Benchmark Design

Patient simulators are gaining traction in mental health training by providing scalable exposure to complex and sensitive patient interactions. Simulating depressed patients is challenging, as safety constraints and high patient variability complicate simulations and underscore the need for simulators that capture diverse and realistic patient behaviors. However, existing evaluations heavily rely on LLM-judges with poorly specified prompts and do not assess behavioral diversity. We introduce PSI-Bench, an automatic evaluation framework that provides interpretable, clinically meaningful diagnostics of depression patient simulator behavior across turn-, dialogue-, and population-level dimensions. Using PSI-Bench, we benchmark seven LLMs across two simulator frameworks and find that simulators produce overly long, lexically diverse responses, show reduced variability, and move through therapeutic stages and toward positive valence too quickly. We also show that the simulation framework has a larger impact on fidelity than the model scale. Results from a human study demonstrate that our benchmark is strongly aligned with judgments of mental health professionals. Our work reveals key limitations of current depression patient simulators and provides an interpretable, extensible benchmark to guide future simulator design and evaluation.

Real-world evidence (RWE) studies that emulate target trials increasingly inform regulatory and clinical decisions, yet residual, hard-to-quantify biases still limit their credibility. The recently proposed BenchExCal framework addresses this challenge via a two-stage Benchmark, Expand, Calibrate process, which first compares an observational emulation against an existing randomized controlled trial (RCT), then uses observed divergence to calibrate a second emulation for a new indication causal effect estimation. While methodologically powerful, BenchExCal is resource intensive and difficult to scale. We introduce TrialCalibre, a conceptualized multiagent system designed to automate and scale the BenchExCal workflow. Our framework features specialized agents such as the Orchestrator, Protocol Design, Data Synthesis, Clinical Validation, and Quantitative Calibration Agents that coordi-nate the the overall process. TrialCalibre incorpo-rates agent learning (e.g., RLHF) and knowledge blackboards to support adaptive, auditable, and transparent causal effect estimation.

Earth observation satellite imaging scheduling is a challenging NP-hard combinatorial optimisation problem central to space mission operations. While next-generation agile Earth observation satellites (EOS) increase operational flexibility, they also significantly raise scheduling complexity. The lack of a unified, open-source benchmark makes it difficult to compare algorithms across studies. This paper introduces EOS-Bench, a comprehensive framework for systematic and reproducible evaluation of scheduling methods. By integrating high-fidelity orbital dynamics and platform constraints, EOS-Bench generates 1,390 scenarios and 13,900 benchmark instances, spanning from small-scale validation cases to large coordination problems with up to 1,000 satellites and 10,000 requests. We further propose a scenario characterisation scheme to quantify structural difficulty based on factors such as opportunity density, task flexibility, conflict intensity, and satellite congestion. A multidimensional evaluation protocol is introduced, assessing performance across five metrics: task profit, completion rate, workload balance, timeliness, and runtime. The framework is evaluated using mixed-integer programming, heuristics, meta-heuristics, and deep reinforcement learning across both agile and non-agile settings. Results show that EOS-Bench effectively distinguishes solver performance across scales and conditions, revealing trade-offs between solution quality and computational efficiency, and providing deeper insight into scenario complexity. EOS-Bench offers a unified and extensible open testbed for advancing research in Earth observation satellite scheduling. The code and data are available at https://github.com/Ethan19YQ/EOS-Bench.

Accurate bandgap prediction is crucial for semiconductor applications, yet machine learning models trained on computational data often struggle to generalize to experimental bandgap measurements. Challenges related to data fidelity, domain generalization, and model interpretability remain insufficiently addressed in existing evaluation frameworks. To bridge this gap, we introduce RealMat-BaG, a benchmark for assessing model reliability under experimentally relevant conditions. We curate an open-access dataset of experimental bandgaps with aligned crystal structures and compare graph neural networks as well as classical machine learning baselines. Our framework evaluates performance across statistical and domain-based splits, examines transfer from DFT-computed to experimental bandgaps, and analyzes interpretability at both elemental-property and structural levels. Our results reveal the fundamental generalization limitations of current bandgap prediction models and establish a benchmark aligned with experimental measurements for developing more reliable learning strategies for materials discovery.

