Search: “coding-benchmark”

Smart search ranks by meaning as well as keywords (one row per story, last 45 days).

IdeaAMBIG: Benchmarking Implementation-Critical Gaps in Research-Idea Specifications

IdeaAMBIG benchmark with 660 instances measures whether LLMs can spot and fix underspecified research-method details for faithful implementation.

Researchers introduce IdeaAMBIG, a benchmark of 660 evidence-grounded instances (163 real-world gaps from reproducibility reports and GitHub issues, 497 controlled synthetic gaps) built from papers, codebases, and reproduction artifacts. It evaluates codification-readiness assessment, defect localization, and clarification action generation. Across 13 LLMs, the best model achieved only 9.6% Macro Defect Recovery Rate on real-world instances but 80.6% clarification success when given the annotated defect. An oracle study showed gold resolutions raise the codification-ready rate from 14% to 98%, identifying defect localization as the main bottleneck.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 9, 17:59 UTC · 7d agoAI research2

28

Measuring benchmark optimization in speech recognition

Hugging Face examines how much speech recognition systems overfit benchmarks and how to measure benchmark optimization in ASR.

A Hugging Face post on measuring benchmark optimization in automatic speech recognition, analyzing how model improvements on benchmarks reflect genuine capability gains versus overfitting. It is evaluation methodology research with no direct security impact.

Hugging Face Blog·Aug 21, 00:00 UTC · 26d agoAI research

22

SWE-Bench Pro Verified: A Reliable Benchmark for Software Engineering Agents

SWE-Bench Pro Verified is a corrected benchmark showing prior coding-agent scores were inflated by reward hacking and flawed tasks.

Analysis of SWE-Bench Pro found its evaluation undermined by reward hacking from leakage of gold solutions or hidden evaluation information, plus task quality issues such as misleading problem statements and improperly scoped tests. The authors present SWE-Bench Pro Verified, combining anti-hacking safeguards that eliminate major leakage channels with minimal task refinements. Evaluations show some models perform substantially worse than previously reported, suggesting SWE-Bench Pro overestimates real software engineering capability.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 7, 20:00 UTC · 9d agoAI research1

35

Coding Agents Have Converged: Why the SWE-bench Leaderboard Can No Longer Order Its Top Entries, and What to Measure Instead

Audit of 254 SWE-bench submissions finds top coding-agent entries statistically inseparable, so small leaderboard gaps no longer establish rank.

The paper audits 254 SWE-bench submissions across four splits without running models. On Verified, the top two entries each resolve 396 of 500 instances, and exact paired McNemar tests separate none of the 29 adjacent top-thirty pairs at alpha=0.05. Within-model scaffold score ranges reach 29.8 percentage points, versus an 8.8-point spread among the top thirty. The authors release a five-step audit protocol and recommend reporting comparison-set-specific resolution and model-scaffold provenance.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 15, 16:29 UTC · 1d agoAI research

40

CS-Guard: Benchmarking LLM Guardrails for Code Generation Security

CS-Guard benchmark shows LLM code-generation guardrails fail widely, with ~50% jailbreak ASR text-to-code and up to 100% code-to-code.

Researchers introduce CS-Guard, the first systematic benchmark for evaluating LLM guardrails for code generation security, covering text-to-code (1,000 malware-generation prompts, 7 jailbreak attacks, and a novel fictional scenario attack) and code-to-code (331 prompts across infilling, completion, and translation). They evaluate 9 guardrails across seven LLMs, finding average jailbreak attack success rates around 50% for text-to-code and 14.4% to nearly 100% for code-to-code. The fictional scenario attack achieves ASR close to 100% across many guardrails, raising reliability concerns for real-world software development. The benchmark and data are released publicly.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 9, 06:50 UTC · 7d agoAI safety & security1

45

IdeaAMBIG: Benchmarking Implementation-Critical Gaps in Research-Idea Specifications

IdeaAMBIG benchmark of 660 specification-gap instances shows LLMs localize implementation-critical research gaps poorly, with best model at 9.6% defect recovery.

