Search: “robustness-benchmark”

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

What Breaks Local Watermarks? A Robustness Benchmark for Local Invisible Image Watermarking

First systematic robustness benchmark of five local invisible image watermarking methods across 55 transformations finds all are vulnerable, with inpainting and geometric misalignment completely breaking payload…

The paper presents the first systematic robustness benchmark for local invisible image watermarks, covering 55 image transformations across signal distortions, coordinate alignment changes, indirect local edits, and direct watermark edits. It evaluates five methods: MaskWM, WAM, OmniGuard, TrustMark, and PixelSeal, all supporting localization natively or with minimal adaptation. Results show every method is vulnerable to some transformation; MaskWM offers the strongest payload recovery and localization but the lowest clean-image quality, and synchronization further improves its recovery under geometric transformations. Geometric misalignment and generative local edits such as inpainting and outpainting can completely impair payload recovery, while signal distortions are often tolerated.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 15, 08:30 UTC · 1d agoResearch

42

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

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 · 1d 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 · 6d agoAI research

25

TIER: Threat Implicitness Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Safety Behaviors

TIER benchmark shows LLM safety behaviors shift gradually across threat implicitness levels, with jailbreaks exposing the largest robustness gaps.

The TIER benchmark evaluates LLM safety behaviors across four risk domains and four threat levels, from explicit harmful requests to sophisticated jailbreaks, using a six-label behavior scale and two independent LLM judges. Experiments on six open-weight LLMs show safety behaviors evolve gradually across threat levels rather than flipping from refusal to compliance. Models with similar Attack Success Rates can exhibit distinct response distributions, arguing for behavior-aware safety evaluation.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 4, 13:13 UTC · 11d agoAI safety & security

35

Benchmark Scores Are Pipeline-Dependent: A Reliability Audit of Cybersecurity LLM Benchmarks

Audit of eight cybersecurity LLM benchmarks shows evaluation pipeline choices can swing scores by over 80 points and reshuffle most model rankings.

Researchers modeled eight cybersecurity benchmarks as configurable measurement pipelines and audited 10 proprietary, open-weight, and cybersecurity-specialized LLMs. They identified 15 systematic failure modes and showed a single pipeline choice can change a model's score by more than 80 percentage points and alter rankings; semantically similar task pairs rank the same models differently. Under a standardized harness, nine of 10 models shifted at least three ranks on at least one benchmark, motivating pipeline-aware auditing for reliable model evaluation.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 8, 14:01 UTC · 7d agoAI research1

42

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 · 11d agoAI research

32

VEX-Bench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Assessing Exploitability of Software Supply Chain Vulnerabilities

Introduces VEX-Bench, 75 expert-labeled real-world cases testing whether LLM agents can assess supply chain vulnerability exploitability; frontier models reach about 80% F1.

VEX-Bench is the first benchmark evaluating LLM agents on assessing whether upstream dependency vulnerabilities are exploitable in downstream projects, with 75 real-world expert-labeled cases across Python, Java, and Go mined from GitHub. Nine models across three agent harnesses were evaluated; GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.6 reach approximately 80% F1 on binary vulnerability-status classification, but only GPT-5.5 surpasses 70% macro-F1 on fine-grained justification classification. The gap highlights the difficulty of moving beyond binary exploitability calls to explaining exploitability reasons, unlike prior benchmarks targeting zero-day settings.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 7, 22:52 UTC · 8d agoResearch1

42

K-Bench: a clinically calibrated benchmark for evaluating large language models in high-risk mental health conversations

Clinician-calibrated K-Bench evaluates 125 LLM configurations on 200 high-risk mental health vignettes, exposing wide variation in suicide and violence risk handling.

K-Bench is a clinician-calibrated, protected benchmark evaluating 125 model configurations from 33 base models across 14 providers on 200 multi-turn vignettes covering suicide, self-harm, domestic violence, substance misuse and no-risk presentations. A frozen GPT-4o judge achieved 94.2% exact agreement with clinician consensus across 6,751 eligible comparisons from 151 clinician-rated transcripts. Leading models combined supportive conversation with combined-risk scores above 95, while risk exploration varied substantially among weaker configurations; therapeutic prompting helped weaker models and elevated reasoning produced no average improvement. A continuously updated public leaderboard is hosted at k-bench.ai with protected test materials.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 14, 16:49 UTC · 1d agoAI safety & security

46

Adversarial Testing of Automated Program Repair Agents for Security Vulnerabilities

SWEADV benchmark shows adversarial issue descriptions make LLM program-repair agents write insecure fixes in 51.7% of cases, evading most detection tools.