Stopping criteria automatically determine when to stop an evolutionary algorithm, so as not to waste function evaluations on a stagnant population. Although stopping criteria play an important role in real-world applications, they have attracted little attention in the evolutionary multi-objective optimization (EMO) community. In fact, new stopping criteria for EMO have been rarely developed in recent years. One reason for the stagnation in developing stopping criteria for EMO is a lack of effective benchmarking methodologies. To address this issue, this paper proposes (i) a performance measure of stopping criteria for EMO and (ii) a file-based benchmarking approach. This paper also proposes (iii) a data representation method that effectively stores population states in text files. (i) The proposed measure represents the performance of stopping criteria as a single scalar value, making comparison easy. (ii) The proposed file-based approach not only simplifies the benchmarking process but also facilitates reproducibility. (iii) The proposed data representation method addresses the issue of file size in (ii). We demonstrate the effectiveness of our three contributions (i)--(iii) by benchmarking five representative stopping criteria for EMO.

Energy forecasting research faces a persistent comparability gap that makes it difficult to measure consistent progress over time. Reported accuracy gains are often not directly comparable because models are evaluated under study-specific datasets, time periods, information sets, and scoring setups, while widely used benchmarks and competition datasets are typically tied to fixed historical windows. This paper introduces the Energy-Arena, a dynamic benchmarking platform for operational energy time series forecasting that provides a continuously updated reference point as energy systems evolve. The platform operates as an open, API-based submission system and standardizes challenge definitions and submission deadlines aligned with operational constraints. Performance is reported on rolling evaluation windows via persistent leaderboards. By moving from retrospective backtesting to forward-looking benchmarking, the Energy-Arena enforces standardized ex-ante submission and ex-post evaluation, thereby improving transparency by preventing information leakage and retroactive tuning. The platform is publicly available at Energy-Arena.org.

Benchmark hacking refers to tuning a machine learning model to score highly on certain evaluation criteria without improving true generalization or faithfully solving the intended problem. We study this phenomenon in a generic machine learning contest, where each contestant chooses two types of effort: creative effort that improves model capability as desired by the contest host, and mechanistic effort that only improves the model's fitness to the particular task in contest without contributing to true generalization. We establish the existence of a symmetric monotone pure strategy equilibrium in this competition game. It also provides a natural definition of benchmark hacking in this strategic context by comparing a player's equilibrium effort allocation to that of a single-agent baseline scenario. Under our definition, contestants with types below certain threshold (low types) always engage in benchmark hacking, whereas those above the threshold do not. Furthermore, we show that more skewed reward structures (favoring top-ranked contestants) can elicit more desirable contest outcomes. We also provide empirical evidence to support our theoretical predictions.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable reasoning, complex optimization tasks remain challenging, requiring domain knowledge and robust implementation. However, existing benchmarks focus narrowly on Mathematical Programming and Combinatorial Optimization, hindering comprehensive evaluation. To address this, we introduce OptiVerse, a comprehensive benchmark of 1,000 curated problems spanning neglected domains, including Stochastic Optimization, Dynamic Optimization, Game Optimization, and Optimal Control, across three difficulty levels: Easy, Medium, and Hard. The experiments with 22 LLMs of different sizes reveal sharp performance degradation on hard problems, where even advanced models like GPT-5.2 and Gemini-3 struggle to exceed 27% accuracy. Through error analysis, we identify that modeling & logic errors remain the primary bottleneck. Consequently, we propose a Dual-View Auditor Agent that improves the accuracy of the LLM modeling process without introducing significant time overhead. OptiVerse will serve as a foundational platform for advancing LLMs in solving complex optimization challenges.

