Large Language Model Benchmarks

People increasingly use large language models (LLMs) for mental health support, yet their safety in evolving, high-risk conversations remains poorly characterised. We developed K-Bench, a clinician-calibrated, protected benchmark evaluating 125 model configurations representing 33 base models from 14 providers across a fixed cohort of 200 multi-turn vignettes involving suicide, self-harm, domestic violence, substance misuse, and no-risk presentations. Synthetic patient conversations showed substantial distributional overlap with real human-AI conversations. A frozen GPT-4o judge achieved 94.2% exact agreement with clinician consensus across 6,751 eligible item comparisons from 151 clinician-rated transcripts. Leading models combined strong supportive conversation with combined-risk scores above 95, whereas risk exploration exposed substantial variation among lower-performing configurations. Therapeutic prompting produced configuration-specific gains concentrated among weaker models, while elevated reasoning produced no average improvement. K-Bench combines broader clinical coverage and configuration-scale comparison with a continuously updated public leaderboard whose operational test materials are protected from direct optimisation. The leaderboard is available at www.k-bench.ai.

Low reported scores on leading physics benchmarks, including those featured in the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (2026), suggest that frontier language models still struggle with advanced physics, a demanding test of their scientific reasoning and quantitative problem-solving abilities. Yet this impression does not always align with domain experts' experiences using these models in their work. We revisit these reported findings by evaluating frontier models on six widely used physics benchmarks and auditing them with experts, focusing on text-only problems with verifiable final answers. For each subfield of physics, faculty and graduate researchers with relevant expertise carefully review problem statements, reference solutions, and model responses to distinguish genuine model errors from grader errors, incorrect reference solutions, and ambiguous or underspecified questions. Most audited cases initially evaluated as incorrect reflect these benchmarking issues rather than errors in the models' physics reasoning. We then ask experts to address these benchmarking issues by correcting erroneous reference solutions and repairing or excluding flawed questions. We find that GPT-5.6-Sol's measured mean@4 rises from 47.3% to 78.7% on HLE-Physics and from 61.0% to 87.2% on CMT-Benchmark, while its corrected pass@4 reaches 94.4% on the 54 retained CritPt challenges. Corrected scores are computed on the retained evaluation subsets following expert review. Scores on the audited subsets of UGPhysics, PRISM-Physics, and PHYBench also rise substantially after correction. These findings suggest that current benchmarks substantially understate frontier models' ability to solve well-posed physics problems. Near-saturation on these closed-ended tasks highlights the need for more demanding, expert-validated evaluations.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly asked to reason over structured data such as graphs, yet how reliably they can carry out multi-step graph algorithms in language remains unclear. Existing evaluations tend to use simple tasks on small graphs, to score code generation rather than reasoning over the graph itself, or to fix a single input format. We introduce Graph Theory Bench (GT Bench), a benchmark covering 24 classical graph problems in 44 task-structure settings, with over 100,000 examples across four representations: natural language, structured language, adjacency list, and adjacency matrix. Evaluating eight LLMs on GT Bench shows that accuracy is strongly tied to the input representation, that the best representation shifts with graph density, size, and topology as well as with the model, and that this sensitivity persists, attenuated, in the strongest reasoning models. Building on these observations, we propose the Graph Theory Agent (GTA), which pairs a preference-trained representation selector with plan-and-decompose scaffolding around a frozen executor LLM. GTA lifts Phi-4 from 53.5% to 69.1% on the benchmark's easy split and from 33.0% to 41.5% on its hard split, outperforming eight prompting and agent baselines, and transfers without retraining to GraCoRe and NLGraph. Code for benchmark generation and evaluation: https://github.com/xzx34/GTA. The project homepage is available at https://xzx34.github.io/gta/.

Comprehensive benchmark suites are essential for improving large language models (LLMs), but many widely used benchmarks are redundant, making evaluation unnecessarily expensive. Although recent benchmark compression methods (BCMs) can mitigate this cost, many strong BCMs rely on large collections of per-sample evaluation results from numerous LLMs to identify representative samples. Building such collections is also expensive unless they are already public, making these methods difficult to extend to newly released benchmarks. To address this challenge, we present ZipBench, a simple and low-cost BCM with theoretical error and rank-consistency guarantees. ZipBench evaluates only a small set of anchor LLMs, synthesizes pseudo evaluation results to broaden coverage, learns compact sample representations, and selects a small yet representative subset. Building on it, we create ZipBench Zoo, a collection of compact versions of 100+ benchmark proxies spanning text, multimodal, and agent tasks. These benchmark achieve mean absolute errors of 0.002--0.02 and average Spearman correlations of ~0.98 with the full benchmarks. Overall, ZipBench reduces the cost of both LLM evaluation and compact benchmark construction, lowering the barrier to broad LLM research for compute-constrained researchers. The code has been released in https://github.com/MilkThink-Lab/ZipBench.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in reasoning and code generation, raising the prospect that they could assist in developing and optimizing the very infrastructure that powers them. However, existing benchmarks mainly focus on isolated kernels, predefined operators, or pre-specified optimization targets, and therefore fail to evaluate the ability of LLMs to perform open-ended, long-horizon LLM infrastructure engineering. To address this gap, we present $Φ$-Bench, a benchmark for systematically evaluating LLMs on engineering the LLM infrastructure stack. Derived from optimization problems studied in frontier research and grounded in real-world code repositories, $Φ$-Bench provides broad coverage of the LLM infrastructure stack and spans tasks of varying complexity, ranging from localized kernel-level function completion to long-horizon implementation and end-to-end system optimization. Extensive experiments on frontier LLMs reveal their current capabilities and limitations in engineering complex LLM infrastructure, offering insights into the challenges that remain on the path toward autonomous optimization of future AI infrastructure.

Arabic morphology remains challenging for large language models, since fluent generation does not guarantee accurate morphosyntactic control. Existing Arabic evaluations mainly target downstream tasks and do not directly test controlled morphological generation from explicit lexical and feature-based input. We introduce YallaMorph, a large-scale benchmark for Arabic morphological generation covering verbs, nouns, adjectives, their cliticized forms, and invalid configurations. We evaluate multilingual and Arabic-oriented LLMs under diacritized and undiacritized settings over 600K benchmark entries. Results show that Arabic morphological generation remains difficult, especially for cliticized, unseen, and morphologically rare forms.

The advance of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) has fundamentally reshaped the paradigm of human-computer interaction, especially speech interaction models capable of seamless conversations. Despite remarkable performance as general voice assistants, their performance in specialized domains remains underexplored, particularly in scientific areas. Scientific interactions introduce formidable challenges, involving rare technical terminology, spoken norms of abbreviations, and the natural verbalization of symbolic special expressions. In this paper, we introduce S$^3$-Bench, a systematic evaluation framework covering 10 major disciplines, consisting of a Knowledge set for speech question-answering and a Dialogue set for multi-turn progressive interactions with simulated user agents. By decomposing a complete atomic turn into stages of speech recognition, perception, knowledge utilization with reasoning, and response pronunciation, we systematically characterize the common challenges and performance tradeoffs of existing approaches. Furthermore, experiments on multi-turn interactions reveal persistent limitations in user adaptation and the generation of accurate, comprehensive, and efficient responses.

Performance modeling is central to hardware design and software optimization, yet constructing these models requires structured reasoning about computation, data reuse, storage, and movement. We introduce PerfReasoning, a benchmark that evaluates LLMs both as direct performance reasoners and as generators of analytical performance-model code. Given workload, architecture, and mapping specifications, models compare mappings and predict off-chip traffic and buffer requirements. The strongest closed-source models exceed 90% on reasoning-based Q&A, and the best open-weight model reaches 82.4%. However, model construction is substantially harder: while GPT-5.6 Sol exceeds 80% pass rate, all other model configurations average below 15% and vary markedly across runs. Task-specific RL raises a 4B model's mapping-reasoning accuracy by 15.7 points, whereas feedback-free multi-round self-revision prompting is not reliably effective. PerfReasoning exposes the gap between plausible architectural reasoning and reliable performance-model construction. We will publicly release the benchmark to support reproducible evaluation and track future progress.