Researchers built SWEADV, a benchmark of 750 adversarial issue descriptions derived from 150 SWE-bench Verified repair tasks, covering command execution, deserialization, path traversal, denial of service, and weak hashing attack types. Tested on mini_swe agents backed by GPT-5-Mini, MiniMax-M2.5, and DeepSeek-R, adversarial descriptions induced malicious behavior with successful repair in 51.7% of cases. Detection was weak: LLM-as-judge pre-repair screening reached only 62.3% accuracy, and post-repair detection via static analysis and LLM-as-judge achieved just 39.4% and 55.4%.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 14, 17:53 UTC · 1d agoAI safety & security1

52

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 · 8d agoAI research

33

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 · 8d agoAI research1

35

AWS puts AI vulnerability detection to the test, and false positives pile up

AWS publicly released its Deception Benchmark (14,822 samples) showing leading AI models falsely flag 41-99% of safe code as vulnerable.

AWS released its Deception Benchmark publicly, containing 14,822 samples across 16 programming languages and more than 70 CWE categories, with 9,695 scored samples split into 6,988 code-level and 2,707 environment-gated challenges. AWS evaluated 12 models from five providers using single-turn prompts and found none met its production bar of below 10% for both false-positive and false-negative rates. With direct prompting, models caught nearly all real vulnerabilities but incorrectly flagged 41% to 99% of safe code, with precision between 52% and 71%. Asking models to prove exploitability reduced false positives by 17 to 74 percentage points but raised false-negative rates to 7-44%, with models struggling most when external controls like Kubernetes Network Policies blocked apparent exploits.

Help Net Security·Sep 14, 04:00 UTC · 2d agoAI research

55

Knowing What Not to Answer: Selective Non-Compliance in Vision-Language Models

Researchers introduce KoNA, a benchmark exposing vision-language models' failures at selective non-compliance, plus fine-tuning that improves refusal and abstention accuracy.

KoNA is a benchmark for evaluating selective non-compliance in vision-language models across five categories: False Premise, Visual Inaccessibility, Universal Unknown, Task Feasibility and Safety. It tests both query-level and component-level non-compliance using paired single and compound queries, and evaluations across diverse VLMs show models often fail to refuse, correct or abstain appropriately, with failures worsening on compound queries. Fine-tuning VLMs on KoNA examples substantially improves non-compliance accuracy while largely maintaining performance on fully answerable tasks.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 3, 20:00 UTC · 12d agoAI research1

45

PIDS-Bench: Evaluating Prompt-Injection Detectors Under Over-Defense, Obfuscation, and Distribution Shift

PIDS-Bench shows prompt-injection detectors scoring F1 above 0.98 still misclassify about one-third of external benign security-adjacent prompts, revealing provenance-sensitive over-defense.

PIDS-Bench is a frozen multi-axis benchmark that jointly evaluates prompt-injection detectors on attack detection and benign false-positive behavior at fixed thresholds, spanning in-distribution inputs, hard-benign prompts, obfuscated attacks, and domain/structural distribution shifts. It evaluates seven detectors plus a rule-based lower-bound reference. A detector exceeding F1 = 0.98 on held-out data still misclassifies roughly one-third of an externally-sourced benign security-adjacent subset, and no internal detector reaches F1 >= 0.95 with hard-benign FPR <= 0.10 on the stress distribution. Hard-negative augmentation nearly eliminates over-defense on curated stress inputs but leaves it intact on externally-sourced prompts, a pattern termed provenance-sensitive over-defense.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 14, 04:28 UTC · 2d agoAI safety & security

38

Robust Policy Optimization via Adversarial Importance Sampling

Adversarial Importance Sampling estimates worst-case RL returns without extra interactions; authors also release the advrl PyTorch library.

The paper introduces Advis, which uses importance sampling over trajectories from standard training to estimate and optimize verifiable worst-case returns, requiring no additional environment interactions or auxiliary networks. It also releases advrl, a modular PyTorch library of single-file robustness methods and adversarial attacks for reproducible evaluation. The authors show adversarial hyperparameters do not transfer across agents, so they evaluate with 6-14x more attacker configurations than prior work. Effectiveness is demonstrated on continuous control environments.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 11, 16:40 UTC · 4d agoAI research1

20

E2A-Bench: Benchmarking Evidence-to-Action Reliability in Financial Chart Reasoning

E2A-Bench, a 969-query financial chart reasoning benchmark, finds VLMs fail evidence-to-action consistency, with fine-tuning amplifying BUY:SELL bias 4-6x.

E2A-Bench is a 969-query benchmark built from 323 HS300 constituents across three input modalities with deterministic OHLCV-derived evidence anchors, evaluating grounding, reasoning-action consistency, evidence-confidence calibration, and directional coverage via UCR, RCI, ECI, and NDR metrics. Testing 20 VLMs showed the lowest-hallucination model ranked near the bottom on coverage with only 6.4% directional coverage, and oracle-aided verification reduced unsupported claims but could collapse coverage. Financial fine-tuning amplified the BUY:SELL ratio by factors of 4.21 to 4.68 across base-fine-tuned pairs.