Anti-doping programs rely on biological testing to detect performance-enhancing drugs, but such testing costs over $800 per sample and is limited by short detection windows for many prohibited substances. These constraints leave large portions of athletes without regular testing, motivating complementary screening approaches that analyze routine competition results to identify suspicious performance patterns. We present a system that processes 1.6 million athletics performances from over 19,000 competitions (2010-2025) using eight detection methods ranging from statistical rules to machine learning and trajectory analysis. We validate all methods against publicly confirmed anti-doping violations to measure their effectiveness in identifying sanctioned athletes. Trajectory-based methods, which compare performances to expected career progression, achieve the best balance between detecting violations and limiting false alarms, though all methods face challenges from incomplete data and rare confirmed violations. The system provides an interactive interface for expert-driven investigation, emphasizing transparency and human judgment to support, rather than replace, established anti-doping processes.

LLM benchmarks are increasingly dynamic: instead of containing a fixed set of questions, they define templates and parameters that can generate an effectively unlimited number of question variants. This flexibility is valuable, but it makes evaluation expensive -- especially when the goal is not just determining an average score, but reliably identifying a model's weak spots. This paper introduces a new methodology for identifying hard questions in dynamic benchmarks. It leverages COUP, a recent Bayesian optimization algorithm (Graham, Velez & Leyton-Brown, 2026), after introducing several substantive modifications to make the algorithm suitable for practical LLM pipelines. We also wrap it in a tool that supports flexible choices of datasets and utility functions, enabling users to target the kinds of questions they care about (e.g., low-accuracy questions; questions that are unusually hard relative to their measured complexity). In experiments across a range of benchmarks, we show that our method, dubbed $\texttt{QuickScope}$, discovers truly difficult questions more sample efficiently than standard baselines, while also reducing false positives from noisy outcomes.

Reach and Frequency (R&F) contract advertising is an important form of widely used brand advertising. Unlike performance advertising, R&F contracts emphasize controllable delivery of UV and PV under given targeting, scheduling, and frequency control constraints. In practical systems, advertisers typically need to view the UV, PV change curves at different budget levels in real time when creating an R&F contract. However, most existing publicly available advertising datasets are based on independent samples, lacking a characterization of the core structure of the "budget-performance curve" (including UV and PV) in R&F contracts.This paper proposes and releases a large-scale R&F contract inventory estimation dataset. This dataset uses the R&F contract context consisting of "targeting-scheduling-frequency control" as the basic context, providing observations of UV and PV corresponding to multiple budget points within the same context, thus forming a complete budget-performance curve. The dataset explicitly includes a time-window-based frequency control mechanism (e.g.,"no more than 3 times within 5 days") and naturally satisfies the monotonicity and diminishing marginal returns characteristics in the budget and scheduling dimensions. We further derive the theoretical maximum exposure ceiling and use it as a consistency check to evaluate data quality and the feasibility of model predictions. Using this data set, this paper defines two standardized benchmark tasks: single-point performance prediction and reconstruction of budget-performance curves, and provides a set of reproducible baseline methods and evaluation protocols. This dataset can support systematic research on problems such as structural constraint learning, monotonic regression, curve consistency modeling, and R&F contract planning.The code for our experiments can be found at https://github.com/pengyunshan/RF-Inventory.

DNA sequence encoding is fundamental to gene function prediction, protein synthesis, and diverse downstream biological tasks. Despite the substantial progress achieved by large-scale DNA sequence pretraining, existing studies have overwhelmingly emphasized pretraining scale and custom downstream evaluation datasets, while neglecting some essential components of the pretraining paradigm. In this paper, we reveal three critical yet heretofore overlooked problems in DNA pretraining: inappropriate downstream datasets, inherent flaws in the neighbor-masking strategy, and the lack of detailed discussion on vocabulary. Therefore, we undertake comprehensive investigations and propose principled guidelines, including selection criteria for evaluation datasets, guiding task design, and in-depth vocabulary analysis. Extensive experiments validate the significance of our identified problems and support the rationale behind our recommendations. Finally, we introduce a standardized testbed that enables reproducible and rigorous benchmarking of DNA pretraining methods to advance the development of genomic foundation models.

