Deployment-complete benchmarking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.25997v1
• Date: Mon, 25 May 2026 16:15:22 GMT
• Title: Deployment-complete benchmarking
• Abstract summary: Deployment-complete benchmarking tests whether benchmark evidence determines a deployment action.<n>A benchmark is complete for a claim exactly when the action is constant on each evidence fiber.<n>Mixed fibers expose missing deployment information, and completion curves quantify the evidence required to resolve ambiguity.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Benchmarks increasingly guide deployment, procurement and scientific screening, yet a score supports only the response it records, not necessarily the deployment action. We introduce deployment-complete benchmarking, which tests whether benchmark evidence determines a deployment action. A benchmark is complete for a claim exactly when the action is constant on each evidence fiber; mixed fibers expose missing deployment information, and completion curves quantify the evidence required to resolve ambiguity. In controlled response spaces, benchmark-channel conformal coverage of 94.98% transferred poorly to an unmeasured deployment channel (10.07%), whereas response-rank intervals achieved 94.91% coverage; even zero benchmark error certified only 45.4% of candidates at the largest residual size. Public audits revealed incompleteness, including 97.9% mixed Tox21 fibers and zero median certifiable fraction in main Matbench and JARVIS audits. In held-out replays, certify-then-acquire reduced false decisions from 1.19% to 0.027% in Tox21 and from 20.3% to 0.128% in JARVIS, while changing model choice and identifying deployment-relevant probes. Deployment-ready benchmarks should report evidence, supported actions, ambiguity and completion cost rather than scores alone.

Related papers

• IdeaAMBIG: Benchmarking Implementation-Critical Gaps in Research-Idea Specifications [52.570108663867046]
  A research idea may be novel, coherent, and scientifically plausible, yet its proposed method may remain insufficiently specified for faithful implementation.<n>We study the codification readiness of implementation-facing research-method specifications, defined by whether they provide sufficient methodological information for a competent implementer or coding agent to construct the intended method without unsupported assumptions.<n>We introduce IdeaAMBIG, a benchmark of 660 evidence-grounded instances: 163 real-world gaps from reports and GitHub issues, and 497 controlled synthetic gaps injected into codification-ready references.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-09T17:59:04Z)
• Blind to the Pivotal Vote: Aggregate Independence Metrics Miss Where Verification Actually Helps [9.710464466895521]
  We show that a majority-side replacement rule raises overall accuracy from 82.44% to 85.62% while invoking the signal on 16.2% of queries.<n>On HumanEval+/MBPP+, a majority-side replacement rule raises overall accuracy from 82.44% to 85.62% while invoking the signal on 16.2% of queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-07T08:14:46Z)
• Do Agent Benchmarks Measure Capability? Protocol Validity in the Age of Agentic AI [6.058290832294911]
  Agent benchmarks increasingly evaluate repository editing, web research, terminal use, and long-horizon interaction.<n>Recent reward-hacking benchmarks and system reports show that agents can instead recover public solutions, read evaluation artifacts, infer generator structure, manipulate feedback, or benefit from invalid scoring paths.<n>We formulate protocol validity and introduce HackDetect, a post-hoc audit that identifies an exposure, determines how the agent used it, and assesses whether the resulting score is misleading.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-24T14:55:19Z)
• Theoria: Rewrite-Acceptability Verification over Informal Reasoning States [0.0]
  We present Theoria, a verification architecture that closes this gap.<n>A candidate solution is rewritten into a sequence of typed state transitions.<n>Every transition is independently auditable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-01T17:56:42Z)
• Benchmarking the Benchmarks: A Validity Audit of Tool-Calling Evaluation [3.079997053226693]
  We present a systematic validity and audit of four major tool-calling benchmark families.<n>Across 496 expert-reviewed benchmark tasks, we find 92 evaluator-human disagreements, corresponding to an 18.5% misalignment rate.<n>We introduce a unified taxonomy of tool-calling evaluation failures, release trace-level audit artifacts and corrected evaluation components, and argue for metrics that separately measure tool invocation, task completion, and outcome verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-30T21:10:42Z)
• To Be Multimodal or Not to Be: Query-Adaptive Audio-Visual Person Retrieval via Active Modality Detection [29.127141072949787]
  Fusing scores from an absent modality injects noise, degrading precision below the best unimodal system.<n>We propose a query-adaptive framework that detects active modalities via cross-modal score consistency.<n>On the BBC Rewind corpus the adaptive system attains 94.2% P@1, outperforming speaker-only (82.9%), face-only (93.4%), and fixed fusion (90.0%)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T09:33:58Z)
• Do Androids Dream of Breaking the Game? Systematically Auditing AI Agent Benchmarks with BenchJack [51.54835866517547]
  BenchJack is a system that drives coding agents to audit benchmarks and identify possible reward-hacking exploits.<n>We apply BenchJack to 10 popular agent benchmarks spanning software engineering, web navigation, desktop computing, and terminal operations.<n> BenchJack synthesizes reward-hacking exploits that achieve near-perfect scores on most of the benchmarks without solving a single task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T19:22:45Z)