IdeaAMBIG is a benchmark of 660 evidence-grounded instances evaluating whether research-method specifications provide enough information for faithful implementation: 163 real-world gaps from reproducibility reports and GitHub issues plus 497 controlled synthetic gaps. It tests codification-readiness assessment, defect localization, and clarification action generation across 13 LLMs. The best model achieves only a 9.6% Macro Defect Recovery Rate on real-world instances, though 80.6% clarification success when given the annotated defect, and an oracle study shows gold resolutions raise codification-ready rates from 14% to 98%. Defect localization emerges as the main bottleneck across all evaluated models.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 8, 20:00 UTC · 8d agoAI research

30

VDiff-Bench: A Challenging Benchmark for Fine-Grained Image Difference Identification

VDiff-Bench, a 1,756-question benchmark, shows multimodal LLMs struggle with fine-grained image-difference identification, scoring as low as 8.7% on low-level changes.

VDiff-Bench is a multiple-choice benchmark of 1,756 four-way questions over image pairs covering 10 change categories including position, motion, color, texture, OCR/text and illumination, with curated hard negatives. Evaluation of 11 state-of-the-art open- and closed-source MLLMs shows fine-grained visual comparison remains brittle: 7-8B-scale open-source models score 52.5-70.6% on semantic changes but only 8.7-33.3% on low-level changes like noise and texture. Notably, Grok 4.3 shows a sharp performance drop on noise and texture differences, falling behind large open-source models like Kimi K2.5 and K3.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 4, 20:00 UTC · 12d agoAI research

32

When Models Edit Too Much: On the Fidelity of Minimal Code Edits

A 400-task BigCodeBench evaluation shows frontier LLMs widely over-edit code; a preservation instruction cuts excess edits and raises Pass@1 by 2.3 points.

Researchers built an evaluation framework from 400 BigCodeBench problems with injected AST-level corruptions, each with a known minimal patch, to measure over-editing in LLM code repair. Even strong models like GPT-5.5 produce unnecessarily large edits despite high Pass@1. Adding a preservation instruction reduced average excess Levenshtein distance from 0.195 to 0.131, cut added cognitive complexity by 26.6%, and raised Pass@1 by 2.3 points. Reinforcement learning post-training gave the best out-of-domain edit-fidelity trade-off, while supervised fine-tuning overfit to seen corruption patterns.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 2, 20:00 UTC · 14d agoAI research1

30

τ^τ-Bench: An Environment for End-To-End, Realistic Agent Construction

New τ^τ-bench tasks coding agents with building deployable customer-service agents; best config, Claude Opus 5, passes only 23.9% of simulations.

Researchers introduce τ^τ-bench, an end-to-end benchmark where a developer agent must build a complete customer-service agent from real business records, a client with requirements, a production API, an inherited codebase, and cost/model limits, then is scored by deploying it against held-out simulated users. Across 53 tasks in four domains, the strongest configuration, Claude Opus 5 under Claude Code, passes just 23.9% of evaluation simulations versus an 82.2% expert-authored reference ceiling. Failure modes mirror those of human developers: shallow queries instead of deep record comprehension, almost no client communication, and shipping the first architecture that runs rather than experimenting.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 3, 20:00 UTC · 13d agoAI research

50

Benchmark Radar: A Living Database and Search Engine for AI Benchmarks and Evaluation

Benchmark Radar provides a living searchable database of 1,283 AI benchmark records and 12,916 score observations drawn from 37 daily discovery sources.