Machine learning in high-stakes domains such as healthcare requires not only strong predictive performance but also reliable uncertainty quantification (UQ) to support human oversight. Multi-label text classification (MLTC) is a central task in this domain, yet remains challenging due to label imbalances, dependencies, and combinatorial complexity. Existing MLTC benchmarks are increasingly saturated and may be affected by training data contamination, making it difficult to distinguish genuine reasoning capabilities from memorization. We introduce MADE, a living MLTC benchmark derived from {m}edical device {ad}verse {e}vent reports and continuously updated with newly published reports to prevent contamination. MADE features a long-tailed distribution of hierarchical labels and enables reproducible evaluation with strict temporal splits. We establish baselines across more than 20 encoder- and decoder-only models under fine-tuning and few-shot settings (instruction-tuned/reasoning variants, local/API-accessible). We systematically assess entropy-/consistency-based and self-verbalized UQ methods. Results show clear trade-offs: smaller discriminatively fine-tuned decoders achieve the strongest head-to-tail accuracy while maintaining competitive UQ; generative fine-tuning delivers the most reliable UQ; large reasoning models improve performance on rare labels yet exhibit surprisingly weak UQ; and self-verbalized confidence is not a reliable proxy for uncertainty. Our work is publicly available at https://hhi.fraunhofer.de/aml-demonstrator/made-benchmark.

The rigorous evaluation of the novelty of a scientific paper is, even for human scientists, a challenging task. With the increasing interest in AI scientists and AI involvement in scientific idea generation and paper writing, it also becomes increasingly important that this task be automatable and reliable, lest both human attention and compute tokens be wasted on ideas that have already been explored. Due to the challenge of quantifying ground-truth novelty, however, existing novelty metrics for scientific papers generally validate their results against noisy, confounded signals such as citation counts or peer review scores. These proxies can conflate novelty with impact, quality, or reviewer preference, which in turn makes it harder to assess how well a given metric actually evaluates novelty. We therefore propose an axiomatic benchmark for scientific novelty metrics. We first define a set of axioms that a well-behaved novelty metric should satisfy, grounded in human scientific norms and practice, then evaluate existing metrics across ten tasks spanning three domains of AI research. Our results reveal that no existing metric satisfies all axioms consistently, and that metrics fail on systematically different axioms, reflecting their underlying architectures. Additionally, we show that combining metrics of complementary architectures leads to consistent improvements on the benchmark, with per-axiom weighting achieving 90.1% versus 71.5% for the best individual metric, suggesting that developing architecturally diverse metrics is a promising direction for future work. We release the benchmark code as supplementary material to encourage the development of more robust scientific literature novelty metrics.

Training GUI agents with traditional centralized methods faces significant cost and scalability challenges. Federated learning (FL) offers a promising solution, yet its potential is hindered by the lack of benchmarks that capture real-world, cross-platform heterogeneity. To bridge this gap, we introduce FedGUI, the first comprehensive benchmark for developing and evaluating federated GUI agents across mobile, web, and desktop platforms. FedGUI provides a suite of six curated datasets to systematically study four crucial types of heterogeneity: cross-platform, cross-device, cross-OS, and cross-source. Extensive experiments reveal several key insights: First, we show that cross-platform collaboration improves performance, extending prior mobile-only federated learning to diverse GUI environments; Second, we demonstrate the presence of distinct heterogeneity dimensions and identify platform and OS as the most influential factors. FedGUI provides a vital foundation for the community to build more scalable and privacy-preserving GUI agents for real-world deployment. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/wwh0411/FedGUI..