• How Far Is Document Parsing from Solved? PureDocBench: A Source-TraceableBenchmark across Clean, Degraded, and Real-World Settings [56.70440596502351]
  The past year has seen over 20 open document parsing models, yet benchmarks almost exclusively on OmniDocBench.<n>We present PureDocBench, a benchmark thatrenders document images from HTML/CSS, covering 10 domains, 66 pages, and 1,475 pages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T09:30:31Z)
• MOSAIC-Bench: Measuring Compositional Vulnerability Induction in Coding Agents [2.1942030377331245]
  Coding agents often pass per-prompt safety review yet ship exploitable code when their tasks are decomposed into routine engineering tickets.<n>We introduce MOSAIC-Bench, a benchmark of 199 three-stage attack chains paired with deterministic exploit oracles on deployed software substrates.<n>We show that nine production coding agents compose innocuous tickets at 53-86% end-to-end ASR with only two refusals across all staged runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-05T16:38:23Z)
• Are Benchmark Tests Strong Enough? Mutation-Guided Diagnosis and Augmentation of Regression Suites [49.16055123488827]
  Insufficiently strong test suites can admit plausible yet semantically incorrect patches, inflating reported success rates.<n>We introduce STING, a framework for targeted test augmentation that uses semantically altered program variants as diagnostic stressors.<n>STING produces 1,014 validated tests spanning 211 instances and increases patch-region line and branch coverage by 10.8% and 9.5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T01:13:40Z)
• Tool Receipts, Not Zero-Knowledge Proofs: Practical Hallucination Detection for AI Agents [0.0]
  NabaOS is a lightweight verification framework for interactive agents.<n>It classifies every claim in an AI response by its source.<n>It detects 94.2% of fabricated tool executions, 87.6% of misstating counts, and 78.4% of false absence claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-09T20:45:41Z)
• DeepFact: Co-Evolving Benchmarks and Agents for Deep Research Factuality [49.62610727661819]
  Existing fact-checkers are primarily designed for general-domain, factoid-style atomic claims.<n>We propose Audit-then-Score (AtS), where benchmark labels and rationales are explicitly revisable.<n>We instantiate AtS as DeepFact-Bench, a versioned DRR factuality benchmark with auditable rationales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-06T05:05:57Z)
• When Shallow Wins: Silent Failures and the Depth-Accuracy Paradox in Latent Reasoning [16.505918019260964]
  We demonstrate that state-of-the-art models (Qwen2.5-Math-7B) achieve 61% accuracy through a mixture of reliable and unreliable predictions.<n>We show that 18.4% of correct predictions employ stable, faithful reasoning while 81.6% emerge through computationally inconsistent pathways.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T19:43:36Z)
• Historian: Reducing Manual Validation in APR Benchmarking via Evidence-Based Assessment [0.19853810231896352]
  We present Historian, a framework that leverages Large Language Models to perform multi-reference comparisons against a knowledge base of historically validated patches.<n>In leave-one-tool-out evaluation, Historian achieves 95.0% coverage with 88.4% accuracy, reducing manual validation to 5% of patches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-28T13:41:29Z)
• AI Security Beyond Core Domains: Resume Screening as a Case Study of Adversarial Vulnerabilities in Specialized LLM Applications [71.27518152526686]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at text comprehension and generation, making them ideal for automated tasks like code review and content moderation.<n>LLMs can be manipulated by "adversarial instructions" hidden in input data, such as resumes or code, causing them to deviate from their intended task.<n>This paper introduces a benchmark to assess this vulnerability in resume screening, revealing attack success rates exceeding 80% for certain attack types.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-23T08:42:09Z)
• Fact or Facsimile? Evaluating the Factual Robustness of Modern Retrievers [34.31192184496381]
  Dense retrievers and rerankers are central to retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipelines.<n>We evaluate how much factual competence these components inherit or lose from large language models (LLMs) they are based on.<n>For every embedding model, cosine-similarity scores between queries and correct completions are significantly higher than those for incorrect ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T04:13:51Z)
• Importance Sampling is All You Need: Predict LLM's performance on new benchmark by reusing existing benchmark [38.42021928363628]
  Existing benchmarks face two major challenges: (1) the escalating cost of constructing high-quality test suites and reference solutions, and (2) the increasing risk of data contamination.<n>We propose BIS, a prompt-centric evaluation framework that enables ground-truth-free prediction of LLM performance on code generation tasks.<n>Our framework achieves an average absolute prediction error of 1.1% for code correctness scores, with best- and worst-case errors of 0.3% and 1.9%, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-02T05:34:05Z)
• Exploring Response Uncertainty in MLLMs: An Empirical Evaluation under Misleading Scenarios [49.53589774730807]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have recently achieved state-of-the-art performance on tasks ranging from visual question answering to video understanding.<n>We reveal a response uncertainty phenomenon: twelve state-of-the-art open-source MLLMs overturn a previously correct answer in 65% of cases after receiving a single deceptive cue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T01:11:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.