arXiv AI By Xinrui Zhong, Zhiming Wang, Yongqi Liu, Zhaohui Wang, Shanglin Yang, Zikun Li, Zhuoming Chen, Beidi Chen

ServerBench: How can your coding agents design specialized LLM serving systems?

Read the original on arXiv AI →

ServerBench is a benchmark that lets large language model (LLM) coding agents design and test specialized LLM serving systems. The benchmark evaluates agents on a single objective—maximizing latency‑qualified token value per dollar of GPU cost—using stateful replay to preserve session dependencies and independent verification to confirm system correctness. In experiments with 11 coding‑agent models, Claude Sonnet 5.5 achieved 2.97 dollars per dollar on Gemma E4B, outperforming the vLLM reference by 4.87×, and the study highlights key design insights such as coordinating capacity with load selection, interpreting performance feedback through relevant experiments, and verifying execution paths for reliable delivery.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Aug 18

From LLM Inference to Agentic Workloads: Characterization and Implications for Serving Systems

arXiv:2608. 15127v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic applications are shifting AI serving from isolated model inference to long-running workloads in which LLMs coordinate tools, environments, and persistent state.

By Chaokun Chang, Yukun Zhou, Kaihua Fu, Dakai An, Tianyu Feng, Hanfeng Lu, Sheng Yao, Pu Guo, Yinghao Yu, Yizhou Shan, Bo Li, Binhang Yuan, Wei Wang
arXiv AI
Sep 2

UniACE: A Unified Framework for Evaluating LLM Agentic Capabilities

UniACE is a unified framework that standardizes the evaluation of large language model (LLM) agents by representing each benchmark as an instruction–tool–environment triplet and running models through a shared, task‑agnostic harness in isolated runtimes. It preserves native success criteria, offers an offline mode for dynamic‑resource tasks, and standardizes efficiency metrics, execution records, and failure attribution. Applying UniACE to 7 benchmarks across 24 domains and 15 models revealed significant score shifts, ranking reversals, and sensitivity to evidence representation, highlighting the impact of evaluation configuration on reported agent performance.

By Pengyu Zhu, Lijun Li, Yaxing Lyu, Qianxin Luo, Jingyi Yang, Yi Liu, Tingfeng Hui, Xinyu Yuan, Li Sun, Sen Su, Jing Shao
arXiv AI
Oct 12

Do More Agents Help? Evaluating Accuracy and Cost in LLM Multi-Agent Workflows

The paper introduces BenchAgent, a framework for evaluating multi‑agent large language model (LLM) workflows against a single‑agent baseline, BenchAgent Core. Using GPT‑4.1 across ten reasoning, coding, and tool‑use benchmarks, the study compares six multi‑agent configurations, finding that EvoAgent achieves the highest mean pooled accuracy (79.70%) while other agents lag by 1.71–8.76 percentage points. The analysis also highlights trade‑offs in token consumption and accuracy, offering guidance for selecting and optimizing LLM multi‑agent workflows.

By Yuhang Fu, Ruishan Fang, Jiaqi Shao, Huiyu Zheng, Zhengtao Zhu, Bing Luo, Zhenyu Wen, Tao Lin