batch moves the ECOD reference implementation's AUC-PR by 0.003063, so published ECOD numbers are not comparable across studies scoring different batches. Every measured value traces to an archived, hash-verified run manifest.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) transition from research environments to production deployments, evaluating their performance against strict Service Level Objectives (SLOs) has become critical. However, current evaluation methodologies suffer from severe measurement bias at scale. We demonstrate that widely used benchmarking utilities rely on single-process, asyncio-driven architectures that introduce fundamental client-side queuing bottlenecks under high concurrency. By modeling the benchmarking client as an $M/G/1$ queue, we mathematically demonstrate how the Python Global Interpreter Lock (GIL) artificially inflates Time to First Token (TTFT) and Time Per Output Token (TPOT) metrics as request rates scale. To resolve this systematic inaccuracy, we propose an unbiased, multi-process evaluation framework that effectively distributes client-side load, ensuring negligible queuing overhead. Furthermore, we formalize a composite metric, Normalized Time Per Output Token (NTPOT), to robustly amortize end-to-end latency, including prefill and scheduling delays across sequence lengths. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that this methodology successfully isolates pure serving engine performance, enabling accurate, reproducible profiling of LLMs at production scales exceeding thousands of queries per second.

We study a protocol-level test for weak-label benchmarks: whether benchmark outputs change when the provided evidence is intervened on. Metadata-only shortcut checks answer a different question, namely whether outputs are predictable from metadata priors. We therefore combine a metadata statistic, the Metadata Prior Dominance Score (MPDS), with an evidence-intervention statistic, ΔEvi, measuring sensitivity to evidence identity under cross-item shuffling. Synthetic HotpotQA gives a constructed counterexample to metadata-only screening: MPDS is only moderate (0.643), yet ΔEvi is zero. Stronger-reader reruns show why calibration belongs in the test procedure: SNLI shows a calibration reversal, reconstructed HotpotQA occupies a question-dominant warning region, and FEVER is a strongly evidence-sensitive positive control across four transformers. The practical lesson is simple: benchmark audits should report metadata-only screening, evidence intervention, and reader-strength calibration together.

Multi-task benchmarks have become a central pillar of machine learning research, yet their growing influence has incentivised benchmark gaming -- strategic actions taken to improve the leaderboard rank of a specific model. Treating datasets as voters and models as candidates, we consider benchmark-specific training -- the inclusion of benchmark data in training -- as a form of election manipulation. For any ordinal benchmark, the problem of choosing datasets to train on so that a target model becomes top-ranked corresponds to shift bribery, a class of manipulation problems from computational social choice. Leveraging this identification, we show that the benchmark-specific training problem is NP-hard under Borda count and mean win rate. Complementing this worst-case perspective, we introduce the instance-level robustness, the minimum number of datasets a model developer must include in training to top a given leaderboard, and derive expressions for it under arithmetic mean, median, mean win rate and pairwise majority. We evaluate these expressions on MMLU under HELM and on BIG-Bench Hard (BBH) under the Open LLM Leaderboard. Across both suites, mean win rate is hardest to manipulate: this gap is clear on BBH (24 tasks, 4507 models), where its median robustness is 22 tasks (92%), compared with 13 (54%) under arithmetic mean and 12 (50%) under median and pairwise majority.

The development of LLM agents has led to a growing body of work on knowledge-work AI, including coding, research, and healthcare. However, current knowledge-work evaluation and benchmark design still largely follow the logic of traditional NLP tasks. As a result, higher benchmark performance does not reliably show that a system can carry out knowledge work in real-world deployment settings. This paper contributes a three-step approach for making explicit how benchmarked tasks represent the work claims attached to their scores: defining the work activity under evaluation, specifying the tested setting, and scoring the appropriate work product. We review work studies showing that knowledge work is organized through roles and responsibilities, local materials and tools, and artifacts that must remain usable in downstream workflows. We then translate these concerns into benchmark design and reporting guidance, covering how tasks should be mapped to work activities, how tested settings should specify materials, tools, roles, and constraints, and how scoring should focus on the work product left by the system. To name the work activity being evaluated and distinguish it from common benchmark tasks, we derive an inventory of 18 work activities from the O{*}NET occupational task database. We demonstrate the approach through three benchmark case analyses: GDPval, a non-code occupational deliverable benchmark; OfficeQA Pro, a grounded document-analysis benchmark scored by final answers; and APEX-SWE, a software-engineering benchmark with executable scored products. These cases show how benchmark design choices shape the strongest work claim a score can support, and where gaps arise between the benchmarked task, tested setting, scored product, and broader work claim.