Benchmark Radar combines daily discovery of benchmark papers, repositories, datasets, and releases from 13 direct connectors and 24 first-party feeds into a searchable catalog with model card mentions and score histories. The catalog contains 1,283 source records drawn from 4 benchmark catalogs plus 12,916 numeric observations on 790 records. The release includes a web dashboard with leaderboard, Pareto frontier of score versus usage, saturation and trend views, daily feeds, a CLI, and reproducible analysis. The paper audits the full catalog and examines benchmark saturation and limits of score comparisons.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 9, 20:00 UTC · 7d agoAI research

25

LACE: Layer-Wise Compression for Dynamic Frame Rate Codecs

LACE introduces layer-wise compression for dynamic frame rate audio codecs, cutting sequence lengths and speeding TTS inference while preserving quality.

LACE (Layer-Adaptive Codec Encoding) applies an independent compression step at each quantization layer of a neural audio codec, enabling layer-specific segmentation boundaries instead of shared ones. Union alignment and boundary anchor mechanisms keep durations consistent for downstream text-to-speech. On LibriTTS, LACE achieves a better rate-quality tradeoff than prior dynamic frame rate codecs and improves TTS inference efficiency at competitive synthesis quality. Code is released in the ESPnet3 codec recipe.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 15, 17:46 UTC · 1d agoAI research1

15

Diffs vs. Whole Files: An Empirical Comparison of Iterative Edit-Based and Direct Generation for Flutter/Dart Code Models

Empirical study finds direct whole-file generation beats iterative diff-based editing for Flutter/Dart code models on about 1,790 held-out tasks.

Researchers trained Rainbow-Pony-100M from scratch and fine-tuned Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B in both direct-generation and diff-based regimes, then evaluated four resulting models on roughly 1,790 Flutter/Dart tasks. Direct generation outperformed diff-based generation on compilation pass rate, bits-per-byte, character-level similarity, and blinded LLM-judge ratings. Diff-based editing is competitive only on short, localized edits in refactoring and error-handling tasks, a property the authors call task locality.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 4, 20:00 UTC · 12d agoAI research1

30

Real-SWE: Benchmarking AI models on private, real-world, enterprise codebases

Real-SWE benchmark tests coding agents on licensed private enterprise codebases; top model Fable 5.1 resolves only 38.8% of tasks.

Real-SWE is a new benchmark evaluating frontier AI coding agents on tasks drawn from private production codebases licensed from real companies, spanning billing, tax calculation, and cross-service migrations. Fable 5.1 with Claude Code leads at 38.8% resolution rate (pass@1 over eight runs), followed by GPT-6 Astra Codex CLI at 33.8% and Gemini 3.8 Flash Gemini CLI at 31.2%. Tasks use native harnesses and realistic tooling including Docker, Kubernetes, PostgreSQL, Redis, and Linear; median reference solutions edit 11 files versus 6 for DeepSWE and FrontierCode.

Hacker News · AI·Sep 12, 20:25 UTC · 3d agoAI researchHN 45↑ · 31 comments

48

StochBench: A Domain-Specific Benchmark for Stochastic Processes in Lean

StochBench introduces 450 graduate-level stochastic-processes problems in Lean 4; an Opus 4.8-based agent proved 34.9% under a 15-minute limit.

StochBench is a Lean 4 benchmark of 450 graduate stochastic-processes problems, each paired with its natural-language source, covering Markov chains, renewal processes, martingales, Brownian motion, stochastic calculus, weak convergence, and Poisson and continuous-time Markov processes. The benchmark addresses field-specific applied mathematics underrepresented in Mathlib, unlike competition-math-dominated suites such as IMO and Putnam collections. An Opus 4.8-based agent achieved a 34.9% proof rate (157/450) under a 15-minute per-problem limit, showing the benchmark remains challenging for advanced provers.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 7, 20:00 UTC · 9d agoAI research

25

MetroLLM-Bench: Evaluating Language Models as Transit Kiosk Runtimes

MetroLLM-Bench is a 955-case benchmark testing language models as transit kiosk tool-calling runtimes across six real metro systems.