Idiomatic expressions are an integral part of natural language, reflecting cultural nuances and posing unique challenges for computational models, particularly in low-resource languages. In this paper, we present the first large-scale benchmark dataset of Bangla idioms, complemented by a synthetic multiple-choice question (MCQ) dataset for idiom meaning identification. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of recent large language models (LLMs) across three idiom-related tasks: paraphrasing, idiom span detection, and meaning identification, leveraging zero-shot and few-shot prompting strategies. Our results reveal substantial variability in model performance, with no single LLM consistently outperforming others across all tasks. Notably, Phi-4-mini-instruct excels in paraphrasing, Kimi-K2-32b-instruct in span detection, and Gemini-2.5-flash in meaning identification. We believe that our datasets and analyses will provide valuable resources to guide future research in improving LLM comprehension of idiomatic expressions, particularly in Bangla and other low-resource languages.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as assistants for statistical and data science work, yet existing evaluations largely assume the analysis target is already specified. In practice, users arrive with informal goals and heterogeneous data, leaving the model to decide what statistical task is implied and which data are relevant. We first formalize this upstream step as Statistical Problem Formulation and decompose it into two subtasks: (1) Statistical Problem Classification and (2) Variable Identification & Role Assignment. We then introduce StatFormBench, a benchmark built from five cross-domain statistics textbooks and a data science case library, covering diverse problem types, data representations, and scenario styles. It contains 1,013 samples spanning 20 coarse-grained and 85 fine-grained statistical problem categories. Across 14 open- and closed-source LLMs, the best zero-shot models reach only 72.0 fine-grained classification accuracy and 63.2 variable set overlap. No model performs consistently best across the two subtasks, while enhanced prompting strategies yield only limited or inconsistent gains. We release the benchmark data on Hugging Face at https://huggingface.co/datasets/THU-CongLab/StatFormBench and the evaluation code on GitHub at https://github.com/THU-CongLab/StatFormBench.

Personalized Large Language Models (PLLMs) aim to tailor responses to individual users, where a central challenge is preference reasoning: inferring query-relevant preferences from user-related history. Existing benchmarks, however, largely assume that such preference can be retrieved from semantically related history. We study an underexplored but practically important regime, profile-preference conceptual misalignment (PRCM), where observable profile cues and query-specific preferences lie in different concept spaces, making semantic retrieval inconsistent for personalization. We introduce VIBE-Bench, a benchmark with two psychology-grounded tasks, 3,504 personas and 12,239 dialogues, including a manually verified gold test set, and requires cross-concept preference reasoning beyond surface semantic overlap. Experiments with several personalization methods show that current PLLMs largely rely on shallow semantic correlations and fail to acquire robust cross-concept mappings. These findings establish PRCM as a distinct failure regime in PLLMs and position VIBE-Bench as a focused testbed for advancing preference reasoning beyond semantic matching.

Large language models increasingly generate research ideas, yet judging their novelty or feasibility at generation time does not establish whether they anticipate subsequent work. We introduce IdeaForecastBench to evaluate research idea forecasting. Given a community's literature up to a cutoff, a system produces up to five ranked ideas, which are evaluated against later papers. The benchmark comprises 624 rolling episodes across 52 topics, with a fixed retrieve-then-judge protocol and separately reported results from two judges. We compare five history-compression strategies across GPT-4.1, Qwen2.5-7B/14B, and Qwen3.5-9B, together with a learned Mode-Decomposition Forecaster (MDF). Under the primary GPT-4.1-mini judge, Summary improves on Direct in Hit@5 and Precision@5 across all four backbones. Qwen2.5 scores above GPT-4.1, whereas Qwen3.5 scores below it. An outcome-blind assessment finds that Qwen2.5 produces broader forecasts, but does not identify how much breadth contributes to its advantage. Threshold and judge diagnostics further clarify the limits of interpreting realization as precise anticipation. IdeaForecastBench provides a common task for studying which research ideas a community subsequently pursues and how reliably this outcome can be measured.

Speech enhancement (SE) is commonly applied as a preprocessing step in spoken AI pipelines under the assumption that better audio quality improves downstream task performance. Whether SE-induced distortions propagate to downstream LLM task performance remains an open question. We introduce Output Divergence Rate (ODR), which measures how often SE changes an LLM's intent classification relative to clean speech, and benchmark five conditions on 2,974 SLURP clips using Whisper large-v3 and wav2vec2-large cascades. Every condition produces ODR significantly above zero ($p < 0.001$, binomial test). MetricGAN{+} more than doubles ODR versus unenhanced noisy speech (0.318 vs. 0.135) despite improving PESQ, and unmitigated echo reaches an ODR of 0.836 through speaker substitution, a failure WER cannot capture. Audio quality metrics range from near-zero to moderate correlation with ODR (SQUIM-MOS $ρ=-0.068$, PESQ $ρ=-0.467$). The MetricGAN{+} and echo results replicate across ASR architectures, indicating that standard audio quality metrics are insufficient for LLM pipeline quality.

Multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) benchmarks in NLP use number-right scoring (accuracy), but in educational testing, the scoring scheme, the combination of the response mode models follow and the rule for grading responses, is a key design choice that dictates which abilities to reward. We examine how alternatives to number right change what MCQA measures with six education-inspired schemes that assess abilities beyond accuracy: distractor elimination, abstention, confidence calibration, and self-correction. On LLM benchmarks, these schemes: 1) shift rankings of 31 LLMs beyond rephrased number right prompts; 2) better predict the LLMs users prefer in LLM Arena; and 3) reveal distinct model capabilities, like that GPT-5 rarely abstains and readily self-corrects, while weaker open-weight models often abstain and hesitate to eliminate choices. Given the benefits of alternative scoring schemes, we discuss ways to extend them to tasks beyond MCQA.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown growing potential for automated theoretical computer science (TCS) research, yet existing benchmarks remain far from realistic research settings. We introduce \ourbenchmark, an expert-validated benchmark for evaluating LLMs on frontier, end-to-end TCS research. \ourbenchmark contains $143$ instances drawn from papers accepted to STOC, FOCS, SODA, and COLT in 2025-2026, preserving paper-specific definitions, assumptions, and proof dependencies, with expert-verified Lean formalizations and proofs. Evaluations of leading LLMs reveal that current models remain far from reliably completing the full research pipeline. In particular, autoformalization is the sharpest bottleneck: the best model achieves only $11.5$ on translating natural-language claims into formal theorem statements, compared with $28.6$ Pass@8 when proving human-provided formal statements. Building on \ourbenchmark, we further develop an automated TCS research framework that generates, formalizes, filters, and proves new claims. Of $64$ generated claims, only $6$ ultimately pass expert evaluation and proof verification, indicating that beyond formalization, limited research taste remains another major barrier to autonomous TCS research.

In modern AI frameworks, GPU kernels are key to overall system performance. Combining usability, portability, and near-handwritten CUDA performance, Triton is widely adopted for implementing GPU kernels. Recent advances show the potential of large language models (LLMs) to automatically generate Triton kernels, reducing the manual effort required from expert kernel developers. Several benchmarks evaluate LLM-generated Triton kernels. However, they suffer from three key limitations: (1) they restrict tasks to PyTorch-to-Triton translation, failing to reflect the diversity and complexity of real-world Triton tasks; (2) they evaluate only individual-kernel performance rather than end-to-end performance, the core criterion for real-world deployment in AI frameworks; and (3) they rely on manually written evaluation scripts for individual kernels, which may contain flaws that models can exploit to bypass correctness checks and obtain inflated scores. To address these limitations, we introduce RealisticTritonBench, the first benchmark to derive Triton kernel generation tasks from real-world pull requests in popular AI frameworks, enabling realistic, production-like evaluation. RealisticTritonBench systematically extracts PRs that modify Triton kernels from popular open-source AI frameworks and transforms them into generation tasks with concrete engineering contexts. Each task takes a natural language requirement as input and requires a corresponding Triton kernel implementation, with a complete and reproducible evaluation environment. Unlike prior benchmarks focused on isolated kernel performance, RealisticTritonBench integrates generated kernels into their original frameworks and evaluates them using end-to-end tests, enabling a more faithful assessment. We evaluate leading LLMs on RealisticTritonBench and find that they still struggle with real-world Triton kernel generation tasks.

