arXiv:2607. 24063v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: On standard factuality tasks, frontier models now cluster near the top of the scale.
On standard factuality tasks, frontier models now cluster near the top of the scale. The question is therefore shifting from how factual a system is toward how much compute that factuality costs.
Agent evaluations increasingly benchmark LLMs, but rankings can be swayed by evaluation conditions such as scaffolds or tasks, making reliability claim‑dependent. A Bayesian variance‑decomposition framework applied to 22 benchmarks shows that reliability varies with the measurement goal: fixed model‑scaffold systems rank reliably, while underlying‑model rankings are less stable. Scaffold choice can alter conclusions, and adding more tasks only modestly improves reliability when scaffold coverage is limited; however, pooling diverse benchmarks can substantially raise cross‑task ranking reliability and reduce cost.
arXiv:2609.07785v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: An LLM-agent leaderboard invites a familiar inference: an agent ranked above another is the better agent. Public evaluation logs may not support that c...
AgentJudgeBench is a new benchmark that evaluates the reliability of large language model (LLM) judges on agentic tool‑calling tasks involving workflow directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). It contains 3,808 instances across six DAG topologies and three difficulty tiers, tested with five generators (3B–70B open‑weight models and GPT‑5.4) and six judges (20B to frontier scale) under both paired‑with‑and‑without‑ground‑truth conditions. The study finds that judge alignment degrades with task difficulty, ground‑truth exposure can sometimes hurt alignment, and structured evaluation rubrics provide modest improvements, revealing a structural ceiling that model capacity alone cannot surpass.
arXiv:2606. 08151v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-using LLM agents often fail not because relevant text is absent, but because decisive evidence is not selected, compressed, or surfaced at action time.
arXiv:2607. 01211v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Repository-level performance-optimization benchmarks such as GSO, SWE-Perf and SWE-fficiency evaluate coding agents by applying patches to real repositories and comparing runtime against unoptimized baselines and official reference patches.
arXiv:2607. 07946v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: DeepSWE is a benchmark of 113 original, long-horizon software engineering tasks for evaluating coding agents.
arXiv:2606. 31174v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Production large language-model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed not as lone problem-solvers but as managers: a main model creates specialized subagents, delegates work, and orchestrates their parallel, asynchronous returns through dynamic workflows.
FM‑Bench is a new benchmark that tests large language model agents on long‑horizon decision‑making by having them run a football club for 20 in‑game years. The agent must manage a squad, trade players, negotiate contracts, invest in facilities, set lineups, and respond to a board that can fire it, all while a deterministic engine aggregates the outcomes into a final score without human judgment. The benchmark evaluates six behavioral capabilities and compares 15 frontier models in solo and arena tracks, revealing that managerial behavior—not computational scale—drives performance.
BekchiAI introduces a benchmark and platform for evaluating large language model agents. The benchmark comprises 13 tool‑using ReAct agents across seven task categories, totaling 2,057 deterministic test tasks with verifier‑checkable gold answers. The platform offers web‑based observability, token and latency telemetry, and remote run termination for live agents.
FM‑Bench is a new benchmark that tests large language model agents on long‑horizon decision making by having them run a football club for 20 in‑game years. The agent must manage a squad, trade players, negotiate contracts, invest in facilities and youth, set lineups, and respond to a board that can fire it, all using 26 tools and roughly 340–400 decision stops, with a deterministic engine producing a final score without human or LLM judges. The benchmark includes a solo track where each of 15 frontier models competes against a frozen scripted world, and an Arena track where the same models plus a scripted anchor share one 20‑year world, allowing the first head‑to‑head evaluation at this scale. whyItMatters":"FM‑Bench provides a rigorous, large‑scale test of sustained, cumulative decision‑making in language‑model agents, revealing that managerial strategy—not computational scale or vendor—drives performance over long horizons."
arXiv:2609.23201v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmark scores increasingly influence the development, marketing, and selection of large language models (LLMs). Yet an overall score is interpretabl...