The benchmark covers 37-414-station metro systems and eleven task categories including routing, fare calculation, disruptions, accessibility, and adversarial input, with 14 deterministic and 8 semantic scoring components. Of 26 models from six vendors, a PEFT-tuned 4B Qwen 3.5 student scored 91.3 on Tier 1, exceeding GPT-5.6 (90.6/90.0), while Muse Glimmer 30B led the composite ranking. A deterministic rule-based baseline reached 84.6, and PEFT gains over base models shrank from +7.03 points at 2B to -0.91 at 27B.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 8, 20:00 UTC · 8d agoAI research

30

BenchMIRT: What are LLM benchmarks actually measuring?

AllenAI's BenchMIRT blog post examines what LLM benchmarks actually measure and their reliability.

AllenAI published a Hugging Face blog post introducing BenchMIRT, which investigates what large language model benchmarks actually measure. No article text is available, so specific findings, methods, or benchmark scores cannot be extracted. The work appears to target benchmark validity, a live concern for model evaluation and comparison.

Hugging Face Blog·Sep 1, 21:39 UTC · 14d agoAI research

38

MP-Bench: Evaluating Voice Agents as a Multiparty Conversation Participant

MP-Bench is the first benchmark for voice agents in multiparty conversations, finding real-time agents near chance on turn-taking.

MP-Bench is the first benchmark designed to objectively evaluate conversational speech systems as active participants in multi-party conversations. It assesses agents on turn-taking awareness and response appropriateness, with comprehension-based question-answering as a complementary evaluation. Benchmarking 12 voice agents shows real-time agents score at or below 22% on multiparty comprehension and remain near chance on multiparty turn-taking.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 11, 17:11 UTC · 5d agoAI research2

20

ECHO: A Matched-Contrast Benchmark for Context-Sensitive Turn-Taking in Full-Duplex Dialogue

ECHO benchmark pairs identical-overlap Chinese dialogue examples with contrasting contexts, revealing most full-duplex systems bias toward yielding the floor.

ECHO is a paired diagnostic benchmark for Chinese full-duplex turn-taking that matches examples with identical overlap transcripts but contrasting preceding multi-turn contexts, one requiring Yield and the other Keep. It also includes off-talk examples for diagnosing unnecessary yielding and introduces pair accuracy, which grants no credit to constant-action policies. Experiments across multiple full-duplex systems show most exhibit a pronounced Yield bias, performing substantially better on interruptions than backchannels. The benchmark and metadata will be publicly released.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 15, 15:58 UTC · 1d agoAI research

40

Why Is Video Still So Expensive? A Survey of Inference-Efficiency Mechanisms in Video and Audiovisual LLMs

A survey catalogs inference-efficiency techniques for video and audiovisual LLMs, mapping bottlenecks in sampling, encoding, token reduction, and LLM decoding.

This survey covers inference-efficiency mechanisms for visual and audiovisual video LLMs, reporting reductions in parameters, FLOPs, latency, memory, and token counts. It organizes methods by pipeline stage, covering frame sampling, modality encoding, connector-level token reduction, and LLM prefilling and decoding for systems built since late 2022. The authors compile accuracy-cost comparisons under shared host models and input protocols, identify gaps in audiovisual efficiency and standardized evaluation, and maintain a public repository.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 8, 20:00 UTC · 8d agoAI research

40

Online Draft Co-Training for Speculative Decoding in Large-Scale, Long-Context RL Post-Training

NVIDIA researchers detail an end-to-end system for online draft co-training that speeds speculative decoding in large-scale long-context RL post-training.

The paper tackles scaling online draft co-training for speculative decoding in RL post-training, where rollout generation dominates cost. It extends packed, load-balanced zigzag ring attention to merge rank-local branch attention with causal main-sequence attention for context parallelism, and introduces TapChannel to transport target features across pipeline-parallel stages without changing the schedule. Experiments show co-trained drafts tracking the policy baseline with substantial rollout and end-to-end speedups up to 122B parameters and strong scaling at 256K tokens.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 6, 20:00 UTC · 10d agoAI research

26

CodeTD: Topology of Attention Detects Hallucinations in Code LLMs

CodeTD detects hallucinations in code LLMs before execution by analyzing topological patterns of attention maps, outperforming recent baselines.