A benchmark score comes from a single phrasing of each problem. That single phrasing is treated as if it stood for the whole space of ways the same problem could be asked, but it does not. We show that rephrasing a problem while keeping its meaning and answer fixed routinely flips a model's answer in both directions, so some failures become successes and some successes become failures. We call this drift. BenchDrift generates meaning-preserving variations of benchmark problems along four axes, namely linguistic, referential, pragmatic, and structural, and measures how often, and why, correctness flips under each. Across eight models and three benchmarks (GSM8K, MMLU, MATH-Hard), we observe that drift is large in both directions. Two findings stand out. First, phrasing sensitivity does not fade as models get better. Instead, it changes sign. Weak models gain more from rephrasing than they lose, while strong models lose far more than they gain. We find that the best models on a benchmark are therefore the ones whose scores depend most on the wording they happened to be given. Second, the models largely agree on which rephrasings cost the most correct answers even though they differ in how much they drift, so fragility belongs to the rephrasing and not to the model. Furthermore, rephrasing breaks answers a model was confident about, whether the problem is made shorter or longer. Code and Data: https://github.com/IBM/BenchDrift/tree/demo-ui

Large language models (LLMs) have made substantial progress on reasoning tasks that require increasingly long and complex inferential chains. This progress primarily reflects reasoning depth. A complementary and comparatively unexamined capability is reasoning breadth: exploring multiple semantic directions in parallel and integrating the resulting clues into one coherent answer. We introduce MPAR-Bench, a bilingual English-Chinese benchmark that isolates reasoning breadth through multi-point associative reasoning. Inspired by the cooperative game Just One, each item asks a model to recover a hidden target from several independently generated, semantically diverse clues. We construct 1,000 items using a multi-agent clue-generation pipeline, embedding-based diversity filtering, and human verification. Only the answer space is drawn from public word lists, whereas every clue set is generated from scratch. Beyond exact-match accuracy, we evaluate models using accuracy, ANLS, embedding similarity, reasoning-trace verification, and four perturbations: clue masking, order shuffling, distractor injection, and multi-step clues. Across evaluated models, perturbations reduce accuracy by 9-18 percentage points in English and 5-12 percentage points in Chinese. Thinking mode improves standard-setting accuracy, especially in English, but does not consistently reduce sensitivity to perturbations. Case-level analysis also shows that extended reasoning can overturn an initially correct hypothesis. These results indicate that greater reasoning depth does not automatically confer robust reasoning breadth, and that reasoning breadth remains largely uncovered by current benchmarks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are typically evaluated on standard written Vietnamese, yet everyday communication frequently involves regional dialects that preserve meaning but differ in surface form. Existing Vietnamese dialect work largely addresses this issue through dialect-to-standard normalization instead of measuring how the model fails under Vietnamese dialectal inputs. To address this gap, we present the first systematic evaluation of LLM robustness to Vietnamese dialect variation across multiple tasks, quantifying performance degradation and failure patterns. We introduce VialectBench (Vietnamese Dialects Benchmarking), a controlled benchmark for testing whether model decisions remain stable across six Vietnamese dialect groups. VialectBench contains 400 Standard Vietnamese source instances and 2,400 human-written dialectal rewrites spanning emotion recognition (ER), natural language inference (NLI), question answering (QA), and multiple-choice question answering (MCQA). Dataset evaluation with a fixed reference language model shows that the dialectal rewrites induce a measurable model-relative likelihood shift while remaining nearly equal in length to their Standard counterparts. Across ten instruction-tuned models, dialectal inputs reduce average performance by 2.82%, and no evaluated model is fully dialect-invariant. All four tasks are affected, with QA showing the largest average degradation. Robustness also varies substantially across dialect groups: PNT3 and PNT2 cause the largest average performance drops, at 6.17% and 4.73%, respectively, whereas PNB slightly improves average performance by 0.42%. The Central dialect group (PNT1-PNT4) also yields the highest average harmful-flip rate across all models, at 6.54%. These findings show that strong performance on Standard Vietnamese does not guarantee reliable behavior under meaning-preserving regional variation.

We introduce TCS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on research-level Theoretical Computer Science (TCS) proof generation. TCS-Bench consists of theorem-proving tasks from papers published at top theoretical computer science venues (STOC, FOCS, and SODA). Each task provides the necessary context to derive a self-contained proof for a target result. We evaluate state-of-the-art models on this benchmark. We verify the correctness of generated proofs via a verification agent, and further benchmark the verifier against human-expert proof judgements on a set of target statements and generated proofs pairs. Our reference verifier achieves over 90% accuracy on the expert labeled set.

The generation of mathematically precise diagrams from tex- tual prompts has emerged as a critical yet underexplored capability of Large Language Models (LLMs). This has been of interest to researchers in the areas of curriculum preparation, automated ranking of problem sets, and scientific publishing. For LLMs to achieve this, it requires per- fect coordination between Spatial Reasoning, Mathematical Reasoning, and Rendering systems. While existing benchmarks such as MathVision, MathVista are built for Math Reasoning or DiagramGenBenchmark, Mer- maidSeqBench on general purpose diagram generation, no prior work provides a standardized set of prompt, image pairs that can be used to evaluate the LLMs specifically on math diagram generation. This includes fields that span both both text-to-code and text-to-image paradigms. We introduce Math-Vision Diagrams, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LLMs on mathematical diagram generation, and the first to assess text-to-code and text-to-image generation paradigms together in a single unified setting, agnostic of the underlying coding lan- guage or model type. Building on the Math-Vision benchmark, we select a subset of 2920 images out of 3040 from high-quality competition problems with essential visual context. A novel pipeline combining an ensemble of LLMs with Subject Matter Expert (SME) curation is presented, together with a suite of evaluation metrics. Testing several leading models against this benchmark, we demonstrate that LLMs struggle with math diagram generation. All code, data, curation pipeline, and evaluation scripts will be fully open-sourced.

Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to exhibit strong Python preferences when generating project-level code, but there is currently no systematic way to measure this behaviour across new models. To bridge this gap, we introduce LangChoiceBench, a project-level code-generation benchmark for measuring Python preference, recommendation-implementation consistency, and language diversity. LangChoiceBench covers 28 projects across seven software areas where Python is often a poor default. We evaluate 25 diverse LLMs and find that Python remains heavily over-selected, recommendation-implementation consistency is low, and smaller open-weight models generally show stronger Python preference and lower language diversity. We further analyse 9,826 reasoning traces and find that most Python choices are automatic or driven primarily by ease, rather than explicit consideration of project requirements. In a smaller but important set of cases, models fabricate contextual support for choosing Python - a failure mode we call phantom evidence - or produce code that contradicts the language selected in their own reasoning.

Existing personalized LLM benchmarks primarily rely on textual personas or isolated behavioral signals, providing limited evaluation of cross-domain behavioral personalization, where responses must be grounded in heterogeneous daily-life activities. To address this gap, we introduce LUNAR, the first benchmark for evaluating how LLMs personalize responses from longitudinal app interaction histories across universal daily-life domains, including clothing, food, housing, and mobility. To support scalable benchmark construction while mitigating data sparsity and privacy concerns, LUNAR uses a multi-stage coarse-to-fine synthesis pipeline grounded in real-world behavioral patterns. Fidelity analyses show closer alignment with real behavioral distributions than other synthetic benchmarks. Experiments on 19 mainstream LLMs show that access to behavioral logs is necessary but not sufficient for deep personalization: neither more context nor larger models guarantees better performance; effective personalization depends on selecting and integrating relevant evidence across domains. Direct retrieval of fine-grained behavioral records consistently outperforms compressed memory, while stronger personalization can come at the cost of privacy protection. These findings identify evidence selection, cross-domain integration, and privacy control as key challenges for personalized LLMs.

