arXiv AI

WhatWorkedBench: Benchmarking Experimental Understanding in AI Agents

arXiv AI
Jun 26

Life After Benchmark Saturation: A Case Study of CORE-Bench

arXiv:2606. 26158v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When a benchmark's accuracy saturates, it is often retired and replaced with a more challenging version.

By Nitya Nadgir, Sayash Kapoor, Kangheng Liu, Peter Kirgis, Matilda Orona, Stephan Rabanser, Tilman Bayer, Abhishek Shetty, Yue Ling, Derrick Chan-Sew, Rumi Nakagawa, Saiteja Utpala, Zachary S. Siegel, Arvind Narayanan
arXiv AI
Sep 11

OpenDiscoveryTrace: Process Traces for Evaluating AI Scientist Workflows

OpenDiscoveryTrace is a public dataset of 558 complete AI scientific agent trajectories that records the reasoning process—thoughts, tool calls, observations, errors, revision triggers, and confidence—across 124 scientific tasks in drug discovery, materials science, genomics, and literature analysis. The dataset includes seven models (three frontier models and four open‑weight models) and 60 live‑retrieval variants, providing a balanced view of performance and error patterns. Pilot analysis shows that process traces reveal behavioral differences invisible to output‑only evaluation, such as differing error rates and types among frontier models.

By Aayam Bansal, Keertan Balaji
arXiv AI
Aug 28

Same Model, Different Harness: Different Coding-Agent Results

The paper investigates how altering the harness—specifically the way a coding agent manages context and tool outputs—affects performance when the underlying model and task remain unchanged. Two harness configurations were compared on three coding benchmarks: a control that preserves the full conversation in order, and a treatment that mechanically shortens older tool results to keep the context tight. Across all benchmarks, the treatment increased the mean per‑task fail‑to‑pass fraction and, in some cases, the number of complete solutions, demonstrating that the harness itself can significantly influence a frozen model’s effectiveness.

By Sydney Lewis
arXiv AI
Sep 15

Same Patient, Different Order: Action-Level Reliability of Clinical LLM Agents Under Repeated Runs

The paper introduces a new evaluation method called "same-input rerun" to assess the consistency of clinical language‑model agents across repeated runs. By replaying 1,000 MedAgentBench tasks with identical inputs, the authors find that action‑level outputs—such as test orders, medication requests, and referrals—vary significantly, even when benchmark scores remain unchanged. The study demonstrates that current benchmarks, which typically evaluate only a single run per task, can miss substantial behavioral divergence.

By Rohith Reddy Bellibatlu, Manpreet Singh, Zhoutian Han, Wenbin Zhang
arXiv AI
2d ago

Agents Are Systems, Not Models: Rethinking Agentic Evaluation

The paper argues that evaluating agents as fixed models is insufficient, proposing instead to treat them as configurable systems. Using a new benchmark of four scientific tasks, the authors analyze how five configuration aspects—task information, reasoning, self‑verification, time budget, and backbone model—affect performance, noting that about 54% of outcome variance arises from run‑to‑run differences even with the same settings. The study finds that providing more task information has the strongest impact, while interactions among settings (e.g., extra time only helps with adequate information or model capability) and the choice of verification tools significantly shape agent behavior.

By Luis Wiedmann, Leander Girrbach, Cordelia Schmid, Zeynep Akata
arXiv AI
3d ago

RankEvolve: A Reliable Multi-Agent Auto-Research Harness for Evolving Ranking Models

RankEvolve is an auto‑research framework that evolves generative ranking models by orchestrating multiple large‑language‑model coding agents through an Executable Operating Protocol (EOP). The system compiles a state machine that enforces phases, gates, branches, and loops, while a meta‑meta‑harness lets agents review and repair each other’s code. In budget‑matched experiments, heterogeneous composition of agents raised execution accuracy from 45.8 % to 62.5 % and reduced silent critical‑defect rates, achieving notable gains on the HSTU recommender and other benchmarks.

By Zheng Chen, Linfeng Liu, Hong Li, Hong Yan