As agent systems move into increasingly diverse execution settings, trajectory-level safety evaluation and diagnosis require benchmarks that evolve with them. ATBench is a diverse and realistic agent trajectory benchmark for safety evaluation and diagnosis. This report presents ATBench-Claw and ATBench-Codex, two domain-customized extensions that carry ATBench into the OpenClaw and OpenAI Codex / Codex-runtime settings. The key adaptation mechanism is to analyze each new setting, customize the three-dimensional Safety Taxonomy over risk source, failure mode, and real-world harm, and then use that customized taxonomy to define the benchmark specification consumed by the shared ATBench construction pipeline. This extensibility matters because agent frameworks remain relatively stable at the architectural level even as their concrete execution settings, tool ecosystems, and product capabilities evolve quickly. Concretely, ATBench-Claw targets OpenClaw-sensitive execution chains over tools, skills, sessions, and external actions, while ATBench-Codex targets trajectories in the OpenAI Codex / Codex-runtime setting over repositories, shells, patches, dependencies, approvals, and runtime policy boundaries. Our emphasis therefore falls on taxonomy customization, domain-specific risk coverage, and benchmark design under a shared ATBench generation framework.

Recent AI systems have achieved gold-medal-level performance on the International Mathematical Olympiad, demonstrating remarkable proficiency at competition-style problem solving. However, competition mathematics represents only a narrow slice of mathematical reasoning: problems are drawn from limited domains, require minimal advanced machinery, and can often reward insightful tricks over deep theoretical knowledge. We introduce Riemann-Bench, a private benchmark of expert-curated problems designed to evaluate AI systems on research-level mathematics that goes far beyond the olympiad frontier. Problems are authored by Ivy League mathematics professors, graduate students, and PhD-holding IMO medalists, and routinely took their authors weeks to solve independently. Each problem undergoes double-blind verification by two independent domain experts who must solve the problem from scratch, and yields a unique, closed-form solution assessed by programmatic verifiers. We evaluate frontier models as unconstrained research agents, with full access to coding tools, search, and open-ended reasoning, using an unbiased statistical estimator computed over 100 independent runs per problem. Our results reveal that all frontier models currently score below 10%, exposing a substantial gap between olympiad-level problem solving and genuine research-level mathematical reasoning. By keeping the benchmark fully private, we ensure that measured performance reflects authentic mathematical capability rather than memorization of training data.

Binary Function Similarity Detection (BFSD) is a core problem in software security, supporting tasks such as vulnerability analysis, malware classification, and patch provenance. In the past few decades, numerous models and tools have been developed for this application; however, due to the lack of a comprehensive universal benchmark in this field, researchers have struggled to compare different models effectively. Existing datasets are limited in scope, often focusing on a narrow set of transformations or types of binaries, and fail to reflect the full diversity of real-world applications. We introduce EXHIB, a benchmark comprising five realistic datasets collected from the wild, each highlighting a distinct aspect of the BFSD problem space. We evaluate 9 representative models spanning multiple BFSD paradigms on EXHIB and observe performance degradations of up to 30% on firmware and semantic datasets compared to standard settings, revealing substantial generalization gaps. Our results show that robustness to low- and mid-level binary variations does not generalize to high-level semantic differences, underscoring a critical blind spot in current BFSD evaluation practices.

Existing aerial-robotics benchmarks target vehicles from hundreds of grams to several kilograms and typically expose only high-level state data. They omit the actuator-level signals required to study nano-scale quadrotors, where low-Reynoldsnumber aerodynamics, coreless DC motor nonlinearities, and severe computational constraints invalidate models and controllers developed for larger vehicles. We introduce NanoBench, an open-source multi-task benchmark collected on the commercially available Crazyflie 2.1 nano-quadrotor (takeoff weight 27 g) in a Vicon motion capture arena. The dataset comprises 172 flight recordings spanning multi-frequency excitation, geometric trajectory tracking at three speed regimes, and long-duration battery-drain hover. Each recording provides synchronized Vicon ground truth, raw IMU data, onboard extended Kalman filter (EKF) estimates, PID controller internals, and motor PWM commands at 100 Hz, alongside battery telemetry at 10 Hz, crossaligned by gyroscope-based correlation on a 1 ms search grid. NanoBench defines standardized evaluation protocols, train/test splits, and open-source baselines for three tasks: nonlinear system identification, closed-loop controller benchmarking, and onboard state estimation assessment. To our knowledge, it is the first public dataset to jointly provide actuator commands, controller internals, and estimator outputs with millimeter-accurate ground truth on a commercially available nano-scale aerial platform.