Benchmark scores are reported as properties of a model, yet the inference framework used to produce them, such as HuggingFace, vLLM, or Ollama, are considered non-influential and their names and versions are almost never disclosed. In this work we investigate how much this choice can influence the model output. In a fully-crossed study (three instruction-tuned models x five inference frameworks x six benchmarks x four generation modes) we investigate how different tools (wrappers/backend) influence benchmark scores and how their score changes is influenced by generation hyper-parameters. We find backend to be a non-negligible factor where even under greedy, sampling-noise-free decoding, changing the backend can significantly alter models performance and this effect is structural and strongly model-dependent. Decomposing the variance according to generation mode reveal that considerable portion of the variability (roughly 39%) a practitioner sees out-of-the-box can stem from the backend, while the remaining stems from sampling noise and each framework's default generation parameters, both of which are avoidable by disclosing and matching the generation configuration. These divergences are more pronounced on factual than on social-bias benchmarks. Overall, benchmark numbers are not backend-agnostic therefore, we recommend disclosing the backend, its version, and the full generation configuration, also using deterministic decoding for cross-backend comparison.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming database interaction paradigms, evolving from simple query translators to autonomous database administrators (DBAs). However, current evaluation benchmarks remain disproportionately fixated on Text-to-SQL tasks, neglecting the holistic Database Lifecycle-from initial schema design to post-deployment maintenance. This narrow focus fails to capture the diverse capabilities required for real-world database management. To bridge this gap, we introduce DBLifeBench, the first benchmark to evaluate LLMs across five critical lifecycle phases: Design, Implementation, Operation, Debugging, and Maintenance. Furthermore, addressing the cognitive mismatch between ambiguous natural language and complex SQL logic, we propose Progressive-Text2SQL, a novel task utilizing structured reasoning graphs to mimic human iterative problem-solving. Our extensive evaluation reveals a critical insight: while general-purpose models demonstrate balanced performance, specialized Text-to-SQL models suffer from ``catastrophic forgetting'' in non-coding phases like design and maintenance. DBLifeBench serves as a foundational step toward evaluating and building true full-stack database intelligence.

Constructed languages (conlangs) are intentionally created human languages with a rich tradition of linguistic creativity. Despite their potential for studying language learning in large language models (LLMs), existing conlangs remain largely underexplored in LLM research. We present ConlangBench, the first large-scale benchmark for evaluating and training LLMs on 21 existing conlangs. We collect over 21M conlang-English parallel sentence pairs (including 430K pairs across the 20 non-Esperanto conlangs) and 321K vocabulary entries. In bidirectional translation experiments, we find that models perform better on a posteriori conlangs, whose vocabularies are derived from natural languages, reflecting the design characteristics of conlangs. Training on ConlangBench also shows that models can learn all eight conlangs for which sufficient parallel corpora are available, while their learning curves vary depending on how the conlangs were created. Our findings suggest that conlangs provide a unique testbed for investigating how LLMs acquire low-resource languages.

A standard claim in the literature on retrieval-augmented and memory-augmented language models is that shorter context is better when the relevant information is preserved. We test this claim by running every sample of two long-context benchmarks -- BABILong and GraphWalks (BFS) -- at four context-retention fractions (100%, 75%, 50%, 25%) under two truncation protocols. The first is the naive protocol implicitly used in much prior work: drop content from the middle of the prompt. The second is distractor-aware: identify the task-relevant content for each sample and drop only the rest. We evaluate three sizes of the Claude family (Haiku 4.5, Sonnet 4.6, Opus 4.7) and, to test cross-provider generality, GPT-5.5 from a different provider; we apply the same protocol to two further benchmarks (MRCR v2, Oolong). Under naive truncation, score collapses monotonically (paired Wilcoxon, Holm-corrected p_adj < 0.05 in all eight BABILong and GraphWalks cells). Under the distractor-aware protocol -- which preserves the signal by construction -- performance is preserved or improves: the two smaller Claude models show statistically significant gains on BABILong, while the larger models (Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5) sit at their full-context ceiling. The naive collapse and its distractor-aware recovery replicate on GPT-5.5, ruling out a single-provider artifact. The mechanism is direct: under the naive protocol the answer-bearing content survives in fewer than 1% of samples at 25% retention; under the distractor-aware protocol it is preserved by construction. The naive protocol is therefore not a measurement of context-window effects; it is a measurement of how often middle-removal happens to spare the answer. We conclude that future studies of context-length effects must specify how they distinguish signal from distractor, or they are at best ambiguous between two opposite hypotheses.

Most multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) only by whether they select the correct answers. This binary scoring treats all incorrect responses alike, even though an LLM's preferences among incorrect options may contain systematic and useful information about its behavior and ability. We introduce the LLM Nominal Response Model (LLM-NRM), an option-aware psychometric framework that models the full distribution over answer choices to jointly estimate LLM ability and option-level item characteristics, while separating model-specific response calibration sharpness, positional preference, and difficulty-dependent fallback behavior. Across 189 LLMs and 31,554 items from 14 benchmarks, LLM-NRM predicts held-out LLM-item interactions more accurately than binary Item Response models and conventional nominal-response baselines, and its ability estimates achieve the strongest Spearman correlation of 0.920 with the external human-preference Arena.ai Elo leaderboard. Distractor identity contributes +101% additional Fisher Information per item beyond correctness, and incorrect responses alone recover full-information ability estimates with Spearman 0.943. The learned item parameters also enable efficient benchmarking, where 41 selected items preserve the full-bank ranking with Kendall's correlation 0.85, corresponding to a 770 times reduction. In conclusion, we show that incorrect answers carry distinct and useful measurement information rather than representing equivalent mistakes.

Language model benchmarking is a difficult task. Outcome reasoning alone does not test the model's conceptualization of language and popular open-source benchmarks are quickly saturated or ingested as training data. It is important to test the model's output, but augmenting these tests by characterizing semantic structure gives more insight to how models relate abstract concepts. However, the high dimensional embedding spaces are not easy to interpret. This work demonstrates how topological methods can be used to rigorously compare these spaces to low dimensional and interpretable baselines like ontologies and curated knowledge graphs. These multi-modal alignment tests make it possible to track model adaptations and test phrase understanding across multiple languages.

As LLMs evolve from code completion systems into autonomous scientific agents, evaluating their ability to conduct experiments has become increasingly important. Existing benchmarks typically focus on static code generation, paper replication, or final answer correctness, but do not directly assess whether agents can interpret experimental evidence and use it to guide subsequent hyperparameter decisions. To address this gap, we introduce AgentHPOBench, a sequential benchmark comprising 30 executable machine learning tasks across seven research categories. Each task begins with a validated baseline run, after which an agent performs several sequential interventions. At each step, the agent observes the accumulated configurations, metrics, and logs before proposing the next valid configuration. We evaluate 12 widely used agents and conventional HPO baselines under a unified protocol. The results show that current agents exhibit measurable experimental optimization ability across domains, but still face clear limitations in sustained iterative refinement, complex log diagnosis, and consistent progress toward reported reference performance.

