analiza aiqbench
This study investigates the reproducibility of LLM coding-agent evaluations by re-executing 1,929 archived benchmarks, finding that while most rankings remain stable, specific grading configurations and environment dependencies introduce non-negligible risks to accepted patches. The analysis highlights critical vulnerabilities in current evaluation pipelines where minor changes to grader settings or module caches can alter verdicts, underscoring the need for more robust auditing standards before these metrics drive rewards or self-improvement loops.
Re-executing Coding-Agent Evaluations: Unchanged Decisions and Unresolved Policy Risk
arXiv:2610.14460v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Executable tests grade large language model (LLM) coding-agent patches for leaderboards, rewards and self-improvement. Two preregistered re-execution studies returned negative results. SWE-bench Pro v1's offline option rejected none of 59 accepted Go patches whose grading configuration changed. Their exploratory, unweighted upper confidence limit is 4.95% under candidate independence, leaving a 3% exposed-patch risk unresolved; the preregistered estimator uses inverse sampling-probability weights. An extension was inconclusive. In a selected stratum, a reconstructed module cache built from the reference solution's dependencies rejected accepted alternatives from four models that passed with their own dependencies. Re-executing 1,929 selected agent-version/task evaluations from the Darwin G\"odel Machine's archive preserved best-agent selection and system-variant ranking, with search history and scores of evaluations not rerun fixed. Exploratory host, image and adapted-grader comparisons also preserved them. Seven of 23 disagreements with archived verdicts did not recur on a second host; rebuilt images changed 16 three-run majority verdicts (0.83%) under four-CPU execution. We provide an evidence-to-claim summary, lessons for grader audits and an anonymous replication package. These results concern accepted patches and fixed-history decisions; general policy safety and adaptive-learning robustness require broader evaluations.
Abstract:Executable tests grade large language model (LLM) coding-agent patches for leaderboards, rewards and self-improvement. Two preregistered re-execution studies returned negative results. SWE-bench Pro v1's offline option rejected none of 59 accepted Go patches whose grading configuration changed. Their exploratory, unweighted upper confidence limit is 4.95% under candidate independence, leaving a 3% exposed-patch risk unresolved; the preregistered estimator uses inverse sampling-probability weights. An extension was inconclusive. In a selected stratum, a reconstructed module cache built from the reference solution's dependencies rejected accepted alternatives from four models that passed with their own dependencies. Re-executing 1,929 selected agent-version/task evaluations from the Darwin Gödel Machine's archive preserved best-agent selection and system-variant ranking, with search history and scores of evaluations not rerun fixed. Exploratory host, image and adapted-grader comparisons also preserved them. Seven of 23 disagreements with archived verdicts did not recur on a second host; rebuilt images changed 16 three-run majority verdicts (0.83%) under four-CPU execution. We provide an evidence-to-claim summary, lessons for grader audits and an anonymous replication package. These results concern accepted patches and fixed-history decisions; general policy safety and adaptive-learning robustness require broader evaluations.
19 pages, 3 figures. Preprint
Software Engineering (cs.SE); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.14460 [cs.SE]
(or arXiv:2610.14460v1 [cs.SE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.14460 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 286 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Building trust in AI agents: A production-ready evaluation framework with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · 16 oct. 2026

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · 13 oct. 2026

[AINews] Opus 5.5 is good at explainer videos
Latent Space · 29 sept. 2026

[AINews] The Future of Latent Space
Latent Space · 25 sept. 2026