Automatic speech intelligibility assessment is crucial for monitoring speech disorders and therapy efficacy. However, existing methods are difficult to compare: research is fragmented across private datasets with inconsistent protocols. We introduce PathBench, a unified benchmark for pathological speech assessment using public datasets. We compare reference-free, reference-text, and reference-audio methods across three protocols (Matched Content, Extended, and Full) representing how a linguist (controlled stimuli) versus machine learning specialist (maximum data) would approach the same data. We establish benchmark baselines across six datasets, enabling systematic evaluation of future methodological advances, and introduce Dual-ASR Articulatory Precision (DArtP), achieving the highest average correlation among reference-free methods.

Tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) is central to small molecule identification, but current deep learning systems for spectrum prediction still remain difficult to evaluate and deploy in practice. While novel architectures constantly claim state-of-the-art performance, inconsistent metadata conditioning and entangled preprocessing pipelines hinder fair architectural comparisons. Besides, existing evaluations are often restricted to curated datasets, failing to capture the heterogeneity and cross-domain shifts of real-world metabolomics. Furthermore, current benchmarks lack difficulty-aware diagnostics and leave blind to how models behave under specific compute or data constraints. To address this, we present FlexMS, a modular public-data benchmark framework that standardizes MS/MS prediction across public resources while keeping molecular encoders, metadata conditioning, predictor heads, and downstream retrieval under one protocol. FlexMS establishes a fair evaluation playground which significantly lowers the barrier for integrating new predictive tools. Rather than solely optimizing for average scores, FlexMS augments aggregate accuracy with difficulty-aware diagnostics, providing actionable guidance on model selection across different compute constraints, data scales, and downstream retrieval objectives. Ultimately, FlexMS provides the community with a reproducible standard to identify which algorithmic conclusions are stable and which operating points are most viable in practice.

Many benchmarks for automated causal inference evaluate a system's performance based on a single numerical output, such as an Average Treatment Effect (ATE). This approach conflates two distinct steps in causal analysis: identification, formulating a valid research design under stated assumptions, and estimation, implementing that design numerically on finite data. We introduce CausalReasoningBenchmark, a benchmark of 174 queries across 139 real-world datasets, curated from 73 peer-reviewed research papers and three widely used causal-inference textbooks. For each query, a system must produce (i) a structured identification specification that names the strategy, the treatment, outcome, and control variables, and all design-specific elements, and (ii) a point estimate with a standard error. By scoring these two components separately, our benchmark enables granular diagnosis: it distinguishes failures in causal reasoning from errors in numerical execution. Baseline results with a state-of-the-art LLM show that, while the model correctly identifies the high-level strategy in 81% of cases, full identification-specification correctness drops to only 38%, revealing that the bottleneck lies in the nuanced details of research design rather than in computation. CausalReasoningBenchmark is publicly available on Hugging Face and is designed to foster the development of more robust automated causal-inference systems.

Design-to-code translates high-fidelity UI designs into executable front-end implementations, but progress remains hard to compare due to inconsistent datasets, toolchains, and evaluation protocols. We introduce 1D-Bench, a benchmark grounded in real e-commerce workflows, where each instance provides a reference rendering and an exported intermediate representation that may contain extraction errors. 1D is short for one day, representing the efficient completion of design-to-code tasks in less than one day. Models take both as input, using the intermediate representation as structural cues while being evaluated against the reference rendering, which tests robustness to intermediate representation defects rather than literal adherence. 1D-Bench requires generating an executable React codebase under a fixed toolchain with an explicit component hierarchy, and defines a multi-round setting in which models iteratively apply component-level edits using execution feedback. Experiments on commercial and open-weight multimodal models show that iterative editing generally improves final performance by increasing rendering success and often improving visual similarity. We further conduct a pilot study on post-training with synthetic repair trajectories and reinforcement learning based editing, and observe limited and unstable gains that may stem from sparse terminal rewards and high-variance file-level updates. The data and scripts used in this study are available in an anonymized repository at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/d2c-benchmark-A9C4/.