CodeTD applies topological data analysis (TDA) to code LLM attention maps to quantify prompt-generation mismatch as a pre-execution correctness signal. Experiments cover HumanEval, MBPP, BigCodeBench, and MultiPL-E across 5 programming languages and 10 code LLMs up to 34B parameters. The method outperforms recent baselines and transfers between coding benchmarks, helping catch code that fails the task or embeds security vulnerabilities.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 7, 17:26 UTC · 9d agoAI research1

24

WearableQA: A Benchmark for Health Reasoning over Real-World Wearable Data

WearableQA benchmark introduces 4,084 questions over real longitudinal wearable data, showing 14 LLMs score 19.6-72.9% on health reasoning, far from solved.

WearableQA is a benchmark of 4,084 10-option multiple-choice questions built from wearable time series, blood biomarkers, and demographics of 200 real users with up to 500 days of daily measurements. It defines 16 question types along two axes: data versus health reasoning, and single- versus cross-signal reasoning, using a dual-grounding framework combining literature and population-validated patterns. Evaluations of 14 proprietary and open-source LLMs show accuracy ranging from 19.6% to 72.9% against a 10% chance baseline, with most models below 60%.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 3, 20:00 UTC · 13d agoAI research

35

ExecCritic: Learn to Test, Test to Improve for Coding Agents

ExecCritic separates test generation from patching for coding agents, lifting SWE-bench Verified resolution to 72.6%.

ExecCritic pairs a test-verify-revise scaffold with role-specific reinforcement learning: a Test agent writes repository-native tests and a Repair agent fixes code from execution feedback, both using Qwen-3.5-35B-A3B backbones. Post-trained Qwen agents compose to 72.6% on SWE-bench Verified, an 11.4-point gain over the 61.2% no-test baseline, without stronger-model or oracle feedback at evaluation time. The work shows test quality is the key variable: base-agent tests lowered resolution to 57.3% while GPT-5.6-sol tests raised it to 65.3%.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 8, 17:53 UTC · 8d agoAI research1

36

Reference-Based Bias Detection in LLMs via Relative Representations of Hidden States

Researchers propose auditing LLM bias via relative hidden-state representations, detecting bias increases with 3-50x less compute than output-level benchmarks.

The paper introduces a reference-based bias auditing method that compares hidden-state representations across model variants, such as before and after fine-tuning, by encoding sentences relative to a fixed anchor set. The resulting Representational Bias Shift (Delta-B) correlates with output-level bias change in 15 of 18 tested settings, reaching |r| = 0.84 under full fine-tuning across WildGuardMix, DecodingTrust, and ToxiGen benchmarks. Thresholding Delta-B detects checkpoints whose bias increased with ROC AUC between 0.65 and 0.99 and beats a SEAT-based baseline, while auditing a model in about three minutes with 3-50x less compute.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 8, 20:00 UTC · 8d agoAI research

42

Grouped Value Attention: Efficient KV Caching via On-Demand Key Reconstruction

Grouped Value Attention stores grouped values and reconstructs content keys via a learned linear map, cutting KV-cache size about 45-47% versus GQA.

GVA stores only grouped values and reconstructs content keys with a learned linear map absorbed into the query at decode time, while a small shared decoupled RoPE channel preserves positional information via a separately cached positional key. At 350M parameters trained on 30B FineWeb-Edu tokens, the 16-dimensional positional variant scores 44.18 average accuracy across five tasks versus 44.36 for GQA and 43.88 for MLA. Custom decoding kernels are in development with an open-source release planned.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 7, 20:00 UTC · 9d agoAI research

42

Can your coding style predict whether your code is vulnerable?

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth researchers present VulStyle, a stylometry-based vulnerability detector that also exposes benchmark reliability problems.