Standard AI-text detection benchmarks compare human-written text against text generated directly by large language models (LLMs). While prior work has shown that rewriting and paraphrasing can degrade detector performance, it remains unclear whether performance measured on this conventional benchmark predicts detector behavior when human-authored content is rewritten by an LLM. To address this gap, we introduce Authorship-Rewriting Benchmark (ARB), built from 1,800 human source texts (600 each from XSum, WritingPrompts, and OpenWebText) and four open-weight generators (Llama-3.2-3B, Qwen2.5-7B, Mistral-7B, Gemma-2-9B). Each source item yields four matched variants: human-written (HUMAN), direct LLM generation (Free-LLM), LLM-rewritten human text (H2L), and same-generator LLM-rewritten LLM text (LLM2L). We evaluated five detectors (FastDetectGPT, Binoculars-falcon-7b, RADAR, BERT-Defense, RoBERTa-Defense) at a strict 1%-false-positive operating point (TPR@1%FPR). FastDetectGPT and Binoculars-falcon-7b detected 91.2% and 93.5% of direct LLM text, but only 30.8% and 15.1% of human text an LLM had rewritten, a drop of 60-78 percentage points. The same detectors retained 78.3% and 83.0% recall when LLM text was rewritten by the same model, a much smaller decline of 10-13 points. RADAR followed the same pattern (66.8% to 12.2%), while BERT-Defense and RoBERTa-Defense stayed below 3% recall across all regimes. These results show that detector performance measured on the conventional human-vs-LLM benchmark does not transfer to human-authored text revised by an LLM, even though the same detectors remain largely robust to LLM-only rewriting.

Representation engineering reads and steers capability directions in large language models, yet methods are typically evaluated on paper-specific synthetic data. The resulting measurements are difficult to compare or reproduce and may reflect surface patterns rather than capabilities. We present RepBench, a benchmark-grounded data layer for capability-aligned representation probing. Crawling 13,427 benchmark papers yields a taxonomy of 182 capability clusters in 13 families; harvesting 353 public benchmark datasets yields 46,149 audited probe texts covering 94 capabilities, each supported by at least two independent benchmarks. This multi-benchmark design reduces dependence on any single source: raw per-text vectors exhibit no natural cluster granularity, whereas benchmark-pooled capability vectors show an interior clustering optimum at a small number of clusters on all 12 evaluated models, with low agreement to the human taxonomy. Under cross-benchmark transfer evaluation across twelve models completed by all four readouts, difference-in-means attains the highest model-level mean on ten models, while logistic regression wins the most capability-model cells. This disagreement shows that the readout method and aggregation criterion are meaningful evaluation dimensions. The pipeline, corpus, and evaluation code are released as a reusable closed-loop workflow.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in knowledge acquisition and reasoning, yet their ability to retain previously acquired knowledge under repeated updates remains insufficiently understood. Existing evaluation paradigms primarily focus on single-step reasoning or static knowledge editing, which fail to capture the temporal dynamics of knowledge retention and degradation during continual model modification. In this work, we propose ForgetBench, a benchmark designed to systematically characterize forgetting behavior in LLMs under continual knowledge editing. ForgetBench introduces two complementary evaluation paradigms, namely concept-based QA and scenario-based QA, to disentangle isolated factual retention from structured relational knowledge preservation. Building upon a sequential editing framework, we construct temporally ordered knowledge streams and evaluate model behavior across multiple editing stages. To quantitatively analyze long-term retention dynamics, we further introduce a unified evaluation framework that models knowledge evolution over time, enabling the measurement of temporal decay, retention strength, and cross-instance stability. Extensive experiments across diverse models and editing methods demonstrate that existing approaches fail to strike a balance between long-term retention and generalization quality. Our findings highlight the need for more robust memory mechanisms that can effectively acquire, update, and preserve knowledge over time in future LLMs. Code will be released upon acceptance.

Item Response Theory (IRT) has recently been proposed as a framework for evaluating large language model (LLM) benchmarks by separating a model's latent ability from the properties of individual benchmark items. Existing neural IRT approaches, including PSN-IRT, estimate these quantities using point estimates, limiting uncertainty quantification and downstream statistical inference. We introduce Laplace-PSN-IRT, a post-hoc last-layer Laplace approximation that augments a trained PSN-IRT model with approximate Bayesian posterior inference, recovering calibrated uncertainty over model ability and item difficulty without retraining. The resulting posterior enables credible intervals, probabilistic comparisons between models, and propagation of parameter uncertainty into Fisher-information-based item selection. We show that most pairwise comparisons among 12 models on a standard LLM benchmark leaderboard are not statistically distinguishable despite differing point-estimate ranks. We further show that point-estimate Fisher information can become nearly zero for many benchmark items because it is evaluated at a single reference ability, whereas posterior-expected Fisher information remains substantially more stable across the ability range. Finally, posterior-expected Fisher information more accurately recovers full-benchmark ability rankings from small benchmark subsets in most experimental settings while matching point-estimate performance for the smallest subsets. We validate the calibration of the approximate posterior using held-out predictive coverage and find that modeling item difficulty as random while treating item discrimination as fixed produces well-calibrated uncertainty in this architecture.

Large language models (LLMs) show promise in code generation, but their capabilities to produce correct, synthesizable hardware description language (HDL) code still remain to be properly benchmarked. Existing evaluations are primarily relying on pass@k metrics and lack proper end-to-end toolchain validation. This paper presents a reproducible benchmarking platform that evaluates open-source LLMs on Verilog RTL generation across 50 curated tasks consisting of combinational, sequential, finite state machine (FSM), and mixed designs. The pipeline consisting of constrained prompting, post-processing, and semantic-aware iterative refinement with waveform analysis, formal equivalence verification, and Abstract Syntax Tree (AST)-based repair validates the generated code via Verilator compilation and Icarus Verilog simulation. Across the 12 benchmarks and the 1,610 total runs evaluating three models of different sizes (Llama-3-8B, StarCoder2-7B, and TinyLlama-1.1B), the pipeline improved syntax validity from 0% to a 70.43% average and simulation pass rate to 51.8% across three open-source models. Most notably TinyLlama (1.1B parameters) achieved the highest individual syntax validity at 80.0%, with functional correctness comparable to the 8B model. The platform and dataset are open-source, enabling reproducible evaluation of generative AI for hardware design workflows.

The ability to handle long-term memory in LLMs is becoming increasingly critical, yet existing benchmarks remain English-centric and rely on aggregate retrieval metrics, failing to capture interactions between long-range context, temporal information, and reasoning. To address this, we introduce RUMBA (Russian User Memory BenchmArk) - a new benchmark for long-term conversational memory that provides a fine-grained taxonomy of memory-centric question types and a unified methodology accounting for semantic type, session scope, temporal reasoning, and the explicitness of temporal expressions. RUMBA consists of timestamped user-assistant dialogues with QA pairs requiring retrieval, combination, and reasoning across sessions. While designed for Russian, we also provide an aligned English subset under the same methodology. We evaluate contemporary memory systems and long-context models, and show how RUMBA serves as a diagnostic tool to analyze model behavior across benchmark slices and identify strengths and failure modes of different memory mechanisms.

Quiz rooms, trivia nights, and quiz shows challenge human knowledge across a wide range of topics, from canonical facts to everyday culture. In this paper, we examine whether large language models (LLMs) can perform competitively in such settings, using quiz-style questions to test them on both common and niche topics. We introduce TriviaRoomQA, a multilingual benchmark designed to evaluate everyday, culturally grounded, and long-tail knowledge across 288 topics. The benchmark contains 3,300 parallel multiple-choice questions in six European languages and additional 5,340 French-only questions for a more fine-grained case study. We evaluate 30 open-weight LLMs from European, Asian, and North American providers, covering models from 7 to 70B parameters. We find that models are strong on knowledge-intensive topics such as history, geography, and mathematics, but substantially weaker on everyday popular-culture topics such as celebrities, music, movies, and news. Moreover, model performance varies across languages even for the same underlying questions, suggesting that access to factual knowledge is not always language-independent. In sum, our dataset and experiments demonstrate an important knowledge gap which is not captured by existing academic-based saturated benchmarks.