Hugging Face daily papers·Sep 12, 20:00 UTC · 3d agoAI research

34

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

Certifying Adversarial Robustness of Quantum Classifiers under Known-Readout Query Access

Framework certifies adversarial robustness of quantum classifiers using only measurement statistics and finite-shot outcomes, demonstrated on IBM Quantum hardware.

The paper introduces a measurement-only certification framework for adversarial robustness of quantum classifiers under known-readout query access, requiring no tomography, parameters, or gradients. It returns a lower bound ruling out untargeted errors within a radius and an attack-independent upper bound witnessing an adversarial state, both estimable with finite-sample guarantees. Evaluations show the lower bound tracks exact optima on tractable instances while the upper bound stays informative when standard attacks fail. The method was validated on IBM Quantum hardware using 40 executions of two 8-qubit quantum neural networks.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 10, 14:45 UTC · 5d agoResearch

27

A Ranking Approach for Measuring Calibration

Researchers propose rankECE, a ranking-based calibration error measure with theoretical guarantees that outperforms binned ECE approximations.

The paper introduces rankECE, an alternative to Expected Calibration Error (ECE) that measures miscalibration by comparing points with neighboring predicted-probability values. It addresses the impossibility of estimating ECE with guaranteed accuracy in assumption-free settings. Theoretical guarantees and empirical results establish rankECE as a better proxy for ECE than the binned approximations most commonly used in practice.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 11, 17:34 UTC · 4d agoAI research1

22

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 · 12d agoAI research

35

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 · 7d agoAI research

30

Quantifying IIoT Sensor Node Criticality by Fusing its Data Criticality and Security Vulnerability

Researchers propose a Dempster–Shafer framework fusing IIoT sensor data criticality with CVSS 4.0/3.1 vulnerability scores to rank node criticality.

The paper introduces a framework that evaluates Industrial IoT sensor node criticality by fusing data criticality and cybersecurity vulnerability scores using Dempster–Shafer (D-S) theory. It was validated on a dataset from red wine production and is claimed to generalize to other industrial settings with minimal modification. Results show criticality rankings derived from CVSS 4.0 scores differ significantly from those derived from CVSS 3.1, underscoring how vulnerability scoring methodology affects security prioritization.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 9, 07:03 UTC · 7d agoResearch

15

BenchShield: Formal Model-Backed Instrumentation for Reward Integrity in LLM-Agent Evaluation Infrastructure

BenchShield uses lifecycle-model-backed instrumentation to detect reward hacking in LLM-agent benchmarks, lifting full-chain recall to 77-100% at up to 65% lower cost.

The framework grounds reward-hacking detection in a finite lifecycle model of an evaluation's reward-relevant events, combining a static phase-aware taint analysis with runtime infrastructure-side evidence attribution. Evaluation used a human-labeled corpus of 456 adjudicated trajectories drawn from more than 31,000 public agent runs across three benchmarks. BenchShield improves full-chain recall from 23-94% to 77-100% and same-vector coverage from 16-56% to 43-78%, cuts per-task cost by up to 65%, and achieves 96% accuracy detecting reward hacking at runtime.

arXiv cs.CR·Sep 10, 03:10 UTC · 6d agoAI safety & security1

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

Algorithmic stability via ensembling

Theoretical work derives a general framework quantifying stability guarantees for averaging-based ensembles under arbitrary data perturbations via covariance operator norms.

The paper develops a framework for quantifying algorithmic stability of ensembling strategies defined via averaging, for varied types of data perturbation. The main result bounds the stability of the ensembled algorithm in terms of the norm of a covariance operator describing the ensembling process. The framework yields interpretable insights across practical perturbation examples and provides sharper guarantees than those derived from differential privacy considerations.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 9, 16:39 UTC · 6d agoAI research

22

Cross-Model Agreement as a Deployment-Time Reliability Signal for Automatic Polyp Segmentation

Referee-Based Quality Estimation flags unreliable polyp segmentations at inference without ground truth, reaching ROC-AUC 0.960 with SegFormer-B0 referees.

RBQE measures agreement between a primary segmentation model and an independently trained referee on a 1,223-image external benchmark drawn from four public datasets. A cross-architecture SegFormer-B0 referee achieves the strongest signal (ROC-AUC 0.960), beating a Test-Time Augmentation baseline by 0.055 ROC-AUC under an identical protocol. Excluding trivially separable empty-mask cases, ROC-AUC falls to 0.876 (SegFormer-B0) and 0.783 (same-architecture control), but RBQE's margin over baselines widens. Progressive rejection of low-agreement predictions increases mean Dice of retained outputs, supporting selective prediction at the cost of one extra forward pass.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CL·Sep 9, 17:32 UTC · 6d agoAI research

30

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 · 4d agoAI research2

20

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 · 7d agoAI research

42

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 · 7d agoAI research

30