arXiv AI
VeRA: Renewing Reasoning Benchmarks with Executable Specifications
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Jul 1
An Executable Benchmarking Suite for Tool-Using Agents
arXiv:2605. 11030v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Closed-loop tool-using agents are increasingly evaluated in executable web, code, and micro-task environments, but benchmark reports often conflate workloads, action-generating drivers, and the evidence admitted for systems-facing claims.
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.
arXiv AI
Jun 17
SEAGym: An Evaluation Environment for Self-Evolving LLM Agents
arXiv:2606. 17546v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Self-evolving LLM-based agents improve mainly by changing their agent harness: the structured execution layer around a base model, including prompts, memory, tools, middleware, runtime state, and the model-tool interaction loop.
arXiv AI
Aug 7
SkillTV-Bench: Benchmarking How Well Judges Perform on Skill-Augmented Agentic Execution
arXiv:2608. 05573v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents increasingly execute long-horizon tasks through tool use and environment interaction, shifting evaluation from final-response scoring to verification of complete executions.
arXiv AI
Aug 28
AgentJudgeBench: A Multi-Difficulty Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Judges on Agentic Tool-Calling
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 AI
Sep 1
APIFlow-Bench: Measuring Whether Agents Survive Long, Dependent API Workflows
arXiv:2608.29128v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-using agents are commonly evaluated by a single bit: whether an end-to-end workflow completed. This metric fails to distinguish failures that matt...