Modern AI systems depend on specialized accelerator kernels, whose development is complicated by increasingly diverse operators and hardware. LLMs and agentic systems promise to automate this work, but existing evaluations do not show whether their performance transfers across operator sources and hardware platforms, or what such transfer costs. We present KernelGenBench, the first unified multi-source and multi-chip infrastructure for evaluating LLM- and agent-generated Triton kernels. With a common Triton target spanning six hardware platforms, it provides the broadest cross-vendor hardware coverage among existing kernel-generation benchmarks. We report two controlled analytical views: KernelGenBench-MS (Multi-Source) covers 210 operators from PyTorch ATen, production vLLM operators, and proprietary cuBLAS routines, while KernelGenBench-MC (Multi-Chip) evaluates a semantically stable 110-operator subset across six hardware platforms. Our evaluation consumed over 15 billion tokens. Agentic execution improved correctness, but no method dominated across sources and platforms: vLLM posed the strongest correctness challenge, cuBLAS set the highest performance ceiling, and AutoKernel accuracy fell from 87% on NVIDIA to 25% on Iluvatar CoreX. These improvements were costly: specialized agents averaged 4.99 million tokens per successful operator, rising to 6.25 million for CUDA Optimized Skill. The results establish operator source, hardware platform, and agentic scaffold as distinct dimensions of kernel-generation capability, and show that success in a familiar source-hardware setting is not a reliable proxy for deployment readiness.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at general-purpose code generation, yet how well they handle scientific code remains an open question. Existing datasets and benchmarks are limited in scale, domain coverage, or executable verification, leaving the true gap between current LLMs and reliable scientific code generators inadequately assessed. To address these limitations, we present SciCodePile, the largest scientific code corpus to date, constructed from 37,737 public repositories and collectively comprising 128GB of code that spans multiple computational science disciplines. From this corpus, we further curate an executable benchmark of 200 tasks, each equipped with a sandboxed execution environment and an automated test harness for functional verification. We evaluate 15 LLMs from both open-source and closed-source families on three tasks: prefix-to-suffix completion, fill-in-the-middle infilling, and executable code generation. Results show that scientific code generation remains highly challenging: The best CodeBLEU reaches only 38.13 and 38.37 on the two completion tasks, while the strongest model achieves just 12.30% Pass@1 on the executable benchmark, underscoring how far current models remain from reliable scientific code generation. To demonstrate the training utility of SciCodePile, we further show that continued pretraining on our corpus improves CodeBLEU by $\times$2.84 on scientific code completion, and instruction tuning on our data improves Pass@1 by $\times$4.79 on the executable benchmark. All code and data are available at https://huggingface.co/SciCodePile.

Introducing Relay-Bench, an unsaturated, holistic, text-only benchmark that measures LLMs' ability to complete an assortment of tasks from distinct domains in a single prompt. The leading model, GPT-5.5 (xHigh), scores 43.3%. The test set entirely consists of composite problems: groups of single-domain subproblems that are strung together into challenges that require reasoning across multiple domains in combination. Many of these problems then have layers of complexity added through prompt encoding and deliberate context bloat. Domains tested include visual reasoning, coding, math, information extraction (with a focus on web search), problem-solving, general knowledge, and data analysis. No restrictions are imposed outside of the model harness, and models are explicitly encouraged to leverage code-execution, web searches, and all available tools. All problems are composed of two to thirteen subproblems and do not require multi-modal input or output.

We present JOR-Bench, a collection of five Japanese-language benchmarks for evaluating the ability of large language models (LLMs) to formulate and solve operations research (OR) problems. Each benchmark is a Japanese translation of an existing English benchmark: IndustryOR, MAMO Complex LP, NL4OPT, OptiBench, and OptMATH, covering 1,319 problems spanning linear programming, mixed-integer programming, non-linear programming, and combinatorial optimization. JOR-Bench is a solver-independent benchmark that can be used with any solver or programming language, and consists of pairs of Japanese problem statements and expected numerical answers. We evaluate seven LLMs, including multilingual general-purpose models and Japanese-specialized models, on both the original English and the new Japanese versions, and compare performance across languages. For the main evaluation, we standardize execution with the Python interface to OR-Tools to make model outputs comparable and reproducible with open-source software. Our results show that OR formulation ability is largely language-neutral for strong multilingual models; the overall average accuracy difference between English and Japanese is only $-0.3$ pp. Yet error analysis reveals subtle cross-lingual differences, including a pragmatic disambiguation failure in some domains that causes models to output decision-variable values instead of the objective value when the prompt is in Japanese.

The evaluation of mathematical reasoning in large language models (LLMs) has predominantly focused on high-resource languages like English. This has created a significant barrier to the equitable development and deployment of AI in linguistically diverse regions such as Bangladesh, where over 230 million people speak Bengali. Despite this global significance, there has been minimal prior work on mathematical reasoning in Bengali and no existing research that systematically benchmarks a perturbated Bengali mathematical dataset, leaving a critical void in assessing model robustness and true comprehension beyond pattern recognition. This study addresses this gap by introducing GSM-Plus-BN, a novel perturbated Bengali mathematical dataset derived from the English GSM-Plus benchmark and verified by human translators. We evaluate six open-source LLMs Qwen3-32B, Llama-3.1-8B-Instant, Llama-3.3-70B-Versatile, Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct, GPT-OSS-120B, and GPT-OSS-20B using a benchmark of 9,000 evaluation samples comprising 1,000 seed questions and 8,000 perturbed variants under both Standard Prompting and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) Prompting. Experimental results show that GPT-OSS-20B achieves the highest seed question accuracy of 96.08% under Standard Prompting, while larger models such as Llama-3.3-70B and GPT-OSS-120B demonstrate superior robustness across perturbation types. Furthermore, CoT prompting substantially improves reasoning for most models compared to Standard Prompting, yet a notable performance gap persists across all models relative to their English benchmarks, underscoring the inherent difficulty of perturbed Bengali text. This research makes a foundational contribution by providing GSM-PLUS-BN as a new resource and baseline for future Bengali mathematical reasoning research.

Existing benchmarks for scientific data analysis evaluate LLMs primarily on code execution or workflow completion, overlooking that scientific analysis serves to support distinct types of scientific claims: hypothesis exploration, statistical inference, mechanistic explanation, each with different assumptions and validity criteria. We introduce SDABench, a benchmark that reorganizes evaluation around six capabilities (descriptive, exploratory, inferential, predictive, causal, and mechanistic) across five domains (Biology, Chemistry, Environment, Geography, Physics). SDABench comprises 527 real-data instances (SDA-Real) and 6000 synthetic instances (SDA-Synth), each in both multiple-choice and open-ended formats, constructed through an automated pipeline. Evaluating 15 representative LLMs, we find that models handle descriptive analysis well but degrade sharply on tasks requiring assumption selection, latent-process modeling, or mechanistic reasoning. SDABench further provides a five-stage error analysis framework that locates where LLMs fail: more advanced models more reliably identify the relevant scope and variables, but still struggle to select appropriate analytical procedures, model variable relationships, and draw valid conclusions.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated rapidly improving long-context capabilities, prompting a wave of benchmarks designed to evaluate them. However, existing long-context evaluations - from Needle-in-a-Haystack (NIAH) tests to more recent multi-hop reasoning and summarization tasks - predominantly measure average-case performance, and many are either saturated or lack robustness. Notably absent is a systematic way to probe how models perform as we scale up the difficulty of tasks along various axes. We address this gap by proposing PredicateLongBench, a benchmark that stress-tests long-context reasoning by asking models to identify the longest contiguous subsequence of words in a long input that satisfies given predicates/constraints (e.g., lexicographic ordering), drawn from a broader predicate class. The central innovation of our benchmark is the identification and systematic exploration of multiple different axes of difficulty which test multiple aspects of long context understanding. We provide two complementary generation pipelines - a fully synthetic setup using random word-like strings, and a real-world setup that samples words from natural documents while preserving their distributional properties. We find that frontier models struggle to perform well as we scale up the difficulty of tasks along our axes, demonstrating the utility of our benchmark in understanding the limitations of current long-context capabilities. Furthermore, the tasks in PredicateLongBench, though challenging, are conceptually simple and do not require LLM-based generations or judges.