The research community lacks a middle ground between StarCraft II full game and its mini-games. The full-game's sprawling state-action space renders reward signals sparse and noisy, but in mini-games simple agents saturate performance. This complexity gap hinders steady curriculum design and prevents researchers from experimenting with modern Reinforcement Learning algorithms in RTS environments under realistic compute budgets. To fill this gap, we present the Two-Bridge Map Suite, the first entry in an open-source benchmark series we purposely engineered as an intermediate benchmark to sit between these extremes. By disabling economy mechanics such as resource collection, base building, and fog-of-war, the environment isolates two core tactical skills: long-range navigation and micro-combat. Preliminary experiments show that agents learn coherent maneuvering and engagement behaviors without imposing full-game computational costs. Two-Bridge is released as a lightweight, Gym-compatible wrapper on top of PySC2, with maps, wrappers, and reference scripts fully open-sourced to encourage broad adoption as a standard benchmark.

Artificial intelligence benchmarks are an important mechanism for measuring model progress and guiding deployment decisions. However, benchmarks quickly "saturate", making it difficult to differentiate models and diminishing their long-term value. In this study, we define benchmark saturation and analyze it across 60 language model benchmarks using 14 properties that relate to saturation. We find that nearly half of the our benchmarks exhibit saturation, with rates increasing with age. Further, we find that resilience to saturation is impacted by expert-curation, not by public test data. Our results suggest that design choices can extend benchmark longevity and inform more durable evaluation approaches.

Optimization benchmarks play a fundamental role in assessing algorithm performance; however, existing artificial benchmarks often fail to capture the diversity and irregularity of real-world problem structures, while benchmarks derived from real-world problems are costly and difficult to construct. To address these challenges, we propose an evolutionary automatic benchmark generation framework that leverages a large language model (LLM) as a generative operator, termed the LLM-driven evolutionary benchmark generator (LLM-EBG). In this framework, the LLM serves as an evolutionary operator that generates and evolves benchmark problems within a flexible, expressive representation space. As a case study, we generate unconstrained single-objective continuous minimization problems represented as mathematical expressions designed to induce significant performance differences between a genetic algorithm (GA) and differential evolution (DE). Experimental results show that LLM-EBG successfully produces benchmark problems in which the designated target algorithm consistently outperforms the comparative algorithm in more than 80% of trials. Furthermore, exploratory landscape analysis reveals that benchmarks favoring GA are highly sensitive to variable scaling, demonstrating that the proposed framework can generate problems with distinct geometric characteristics that reflect the intrinsic search behaviors of different optimization algorithms.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly operate as Deep Research (DR) Agents capable of autonomous investigation and information synthesis, reliable evaluation of their task performance has become a critical bottleneck. Current benchmarks predominantly rely on static datasets, which suffer from several limitations: limited task generality, temporal misalignment, and data contamination. To address these, we introduce DR-Arena, a fully automated evaluation framework that pushes DR agents to their capability limits through dynamic investigation. DR-Arena constructs real-time Information Trees from fresh web trends to ensure the evaluation rubric is synchronized with the live world state, and employs an automated Examiner to generate structured tasks testing two orthogonal capabilities: Deep reasoning and Wide coverage. DR-Arena further adopts Adaptive Evolvement Loop, a state-machine controller that dynamically escalates task complexity based on real-time performance, demanding deeper deduction or wider aggregation until a decisive capability boundary emerges. Experiments with six advanced DR agents demonstrate that DR-Arena achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.94 with the LMSYS Search Arena leaderboard. This represents the state-of-the-art alignment with human preferences without any manual efforts, validating DR-Arena as a reliable alternative for costly human adjudication.

