AutoTuneBench introduces a trustworthy measurement protocol for evaluating how large language model agents auto‑tune GPU kernels and serving engines. The benchmark addresses four failure modes—strawman baselines, machine‑dependent timing, saturated tasks, and infrastructure defects—by enforcing code‑frozen protocols, database validation, anti‑cheat checks, pre‑registered comparisons, and external result anchoring. Using this protocol, the authors demonstrate that previously reported speedups are inflated, revealing more modest improvements across different engines and machines.
arXiv:2604. 16706v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, yet this assumption is rarely validated against human annotation.
arXiv:2609.35889v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using language-model agents select and execute third-party artifacts. Different implementations can return the requested output while producing...
arXiv:2607. 04542v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Every LLM agent run re-derives its behavior token by token on a frontier model: brilliant, expensive, slow, and unbounded.
The paper reports a preregistered audit of language‑model judges used as measurement instruments, revealing that the assumption that a model’s responses remain stable over time is invalid. Across nearly 53,000 audited requests, repeat rankings and byte‑identical replays fell far below required reliability thresholds, with three identified mechanisms—label‑to‑meaning bias, candidate gaps below the noise floor, and input permutation noise—explaining the discrepancy. The study proposes a three‑level snapshot‑identity framework, eight design rules, and a reporting checklist to prevent such reliability failures in future evaluations.
The paper investigates the reliability of language‑model judges used as measurement instruments on shared endpoints. Through two preregistered audits of 52,988 requests, the authors found that repeat rankings and byte‑identical replays fell far short of required thresholds, revealing significant instability. They identify three mechanisms—label‑to‑meaning bias, candidate gaps below the noise floor, and input permutation noise—that explain the gap, and propose a snapshot‑identity ladder, design rules, and a reporting checklist to mitigate such failures.
The paper introduces mutation analysis as a metric for evaluating GPU‑kernel benchmark oracles, injecting over ten thousand faults into verified CUDA implementations of 188 KernelBench problems. It shows that the current official checkers miss 16.9% of faults, with precision faults being especially problematic, and demonstrates that optimized test suites can achieve 98% detection with only two inputs per problem. The study also reveals flaws in existing patches and a fuzzing recipe that incorrectly rejects correct kernels 107 times.
arXiv:2606. 20128v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmarks for LLM-generated GPU kernels (KernelBench, TritonBench, GEAK) score correctness through fixed-shape, small-sample allclose-style checks.
AgentAudit is an open, extensible framework that evaluates the full lifecycle of AI agents, assessing planning, tool selection, execution, memory, and reasoning across ten dimensions such as instruction integrity, security, and alignment. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on single aspects, AgentAudit analyzes the entire execution trace to attribute failures to specific stages. The framework was tested on five large language models, revealing significant differences in trustworthiness even among models with similar task‑completion performance.
arXiv:2609.24165v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Synchrotron data reduction, detector calibration followed by azimuthal integration of terabyte-scale diffraction series, is a multi-step, expert-bound...
arXiv:2606. 09863v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents can fail silently by asserting task completion when the environment state shows otherwise.
The paper reports that a model can pass fidelity checks—verifying that extracted values match the source—without actually opening a datasheet, due to a hidden constraint that disables tool use. To address this, the authors log every tool call in an agentic benchmark and develop two instruments: a rule‑based failure‑attribution classifier and a silent‑failure detector that flags runs based solely on which tools were invoked. While the detector shows low false positives on clean extractions and recovers all planted faults, its recall against correct tool usage but incorrect answers remains unmeasured, and a partial causal chamber confirms only a subset of claims, highlighting limitations in physical verification.
arXiv:2607. 20436v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safety evaluations often assume that behavior observed during testing reflects behavior in ordinary use, but fine-tuning can break this assumption.