VulStyle combines stylometric features with syntax-tree structure and source tokens, pre-trained on about 4.9 million functions across seven programming languages and fine-tuned on five vulnerability detection datasets. It beat token-only detectors on some benchmarks but its F1 drops sharply on DiverseVul, which the authors link to noisy labels inflating reported performance across popular datasets. The authors argue style-aware detection should be harder to evade but did not test this empirically, and they note that uniform LLM-generated code may strip away the individual developer style the model depends on.

Help Net Security·Aug 24, 04:21 UTC · 23d agoResearch1

48

SAFIRE: Safety-Critical Benchmark for Fine-grained Fire and Smoke Understanding in Multimodal LLMs

SAFIRE, an 83K-image fire and smoke benchmark, shows open-source multimodal LLMs average only 61.9% accuracy on safety-critical fire reasoning.

SAFIRE is a large-scale benchmark for fire-smoke understanding in multimodal LLMs with 83K captioned images across 20 scenarios and 193K multiple-choice VQA questions spanning 10 evaluation dimensions from perception to higher-order reasoning. Annotations were built via a GPT-5.4-assisted multi-stage pipeline with MLLM majority voting. Ten open-source MLLMs (8B-38B) average 61.9% accuracy, exposing major gaps in safety-critical reasoning. Adapting vision encoders on 7% of the domain data raises fire-scene classification from 20.1% to 64.5%.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 7, 17:59 UTC · 9d agoAI research

33

Vulnerability Localization Benchmark: Measuring Agentic Security Analysis at Repository Scale

VLoc Bench tests 27 language models at locating vulnerable files in 290 repositories; best system reaches 0.229 File F1 and 38.4% of tasks unsolved.

The Vulnerability Localization Benchmark (VLoc Bench) contains 500 real-world vulnerabilities from 290 repositories across six package ecosystems and 147 CWE categories, pairing pre-fix and post-fix repository snapshots. Agents receive only a CWE description and read-only terminal access to identify affected files, and must confirm absence on patched snapshots. The strongest of 27 language models and four static-analysis tools achieves just 0.229 File F1; 38.4% of tasks receive no correct localization, and effective localizers still report unsupported locations on patched repositories.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 14, 17:44 UTC · 2d agoAI research

50

What Else Needs Fixing? Exploring Cost-Effective Test-Time Compute for Revision Propagation in Artifacts Generated Through Conversation

A new benchmark shows LLMs reach 68.3-93% accuracy propagating local revisions across conversationally generated artifacts, with parallel-sample selection most cost-effective.

The paper introduces a benchmark for revision propagation: when users request a local change, LLMs must identify dependencies and update all affected parts of an artifact generated through conversation, where context lives in the chat history. Nine revision methods, including sequential reflection and parallel sampling variants, were evaluated on gpt-oss-20b/120b, gpt-5.4-mini, and qwen3.5-9b/27b/122b. Baselines scored 68.3-93% accuracy, and selecting among three parallel samples via LLM-based or medoid selection improved accuracy by 2.2-9.7% as the most cost-effective test-time compute strategy. Code and dataset are released.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 2, 20:00 UTC · 14d agoAI research

30

PhysStream: Streaming Physics-Grounded Video Generation with Structured Scene Memory and Fine-Grained Motion Control

PhysStream autoregressive video model enables physics-grounded mid-generation motion control, cutting trajectory error 12% and FVMD 33% versus strongest baselines.

PhysStream is an autoregressive image-to-video model that incorporates structured scene memory—positional maps and object tracking maps derived online from previously generated frames—and supports fine-grained motion control via sparse velocity-increment signals encoding physical quantities. Training proceeds in two stages: a bidirectional model finetuned with motion-control conditioning, then a causal autoregressive model with scene memory. It reduces motion distribution distance (FVMD) by 33% and trajectory error by 12% over the strongest baselines, and human evaluators prefer it in over 85% of in-the-wild comparisons.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 15, 17:55 UTC · 1d agoAI research 2 sources

25