The remarkable performance of large language models (LLMs) in linguistic tasks underscores an urgent need for comprehensive evaluation of their response quality. Prevailing methods, often confined to singular dimensions, fall short of capturing the full spectrum of model capabilities. This study introduces a multifactor scoring paradigm, integrating accuracy, conciseness, factual consistency, readability, and coherence, complemented by a graphical user interface (GUI) for visualizing outcomes. Evaluations on the TruthfulQA dataset unveil mainstream LLMs' strengths in reasoning tasks (peaking at a composite score of 0.6104) alongside pervasive limitations in navigating complex facts and ambiguities. Transcending the narrow lens of traditional metrics, this framework offers a transparent, adaptable avenue to illuminate model potential and deficiencies. Though presently focused on English tasks, its horizons beckon toward multilingual domains. This work carves a novel path for knowledge engineering and model refinement.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to reverse-engineering tasks, and recent threat-intelligence reporting shows them operating inside live offensive-security workflows. Claims about their capability, however, outpace our ability to measure it. Existing benchmarks for LLM-assisted binary analysis treat the construction of function-level ground truth as a solved pre-processing step and report accuracy without disclosing how many functions were reliably evaluable. We argue that the principal obstacle to fair evaluation is not model capability but the reliability of binary-to-source alignment under compiler optimization. This paper presents Reforge, a provenance-tracked pipeline that constructs function-level ground truth from C source through compilation, DWARF and syntactic extraction, alignment, and decompilation, and that operationalizes alignment uncertainty as an eight-gate confidence funnel with three-tier stratification. On a controlled micro-benchmark, high-confidence yield falls from 87.2% to 65.9% across optimization levels, and unpaired comparisons overstate optimization-induced performance decay through survivorship bias. A proof-of-concept evaluation of seven contemporary LLMs on function naming demonstrates the substrate and motivates uncertainty-aware benchmarking practice

Current benchmarks for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in data analysis often fail to reflect real-world settings. They typically focus on fact retrieval from small tables and overlook the challenges of large multi-tabular datasets, external knowledge integration, and exploratory insight discovery. We introduce DataGovBench, a benchmark derived from governmental open data designed to evaluate LLMs in practical scenarios. The benchmark includes two tasks: Table QA that requires solving complex decomposable questions and producing textual answers or visualizations, and Table Insight that evaluates the ability of models to generate expert-level findings through exploratory data analysis. Comprehensive experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs, both with and without agentic frameworks, reveal significant performance gaps across both tasks. These results suggest that current LLM-based systems remain far from satisfying the demands of real-world data analytics. DataGovBench provides a challenging benchmark for advancing research on LLMs capable of both answering analytical queries and discovering insights from data. Code and sample data are available at https://github.com/SoHasegawa/datagovbench.

The rapidly growing repository of publicly available large language models (LLMs) presents significant challenges for systematic management and quantification at scale, such as model lineage tracing, licensing, and evaluation. However, task-specific benchmarks are insufficient for this setting, as LLMs differ widely in architectures, scales, and training procedures. To address this challenge, we adopt spectral shape-based metrics for managing and quantifying LLMs based on Heavy-Tailed Self-Regularization theory. Our approach uses the shape information of the weight empirical spectral density as a compact spectral signature of each model. This signature captures intrinsic properties of pretrained models and remains robust during post-training, making it suitable for model-level analysis. In addition, this metric is data-free, computationally-efficient, and scale-invariant, enabling large-scale analysis in practice. Moreover, we curate a large and diverse model corpus consisting of major open-source LLM families, and use it to systematically benchmark spectral and non-spectral metrics across models and downstream tasks. We show that our spectral signature supports the tracking of the model lineage, the unsupervised clustering of similar models, and the quantification of the model performance. Overall, the proposed spectral signature provides a meaningful proxy for broad performance trends across LLMs, enabling efficient organization, comparison, and analysis of large model collections.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown strong capabilities, but they may memorize private information from web data, raising privacy concerns. Machine unlearning offers a way to remove such private knowledge without retraining from scratch. However, existing MLLM unlearning benchmarks have two major limitations. First, they rely on simplified images that contain only the single target individual, failing to reflect the visual complexity of real-world photos. Second, they typically assume that the forget set and retain set are fully separated, ignoring the fact that private information is often visually entangled with benign public information. For example, a private individual may appear with a public figure or in front of a well-known landmark, where unlearning the private target should not damage the public context. To address these limitations, we propose PPE-Bench, a new benchmark for evaluating MLLM unlearning under private-public entanglement. Each image contains a target individual to be forgotten and public information to be preserved, including public figure and landmark. We further introduce two simple but effective methods to better preserve public information during unlearning. Through experiments, we find that existing unlearning methods can reduce private information leakage, but often substantially harm adjacent public information.

We study LLM benchmark coreset selection: selecting a small subset of prompts over multiple benchmarks whose induced model scores and rankings approximate those obtained from the full benchmark suite. In evaluation-unsupervised benchmark coreset selection (our approach), the selection algorithm uses no model evaluation outcomes, and operates on a fine granularity by producing subsets of prompts over multiple benchmarks rather than producing a sub-collection of entire benchmarks. We use submodular subset selection, and we develop and evaluate many different submodular functions for this purpose, including determinantal point process (DPP) based approaches, submodular mutual information functions, and facility location-based functions. On a new large-scale suite of 35 heterogeneous benchmarks spanning five different capability categories, 18 frontier LLMs, and over 61K prompts, we find that the facility location (FL) function operating exclusively on inexpensive semantic prompt embeddings preserves LLM scores better than twelve separate score-based and diversity-based baselines, across a range of coreset budgets. Moreover, we show our proposed objective is not limited to the evaluation-unsupervised regime: in the setting where only a handful of whole benchmarks must be selected and a large amount of model scores are available, the same objective matches or outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on the MMLU and MTEB leaderboards, while being substantially cheaper to compute. Together, our results suggest that submodularity, in general, is a strong and reliable tool for benchmark compression.

This paper investigates the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to detect and classify floating-point errors statically in software code. We introduce InterFLOPBench, a benchmark of 90 C kernels with 1 130 test samples designed to evaluate LLMs across six categories of floating-point error: cancellation, comparison, division by zero, overflow, underflow and NaN, compared across 14 LLMs. The evaluation framework treats floating-point error detection as a multi-label classification problem and employs the F1-score metric to measure performance. Results demonstrate that latest models (Qwen 3 32b, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Phi 4 Reasoning, DeepSeek R1T2, and gpt-oss 20b and 120b) achieve a performance greater than 0.88 overall F1-score. Performance varies between error categories, between explicit operations such as division by zero (Average F1-score: 0.8479) and more subtle numerical phenomena such as underflow (Average F1-score: 0.6059) and cancellation (Average F1-score: 0.6164).