This paper presents a large-scale budget-aware benchmark of multi-objective soft-computing metaheuristics for a bi-objective redundancy allocation problem in repairable k-out-of-n systems. The problem combines cost minimization and steady-state availability maximization under weight constraints, with binary subsystem-level decisions determining both the number of redundant components and the redundancy strategy. Four strategies are considered: cold standby, warm standby, hot standby, and a mixed active-warm standby strategy. Subsystem availability is evaluated using continuous-time Markov chains, while the optimization task is treated as a constrained mixed-integer multi-objective problem. The study compares 65 metaheuristic algorithms from multiple algorithmic families under two initialization settings, with and without Scaled Binomial Initialization (SBI), across six case studies of increasing structural and dimensional complexity and four weight limits per case. Performance is assessed using hypervolume, budget-dependent convergence profiles, and non-parametric statistical comparisons. The results show that algorithm rankings are strongly budget-dependent, indicating that a single final-budget ranking can be misleading. SBI provides a substantial early advantage and can change the relative performance of competing methods, especially for larger instances. The best-performing algorithms vary across budget regimes: NNIA-SBI and CMOPSO-SBI are competitive under tight budgets, whereas NSGA-II+ARSBX-SBI performs robustly for medium and large budgets. From a system design perspective, Pareto-optimal solutions are dominated by hot standby and mixed redundancy strategies, while cold and warm standby rarely appear. The benchmark highlights the importance of initialization, computational budget, and problem complexity when selecting soft-computing optimizers for practical redundancy allocation.

Optimizing the performance of large-scale software repositories demands expertise in code reasoning and software engineering (SWE) to reduce runtime while preserving program correctness. However, most benchmarks emphasize what to fix rather than how to fix code. We introduce SWE-fficiency, a benchmark for evaluating repository-level performance optimization on real workloads. Our suite contains 498 tasks across nine widely used data-science, machine-learning, and HPC repositories (e.g., numpy, pandas, scipy): given a complete codebase and a slow workload, an agent must investigate code semantics, localize bottlenecks and relevant tests, and produce a patch that matches or exceeds expert speedup while passing the same unit tests. To enable this how-to-fix evaluation, our automated pipeline scrapes GitHub pull requests for performance-improving edits, combining keyword filtering, static analysis, coverage tooling, and execution validation to both confirm expert speedup baselines and identify relevant repository unit tests. Empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art agents reveals significant underperformance. On average, agents achieve less than 0.23x the expert speedup: agents struggle in localizing optimization opportunities, reasoning about execution across functions, and maintaining correctness in proposed edits. We release the benchmark and accompanying data pipeline to facilitate research on automated performance engineering and long-horizon software reasoning.

We present MLPerf Automotive, the first standardized public performance benchmark for evaluating Machine Learning systems that are deployed for AI acceleration in automotive systems. Developed through a collaborative partnership within MLCommons, this benchmark addresses the need for standardized performance evaluation methodologies in automotive machine learning systems. Existing benchmark suites cannot be utilized for these systems since automotive workloads have unique constraints including sensor suites, safety, and real-time processing that distinguish them from the domains that previously introduced benchmarks target. Our implemented and adopted MLPerf Automotive benchmark is a framework for evaluation and methodology for benchmarking automotive systems with reproducible performance metrics. The benchmark consists of automotive perception tasks in 2D object detection, 2D semantic segmentation, 3D object detection, end-to-end driving, and an infotainment system application. We carefully curated and customized models for automotive use cases. We describe the methodology behind the benchmark design including the task selection, reference models, and submission rules. We also discuss the challenges involved in acquiring the datasets and the engineering efforts to develop the reference implementations. Our benchmark code is available at https://github.com/mlcommons/mlperf_automotive.