Russian and Arabic are among the major languages of scientific communication. Language barriers impede the exchange of research results between these communities, which affects international collaboration and the progress of sustainability-related research. We present a benchmark for Arabic--Russian scientific translation. The benchmark includes a hybrid parallel corpus of about 27,000 sentence pairs, compiled from scientific abstracts and general-domain texts (religion, news, conversations). We fine-tune three multilingual language models -- mT5-base (580M parameters), NLLB-200-distilled-1.3B (1.3B), and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (7B) -- using LoRA with ranks 8, 16, 32, and 64. The Qwen2.5-7B model with QLoRA (rank 8) yields BLEU 23.15, chrF 43.89, BERTScore 0.906, and COMET 0.758. These are +4.36 BLEU and +0.051 COMET above the zero-shot baseline. Few-shot prompting with three examples does not improve performance, indicating that domain-specific fine-tuning is required. We release the models, the corpus, and the evaluation code. By lowering the language barrier for scientific texts, the work enables knowledge exchange between Arabic-speaking and Russian-speaking researchers. It contributes to sustainable partnerships (UN SDG 17) and innovation infrastructure (SDG 9), aligning with the conference's focus on technology-driven sustainable development.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as assistants across the software development lifecycle, yet their ability to reason about software architecture remains largely unmeasured. Architectural decision-making depends on quality attribute trade-offs, design patterns, and system-level constraints, none of which are exercised by benchmarks that target syntactic or algorithmic tasks. We introduce SAKE (Software Architectural Knowledge Evaluation), a standardized and reproducible benchmark for assessing software architectural knowledge in LLMs. SAKE comprises 2154 expert-curated multiple-choice questions, each with four options, stratified across eight architectural categories and four context-length levels. We evaluate 11 proprietary and open-weight models in zero-shot and five-shot settings. Overall accuracy is high, but performance varies markedly across categories, revealing competency gaps in areas central to professional practice. SAKE, its evaluation scripts, and all results are released as open source to give the community a baseline for tracking architectural reasoning in LLMs.

There are various benchmarks to evaluate bugfixing capabilities of Large Language Models. However, most widespread benchmarks do not fully reflect real-world bugfixing practices. They are small, weakening statistical reliability, and the buggy programs are often similar to one another, potentially distorting evaluation results. The range of bug types can also be narrow, failing to capture a representative range of bugs. To address these issues, we introduce MegaBugFix, a large-scale bugfixing benchmark containing 12,629 buggy Python programs synthesized from correct ones by a Large Language Model. Bug injections were generated as diffs representing code changes. Through this approach, we were able to avoid common pitfalls of LLM-based mutation techniques like injecting overly simplistic bugs or failing to modify the input program. We evaluated 13 open-weight models on MegaBugFix and baseline benchmarks, finding consistently lower performance on MegaBugFix. This reveals that our benchmark presents more challenging bugs and exposes model failures that may remain hidden when evaluating on existing benchmarks. The benchmark and fine-tuned model used for bug injection are available at hf.co/collections/szalontaib/megabugfix.

Software performance optimization is a notoriously complex and manual task. Despite the growing use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for code refinement, we still lack benchmarks that capture how optimization actually happens in real-world codebases. Existing frameworks often oversimplify the problem by focusing on isolated functions or a single performance metric, missing the critical trade-offs between execution time and memory footprint, the inherent noise of the measurement environment, and the variability introduced by different input data and execution conditions. We address this by introducing SWE-Pro, a repository-level benchmark derived from 102 expert-written optimizations from open-source projects. Unlike previous benchmarks, SWE-Pro pairs each task with parameterized tests to evaluate runtime, peak memory, and Time-Weighted Memory Usage (TWMU) across varying input data and execution conditions under noise-aware measurement conditions. Our evaluation shows that current LLMs struggle significantly: runtime gains are negligible, and memory optimizations are nearly non-existent. This stands in sharp contrast to expert implementations, which achieve an aggregate speedup of 15.5x and peak memory reduction of 171.3x over benchmark tasks. Expert-written improvements are observed in 91.2% of tasks for runtime and 65.7% for peak memory. Our findings expose a substantial gap between current LLM capabilities and the demands of expert-level engineering.

Prompt-based interaction has become a dominant paradigm for using large language models (LLMs), where multiple candidate prompts are evaluated and the top-ranked one is selected for downstream use. This workflow implicitly assumes that prompt rankings are stable under minor variations in evaluation conditions. In this paper, we systematically study prompt ranking stability under common sources of variability, including random seeds and limited evaluation subsets. Across three open-weight LLMs and two benchmark tasks, we find that while overall rank correlations are often moderate to high, the identity of the top-performing prompt frequently changes, leading to unreliable selection decisions. To address this issue, we propose a simple stability-aware selection strategy based on a lower confidence bound, which accounts for both performance and variance. Our results show that this approach improves robustness in unstable settings while remaining competitive in more stable regimes. These findings highlight the importance of accounting for evaluation uncertainty in prompt selection and LLM benchmarking.

Large multi-modal language models are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, making well-calibrated uncertainty essential. Traditional Bayesian methods approximate posteriors over all model weights, which becomes intractable for modern large models. For this reason, recent work instead considers Bayesian low-rank adaptation to enable tractable posterior approximation. Due to a lack of a standardized benchmark to evaluate these approaches, it remains unclear where these methods provide meaningful benefits. To fill this gap, we introduce Bayesian Adaptation Gym (BAG), a benchmark for the Bayesian adaptation of multi-modal language models. BAG provides reference implementations of classic Bayesian baselines and state-of-the-art adaptation methods, along with a multi-modal dataset and task suite designed to probe calibration, robustness under distribution shift, and decision-making under uncertainty via active learning. Using BAG, we conduct and report extensive experiments across model sizes, datasets, and tasks to highlight the successes and failures of current Bayesian adaptation approaches. To enable further research, BAG is fully open source: https://github.com/SRI-CSL/BayesAdapt.

Grapheme-to-phoneme (G2P) conversion is essential for controllable and robust text-to-speech, and large language models (LLMs), with broad linguistic knowledge, offer a promising approach. We benchmarked over 30 LLMs on Japanese G2P, comparing them with conventional morphological analyzers on 3000 manually annotated sentences. We evaluated two prompting strategies: a parse mode, where the LLM performs morphological analysis followed by rule-based kana conversion, and a direct mode, where the LLM directly predicts kana readings. The results show that model size, version, and Japanese-specialized training are key factors, with the best LLMs achieving kana character error rate below 0.52% vs. the best conventional tool (1.03%). Parse mode outperforms direct mode for most models, as rule-based post-processing relieves the LLM of handling complex pronunciation rules. We also show that feeding LLM-predicted kana into a kana-input TTS yields better pronunciation than end-to-end TTS.

This paper evaluates the performance of twelve Small Language Models (SLMs) on Arabic natural language processing tasks. The study introduces a benchmark of 240 Arabic test items distributed across eight domains and ten language skills, covering both comprehension-oriented and generation-oriented tasks. All models were evaluated under a controlled zero-shot setting using a standardized Arabic-only prompt template. Model responses were assessed through a multi-model LLM-as-a-judge framework involving GPT-4.1 Mini, Claude Haiku 4.5, and DeepSeek-Chat, with scores aggregated across judges and analyzed by task, skill, and model family. The results show that Gemma 3 (12B) achieved the highest overall score (4.548/5), followed by Aya and C4AI Command Arabic. The observed results suggest that model size alone does not explain Arabic SLM performance. Models with stronger Arabic alignment and more reliable instruction-following behavior tended to perform better across tasks. Common failure patterns among lower-performing models include prompt leakage, hallucination, language drift, incomplete generation, and weak task adherence. Overall, the benchmark provides a structured reference for evaluating compact Arabic language models and supports future work on efficient, reliable, and culturally appropriate Arabic AI systems.

The metanym game is a competitive word game for LLMs that measures structural intelligence against established cognitive-science constructs. No content is given in advance; the contestants create all of it -- a new kind of analogy test, analogical production falsifiable sentence by sentence, with no fixed test set to leak into training (contamination-resistant by construction). In the council-of-peers benchmark, the contestants also rate each other's creations. We introduce the first spectral solution, to our knowledge, to the wicked problem of benchmarking LLMs' factual accuracy without golden keys or oracle models: one singular value decomposition of the evaluators' ratings matrix yields their competence as both generators and judges of true statements at once. Competence on the subjective criteria comes from each judge's rating consistency as the yardstick shifts. The factual rating correlates with GPQA Diamond at Pearson r = 0.92. Scored separately, making and judging dissociate -- judging is the scarcer skill: the strongest generators are middling judges, the sharpest judge a mid-pack generator. To scale, the strongest players form a council that does the official benchmarking; its seats are contestable -- a stronger model earns one on the benchmark's own rating. The benchmark is entirely self-contained and self-consistent, a stable gauge over time.